River Lugg Restoration Plan Management Report …...restoration, which are presented here along with guidance for implementation of the plan, with respect to stakeholder involvement

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

LuggManagementReport_DraftForConsultation

Document Control Sheet BPP 04 F8 Version 16; October 2013

Project: Wye and Lugg SSSI Restoration Client: Environment Agency Project No: B228B001 Document title: River Lugg SSSI Restoration – Management Report Ref. No:

Originated by Checked by Reviewed by

ORIGINAL

NAME NAME NAME

Niamh Burke Helena Parsons Helena Parsons

Approved by NAME As Project Manager I confirm that the

above document(s) have been subjected to Jacobs’ Check and Review procedure and that I approve them for issue

INITIALS

Andy Lee

DATE April 2014 Document status: First Draft

REVISION NAME NAME NAME

1 Niamh Burke Alison Flynn Alison Flynn

Approved by NAME

As Project Manager I confirm that the above document(s) have been subjected to Jacobs’ Check and Review procedure and that I approve them for issue

INITIALS

Helena Parsons

DATE Nov 2014 Document status: First Revision for Client Comment

REVISION NAME NAME NAME

Niamh Burke Sera Roberts Helena Parsons

Approved by NAME As Project Manager I confirm that the

above document(s) have been subjected to Jacobs’ Check and Review procedure and that I approve them for issue

INITIALS

Helena Parsons

DATE Jan 2015 Document status Draft for consultation

Jacobs U.K. Limited This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs U.K. Limited (“Jacobs”) in its professional capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jacobs’ contract with the commissioning party (the “Client”). Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this document. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs. If you have received this document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs.

Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Jacobs at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this document. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs has been made. No liability is accepted by Jacobs for any use of this document, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Jacobs will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this document.

This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this document. Should the Client wish to release this document to a third party, Jacobs may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that (a) Jacobs’ written agreement is obtained prior to such release; and (b) by release of the document to the third party, that third party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against Jacobs and Jacobs, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that third party; and (c) Jacobs accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of Jacobs’ interests arising out of the Client's release of this document to the third party.

LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation

Executive Summary

The River Lugg is a cross-boundary catchment straddling the Welsh-English border flowing eastwards from its source at Pool Hill in Powys, Wales through the towns of Presteigne and Leominster, then flowing south where it reaches its confluence with the River Wye at Mordiford near Hereford. The river shows a good example of a transitional river type, with both upland and lowland river morphologies represented. The River Lugg is designated as a SSSI and forms part of the River Wye SAC (illustrated in Figure 3.1). The Lugg is also bordered by two SSSIs near to its confluence with the River Wye, the Lugg and Hampton Meadows Unit 1 and Unit 2 (both in favourable condition). The Rive Wye SAC is designated with the primary reason for being a ‘watercourse of plain to montane levels with Ranunculus fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation’ under Annex I of the EC Habitats Directive. Given that the River Lugg is a tributary of the River Wye and forms part of the wider Wye catchment area, this restoration plan will link to the Wye catchment plan being developed by the Wye and Usk Foundation (WUF). The WUF catchment plan will look at all aspects of the catchment and incorporate this Lugg River Restoration Plan (RRP) (and other complementary initiatives for the SSSI/SAC such as the Nutrient Management Plan). This study examines only the English river length (74km) which runs from the Welsh border at Presteigne through Leominster and south to its confluence with the Wye. Within this section, the river is split into 4 separate SSSI units, all currently classed as ‘unfavourable recovering’ status. It is the aim of this study to examine where restoration measures relevant to the fluvial geomorphology of the river might be applied to help raise the status of the riverine habitat and as a result, the SSSI condition. An initial desk study involved a review of catchment scale datasets such as topographic, geological and historical maps, aerial photographs, previous studies on the River Lugg and previous geomorphological and ecological surveys carried out on the Lugg. These included:

River Lugg Restoration Project: Development of an ecologically based vision for the River Lugg SSSI (2010)

River Lugg Conservation Strategy (1996)

Conservation objective and definitions of favourable condition for designated features of interest (2012)

Severn River Basin District RBMP (2009), Environment Agency

River Lugg Internal Drainage Board: Biodiversity Action Plan (2010)

Core Management Plan for River Wye Special Area of Conservation (2008)

River Lugg River Habitat Survey data (1994-2007) Two field surveys were then carried out, the first during January and February 2014 and the second during October 2014. The surveys consisted of bespoke fluvial audits of the river reaches (or stream reconnaissance surveys) coupled with spot checks where access was limited due to intemperate conditions or issues with land access. During the survey, modifications to the natural geomorphology and habitat quality were noted with any land-use pressures observed within the river reaches. The data was recorded in the field using mobile mapping technology. The detailed


technical output resulting from a desk study and the field surveys has been reported in an accompanying Technical Report. The survey data, together with data and knowledge assimilated from previous surveys and studies on the catchment, was used to create a suite of options for restoration, which are presented here along with guidance for implementation of the plan, with respect to stakeholder involvement and some rough costings for the measures proposed. The plan aims to set the direction for future short, medium and long term decision making on the management of the River Lugg and its associated river corridor. This document endeavours to provide the starting point to guide the planning and decision making process for the physical restoration of the Lugg catchment. Five restoration measures have been developed based on field evidence and data from previous studies:

Riparian zone management

Weir removal or modification

Land management practices

Bioengineering and Embankment breaching

Flood storage and backwater creation The Statutory Bodies involved with this project recognise that implementation of the restoration measures will require effective and positive engagement with landowners, land managers and stakeholders. This Management Report forms part of a long term strategy (over a period of 20-30 years), although it is anticipated that some actions may be implemented relatively quickly. The aim of this report is thus as a reference guide for decision making on the catchment and as a tool for collaborative effort between policy makers and landowners. It is hoped that this document may act as an outline plan for cooperation between stakeholders and implementation of riparian and in-channel improvements. The views and concerns of a cross section of stakeholders are being sought through public consultation based on these reports. Following consultation, the restoration plans and measures proposed in this Management Report and accompanying Technical Report will need updating along with finalisation of the restoration priorities.


Contents

1 Introduction 5

1.1 The River Lugg 5

1.2 Rationale for Restoration of River Lugg 5

1.3 European Directives 7

1.4 Project Aims and Objectives 8 1.4.1 Outputs 9

1.5 Aim and Objectives of the Management Report 9

1.6 Developing the Restoration Vision and Outline Plans 9

1.7 Stakeholder Involvement 10

1.8 Limitations 10

2 The River Lugg SSSIs 12

2.1 Lugg Catchment Overview 12

2.2 SSSI and SAC Management Units 14

2.3 River Lugg Restoration Vision 18 2.3.1 JNCC River Type 18 2.3.2 WFD Status 21 2.3.3 Dominant Geomorphological Function and Processes 22

2.4 Wider Environment 26 2.4.1 Designated Sites 26 2.4.2 Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Habitat 26 2.4.3 Historic Environment 27 2.4.4 Landscape 27 2.4.5 Amenity, Recreation and Navigation 27

3 Pressures and Impacts 29

3.1 Methodology 29 3.1.1 Desk Study 29 3.1.2 Field Survey 29

3.2 Key Findings 29 3.2.1 SCI-Map Outputs for the Lugg Catchment 29 3.2.2 RMBP and Key Pressures 30 3.2.3 Historical Works and Current Maintenance 30 3.2.4 Hyder (2010) Study 32 3.2.5 RHS Habitat Modification Class Analyses 34 3.2.6 Lugg Weirs Report 36 3.2.7 Description of Pressures in Relation to Impacts on Channel

Geomorphology and Ecology 37

3.3 Vision for the Lugg 43

3.4 Summary 44

4 Potential Solutions 48

4.1 Selecting Restoration Solutions 48

4.2 Meeting WFD Objectives 48

4.3 Room for River Approach 48

4.4 Restoration Types 50

4.5 Scale and Timing of Restoration 51


4.5.1 Urban Restoration in the Lugg Catchment 53 4.5.2 Relatively Unmodified Reaches 53

4.6 Descriptions of the Restoration Measures 53

4.7 Restoration Visualisations 55

5 Reach-by-Reach Restoration Options 63

5.1 Individual Reach Restoration Options 63

5.2 Restoration Plans 73

6 Implementing the Plan 99

6.1 Working with Landowners and Land Managers 99

6.2 Prioritisation and Cost 99

6.3 Shaping the Actions 100

6.4 An Opportunity 100

6.5 Delivery Mechanisms, Guidance and Sources of Funding 102 6.5.1 Water Framework Directive Improvement Fund 103 6.5.2 European Funding 103 6.5.3 Environmental Stewardship Schemes 104 6.5.4 New Countryside Stewardship Scheme 104 6.5.5 Glastir 104 6.5.6 Catchment Sensitive Farming 105 6.5.7 Nutrient Management Plan 105 6.5.8 Farming Advice Service 105 6.5.9 Forestry Commission English Woodland Grant Scheme 106 6.5.10 Wye and Usk Foundation 106 6.5.11 Lugg Living Landscape Project 106 6.5.12 Leominster Flood Alleviation Scheme 106

7 References 108

LuggManagementReport- Draft for Consultation 1

Glossary

Terminology Definition

Anadromous A fish species that migrates from the sea into fresh water to spawn

Berm (natural)

Berm (artificial)

Deposit of fine material along the edges of a river channel, which has a step change in the gradient of the bank, creating a ledge. It is typically a permanent feature which is vegetated with shrubs and trees where land management allows. The feature generally grows following a flood event, when fresh silt/ sand deposits are laid. It differs from a bar which slopes gently into the channel and is more mobile, less vegetated or vegetated with shorter species, which are quick to establish.

Artificial berms may be created by using hard or soft engineering at the toe of the bank and filling in with soil or other material. They may also be created where a bank has been reprofiled, and the top of the bank cut away to create a step change in the gradient of the bank. This may often be linked to artificial two-stage channels

Catchment Area drained by a river and its tributaries

Deposition Laying down of part, or all, of the sediment load of a stream on the bed, banks or floodplain. Mostly occurs as high flows recede. The process forms various sediment features such as bars, berms and floodplain deposits

Ecological status A Water Framework Directive (WFD) term. Ecological status may be Bad, Poor, Moderate, Good or High. Ecological status comprises quality elements that fall into three categories: i) biological quality elements, ii) physico-chemical quality elements and iii) hydromorphological quality elements. Ecological status is also influenced by Chemical status.

Erosion Removal of sediment or bedrock from the bed or banks of the channel by flowing water. Mostly occurs during high flows and flood events. Forms various river features such as scour holes and steep outer banks

Favourable condition

Description of the condition of the features for which a SSSI or SAC has been designated. Favourable condition means that the SSSI land is being adequately conserved and is meeting its 'conservation objectives’; however, there is scope for the enhancement of these sites.

1

Floodplain A floodplain is flat or nearly flat land adjacent to a stream or river, stretching from the banks of its channel to the base of the enclosing valley walls and (under natural conditions) experiences flooding periods of high discharge

Geomorphology The study of landforms and the processes that create them

Good ecological status

WFD term denoting a slight deviation from ‘reference conditions’ in a water body, or the biological, chemical and physico-chemical and hydromorphological conditions associated with little or no human pressure. A primary aim of the WFD is for all water bodies to achieve Good Ecological Status. For a water body to achieve overall Good Ecological Status, all quality elements must be ‘good’ or ‘high’ and its chemical quality has to pass.

1 Taken from Natural England SSSI Glossary

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designations/sssi/glossary.aspx [Accessed on 24/03/2014]



Glide Deeper water flowing smoothly over a river bed. Occasional larger cobbles or boulders on the bed may create some surface disturbance

Planform River channel pattern when viewed from above. This often referred to as either straight, sinuous, meandering or braided

Poaching The erosion of banks caused by livestock trampling. Poaching may be a problem when livestock are wintered on grassland, particularly around gateways, feeding areas and watering points. This may lead to risks of soil erosion and compaction. Poaching may occur where the land is ‘cut-up’ through livestock moving or tramping on wet soils. This removes the vegetative cover, leaving the soil open to the elements and prone to being washed away via surface water run-off and may pollute watercourses

Pool Deeper, steadier water. Pools are usually located at bends in watercourses, and depth increases towards the outside of a bend

Pressure The influence or effect of something, for example land use pressure that causes a change. Pressures include morphological alterations, abstraction, diffuse source pollution, point source pollution and flow regulation. In the context of the WFD a significant pressure is one that, on its own, or in combination with other pressures, would be liable to cause a failure to achieve the environmental objectives set out under Article 4

Reach A length of channel which, for example, may have a homogeneous (similar) geomorphology (river type) or restoration solution

Reference conditions

For any surface water body type, reference condition is a state in the present or in the past where there are no, or only very minor, changes to the values of the hydromorphological, physico-chemical, and biological quality elements which would be found in the absence of anthropogenic disturbance

Remedy Natural England has a programme of remedies to address pressures impacting on the condition status of SSSIs. Remedies include river restoration projects; invasive non-native species control programme; Diffuse Water Pollution action and catchment sensitive farming. Remedies may be used in isolation or in combination to address the pressures affecting the condition of a SSSI.

Re-profiling The reshaping of a river bank. May be a reflection of channel modification (impact) or restoration

Riffle A stream bed accumulation of coarse alluvium typically linked with the scour of an upstream pool. They are characterised by shallow, fast-flowing water with unbroken standing waves flow type over gravel-pebble or cobble substrate. Channel substrate must be unconsolidated to provide suitable spawning habitat.

Riparian zone Strip of land along the top of a river bank. Plant communities along the river banks are often referred to as riparian vegetation

Run Fast flow of water, deeper than riffles and usually with a stony or rocky bed which creates a rippled surface

Siltation/ shoaling Shallowing of channel due to deposition along bed, for example where a riffle is located

Threat Factor that could cause failure of river management objectives. A condition “threats” system is used to identify threats and their level of risk to the condition of an unfavourable recovering or favourable SSSI unit; the action(s) to address the threat; the organisation(s) responsible for the action; when the action is to be implemented.

Tributary A stream or river which flows into a larger river. A tributary does not flow directly into the sea



Unfavourable condition

Description of the condition of the features for which a SSSI or SAC has been designated indicating that the special interest of the SSSI unit is not being conserved and will not reach favourable condition unless there are changes to the site management or external pressures. The longer the SSSI unit remains in this poor condition, the more difficult it will be, in general, to achieve recovery.

2

Unfavourable recovering condition

Unfavourable recovering condition is often known simply as 'recovering'. SSSI units are not yet fully conserved but all the necessary management measures are in place. Provided that the recovery work is sustained, the SSSI will reach favourable condition in time.

In many cases, restoration takes time. Woodland that has been neglected for 50 years will take several years to bring back into a working coppice cycle. A drained peat bog might need 15-20 years to restore a reasonable coverage of sphagnum.

3

Water body A water body is a WFD term and is the division of rivers, lakes, tidal/ coastal and groundwaters into discrete units for management and reporting. Water bodies are defined using criteria set out in the WFD legislation.

Woody debris Woody debris includes logs, sticks, branches, and other wood that falls into streams and rivers. This debris may influence flow and the shape of the stream channel

Acronyms AEP Annual Exceedance Probability

BAP Biodiversity Action Plan

CAP Common Agricultural Policy

CCW Countryside Council for Wales - As of 1st April 2013 Natural Resources Wales took over the functions of the CCW, Environment Agency Wales (EAW) and Forestry Commission Wales).

CEH Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

CFMP Catchment Flood Management Plan

CMP CCW’s Core Management Plan

COGAP Code of Good agricultural Practice

CRF Catchment Restoration Fund

CSF Catchment Sensitive Farming

DEFRA The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DWPAP Diffuse Water Pollution Action Plan

EA Environment Agency

ESS Environmental Stewardship Scheme

EWGS English Woodland Grant Scheme

FAS Flood Alleviation Scheme

FRCM Flood Risk and Coastal Management

GIS Geographical Information System

HLS Higher Level Stewardship

HMWB Heavily Modified Water Body

NE Natural England

2 Taken from Natural England SSSI Glossary

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designations/sssi/glossary.aspx [Accessed on 24/03/2014] 3 As above


NRW Natural Resources Wales (which includes former organisations Environment Agency Wales, Forestry Commission Wales and Countryside Council for Wales).

OS Ordnance Survey

RBMP River Basin Management Plan

RSA Restoring Sustainable Abstraction

SAC Special Area of Conservation

SPA Special Protection Area

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

WFD Water Framework Directive

WUF Wye and Usk Foundation


1 Introduction

1.1 The River Lugg

The River Lugg is a cross-border tributary of the River Wye and joins the Wye near Hereford. It is the largest tributary sub-catchment within the Wye system. The Lugg rises at its upland source on Pool Hill in Powys and flows in a south-easterly direction to its confluence with the River Wye near Mordiford. The River Lugg is approximately 101km long and has a catchment of approximately 1,077km2. The River Lugg from Hope-under-Dinmore south is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the Habitats Directive. The River Lugg is also designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) with the river sub-divided into five sections. The first of these is within the Welsh borders and will be referred to as the ‘Welsh SSSI’. The other four units are to the east of Presteigne within England (referred to as the ‘English SSSIs’) and are divided into four units. The River Lugg is considered to be one of the best British mainland examples of both a clay river and a river displaying a transition from nutrient-poor to naturally nutrient-rich water chemistry (River Lugg Restoration Strategy, 1996). Attributes used to assess the condition of SSSIs and SACs designated for river habitats and species have been agreed by UK conservation agencies and are set out Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Rivers (JNCC, 2014). Having identified the river types present in a SSSI, the aim is to achieve favourable habitat conditions appropriate to that river type for the characteristic biological community, rather than focusing on restoration to benefit a particular species.

1.2 Rationale for Restoration of River Lugg

The English SSSI is divided into four units, all of which are currently in unfavourable recovering condition. The river has undergone historical modification which impacts upon the physical habitat quality of the channel, banks, riparian zone and associated floodplain. These modifications also impact upon the condition of the SSSI status and Water Framework Directive (WFD) objectives. Reasons for the unfavourable recovering condition are due to the failing of multiple targets including those set for vegetation and riparian habitats, invertebrates, dipper and salmon. More generally, the reasons are due to eutrophication, loss of trees (i.e. through felling, overgrazing or disease), flow regime, declining water quality, over abstraction and inappropriate weirs, dams and other structures (including flood defences). Restoration of the management units and features currently in unfavourable recovering condition will contribute directly to moving the river towards favourable condition. Within England, it will also contribute to the Environment Agency (EA) Flood Risk and Coastal Management (FRCM) Outcome measure 4c (length of river improved) Established guidance on developing restoration plans is available and has been applied to the River Lugg. Restoration of the physical habitat of the River Lugg will be delivered in partnership with multiple stakeholders and over long timescales. Restoration of the River Lugg SSSI will contribute to the achievement of Good Ecological Status on water bodies within the protected areas under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Some of the reasons for the water bodies failing to achieve Good Ecological Status are related to physical modification of water bodies, point source and diffuse source pollution (including fine sediment) and flow


regulation. These pressures also affect the condition of SSSI and SAC features. More information on the pressures facing the water environment may be found in the Severn River Basin District River Basin Management Plan (RBMP), which is produced under the WFD. This also outlines mitigation measures to deal with these pressures. ‘Conservation objectives’ describe the targets for the River Wye SAC to reach and maintain in favourable condition the habitats and species for which they are designated. The favourable condition targets may be more stringent than those required to meet Good Ecological Status or Potential (GES/GEP). Under article 4(2) of the Water Framework Directive, where more than one objective relates to a given body of water, the higher target applies. Within Unit 1 of the English SSSIs there is another area designated as a SSSI referred to as the Lugg Meanders. The Lugg Meanders are 11.16ha in size and currently in favourable condition with features visible and intact. The area is characterised by a river planform of high sinuosity and consists of a series of meanders running through farmland of pasture and arable. The natural fluvial processes in this area are deemed unconstrained, with natural erosion, deposition and other fluvial processes occurring (Natural England, 20134). This area is an integral part of the River Lugg system and may act as a reference condition for other areas of the river which are not as geomorphologically intact. Natural England has produced guidelines for generating strategic physical restoration plans for SSSI rivers (Wheeldon et al., 2010). These guidelines will be applied to river SSSIs where physical modification has been identified as a reason for unfavourable condition. Geomorphological assessment and River Habitat Survey (RHS) data provide the building blocks for developing restoration action plans. River restoration targets the whole river scale whilst balancing the needs of flood risk management and accommodating flood defence structures where required. The purpose of this study is to develop a restoration vision for the physical habitat of the River Lugg and restore river processes, function and form where possible within the constraints of the cultural landscape. This involves identifying where the main pressures are and outlining restoration options and measures to contribute to achieving favourable condition taking into account the constraints such as property, infrastructure, land use and flood protection.

4 Natural England (2013) Condition of SSSI units [online]. Available at:

<http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/special/sssi/reportAction.cfm?report=sdrt13&category=S&reference=2000452> [Accessed on 18/01/13]

What is river restoration? River restoration refers to river improvement activities that are designed to return the structure (morphology) and ecology of a river towards a more naturally functioning condition. This can include river management activities such as complete restoration (involving in-channel works) of an existing section of channel, enhancement of an existing section of channel (such as by improved management) and/ or the creation of a new section of river channel with features designed to replicate natural conditions.


This study considers both recent and historical modifications to the river channel and floodplain. Modifications such as historical channel realignment and the construction of weirs have led to a reduction in the diversity of natural habitats.

1.3 European Directives

This and future work on the SSSIs and SAC of the River Lugg will help achieve both the objectives of the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive. The Habitats Directive (1992) is the foremost piece of European legislation protecting designated sites which are deemed of high value or under threat and often contain many of the valuable and threatened species which also protected under the Habitats Directive in their own right. The Water Framework Directive (2000) was established to provide a framework for the protection of European water bodies. Its aim is to ensure that all aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands meet 'good status'. The Directive requires Member States to establish river basin districts and for each of these a river basin management plan (RMBP).

These pieces of European legislation aim for SAC rivers to achieve High Ecological status and all rivers to achieve Good Ecological Status or Good Ecological Potential (where the water bodies are heavily modified) respectively. Funding relating to achieving the aims of these Directives will help deliver the future conservation, enhancement and ecological restoration of rivers where feasible. Although the current study is concerned with directly restoring the physical modifications to the rivers in the SSSIs and SAC, some measures may indirectly improve water quality (such as improving riparian buffer strips, potentially reducing diffuse pollution from agriculture). More information on the pressures facing the water environment may be found in the Severn River Basin Management Plan (RBMP), which is produced under the WFD. Annex D of this RBMP also outlines actions for Protected Areas such as the Wye SAC. There are targets set out to achieve favourable condition for the Lower Wye SSSI as well as GES for the Lower Wye WFD water bodies. Where the favourable condition targets are higher than that for GES, the higher targets must be met.


1.4 Project Aims and Objectives

The project aims to identify river restoration or enhancement options that may help bring the River Lugg SSSIs and SAC up to favourable condition. These options should also help the parts of the river currently failing under the WFD to achieve ‘Good Ecological Status’. This overall aim includes the following specific objectives:

1. Undertake a geomorphological analysis and ecological interpretation of physical impacts on the River Lugg SSSIs and SAC, comprising a desk study, gap analysis and targeted field survey

2. Provide a broad assessment of the condition of the SSSI based on physical habitat criteria alone, using relevant sections of the JNCC Common Standards Monitoring Guidance (2005), available RHS and Hyder (2010) data.

3. Provide an outline restoration strategy for the river on a reach-by-reach basis, which is linked specifically to the conservation objectives for species and habitats of the SSSIs and SAC.

4. Establish the wider environmental baseline and receptors that may be impacted by restoration options. This involves looking at present ecological condition of the river and riparian zone and together with an ecological interpretation of the geomorphological evidence available for previous studies and field surveys, aids the establishment of a medium to long-term approach for improvement of riparian and in-channel habitat.

Favourable condition Favourable condition is when the special habitats and features are in a healthy state and conserved for the future by appropriate management. Unfavourable recovering is when all necessary management measures are in place to address reasons for unfavourable conditions. If sustained, the site will recover over time. High Ecological Status (HES) For achievement of HES, the highest of the WFD water body designations, the values for the biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements must correspond totally or almost totally to undisturbed conditions. Good Ecological Status The general objective of the WFD is to achieve overall ‘Good Ecological Status’ for all surface waters by 2015. To be in overall ‘Good’ status both ecological and chemical status’ must be at least ‘Good’. Good Ecological Status refers to situations where the ecological characteristics show only a slight deviation from ‘reference conditions’. In such a situation the biological, chemical, physico-chemical and hydromorphological conditions are associated with limited human pressures. Good Ecological Potential Some water bodies have important uses which prevent them from achieving natural conditions. These are classified under the WFD as artificial or heavily modified. These water bodies have a target to achieve Good Ecological Potential, which recognises their important uses, whilst making sure ecology is protected as far as possible by enforcing a series of mitigation measures. Good Ecological Potential can only be achieved when all of the designated mitigation measures are in place.


5. Identify potential delivery mechanisms and provide approximate costs for the different aspects of restoration

The plan is intended to provide a framework for the Environment Agency and Natural England and catchment partners to restore and enhance the River Lugg SSSIs and SAC for the next 20 to 30 years. The framework aims to inform regulatory decision making and guide efforts by all to restore physical habitat at the catchment scale.

1.4.1 Outputs

1. A Technical Report detailing the geomorphological and ecological appraisal, SSSI condition assessment (physical habitat only) and wider environment considerations

2. An updated GIS-linked database of raw geomorphological data and associated data (e.g. photos), with brief instructions for use

3. A management report containing the outline restoration strategy. The report will detail existing management regimes, restoration options, potential delivery mechanisms and indicative costs

4. A package of consultation material for a future stakeholder consultation event5.

1.5 Aim and Objectives of the Management Report

The aim of this Management Report, in conjunction with the accompanying interactive map, is to identify river restoration measures that may help bring the SSSIs of the River Lugg up to favourable condition, as well as bringing the SAC up to favourable condition (under the Habitats Directive). These options should also help the parts of the river currently failing to achieve Good Ecological Status or Potential under the WFD. This overall aim includes the following specific objectives:

1. Determine the impact of physical modification giving examples of each 2. Identify potential restoration approaches and their benefits 3. Provide an outline restoration plan for the river on a reach specific basis 4. Identify potential delivery mechanisms.

The restoration options are presented in a series of restoration visualisations and descriptions in Section 4 and example plans in Section 5. They are dependent on the morphological pressures detailed within the Technical Report, recorded on the interactive mapper and listed reach-by-reach in Table 5.1 (see Section 5). The Management Report is intended to provide a framework for the restoration of the SSSIs and SAC of the River Lugg for the next 20 to 30 years. Some restoration measures could be implemented in the short term and become established within 1 to 5 years. Others may take longer to implement and become established, either 5 to 15years (medium term) or 15 to 30 years (long term).

1.6 Developing the Restoration Vision and Outline Plans

The restoration plans have been developed using a combination of:

Geomorphological and ecological expertise regarding the type of characteristics the river channel and its surrounding environment should exhibit under natural

5


conditions and the use of this expertise to determine the level of habitat degradation from channel modification.

The level of habitat degradation (inferred from channel modification) has been inferred from site survey observations, aerial photography, and RHS data.

Secondary source data (including information on SSSI and SAC conditions and data on fish species present in the river system) from the River Lugg Restoration Report by Hyder (2010) and the River Lugg Restoration Strategy (1996).

An understanding of the requirements to meet ecological indicators for the characteristic biological communities and knowledge of the links between habitat suitability and feature species.

An understanding of how other pressures such as flow regulation may be impacting upon the river channel in parallel with morphological pressures

Guidance on best practice for management of rivers and their surroundings, including Wheeldon et al. (2010).

JNCC (2014) Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Rivers

Review of widely used river restoration techniques including a consideration of their suitability, including reference to the UK’s RRC Manual of River Restoration Techniques (http://www.therrc.co.uk/rrc_manual.php).

1.7 Stakeholder Involvement

The restoration visualisations, plans, table of river type characteristics and identified pressures aim to help river managers and stakeholders identify possible options that could be implemented along the River Lugg. These options aim to improve the natural function of the river and increase the length, number and connectivity of habitats for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. To achieve the aims of this Management Report, the Statutory Bodies (Environment Agency and Natural England) recognise the need for effective and positive engagement with landowners, land managers and other river users. In addition to landowners and tenants, the stakeholders engaged in the development of the restoration plans include the National Farmers Union, Angling Associations, Water companies, Wye and Usk Foundation, Wildlife Trusts, Forestry Commission, recreational clubs such as canoeing and navigation, Local Councils, Forestry Commission, Wye Navigation Committee and Catchment Based Approach Group, among others. This version of the Management Report has been produced for comment and is not intended to be used as a final restoration management plan. It is intended that this Management Report and the restoration strategy will be finalised post consultation, incorporating the feedback provided during consultation. Going forward, the Statutory Bodies will work with stakeholders to agree how best to prioritise and deliver the restoration plans.

1.8 Limitations

The scope of the project is to produce a restoration strategy for the Lower Lugg including surveying approximately 30km of the River Lugg. The total length of river making up the designated English SSSIs is approximately 74kms. Limitations of this study relate to data availability and gaps in the fieldwork. Some areas have not undergone detailed fluvial audit - chiefly due to access limitations, and a spot check survey approach has been adopted instead. Field methods have been complimented where required by use of aerial photography and reference to OS maps


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


2 The River Lugg SSSIs

2.1 Lugg Catchment Overview

The Lugg rises at its upland source on Pool Hill in Powys and flows in a south-easterly direction to its confluence with the River Wye near Mordiford. The River Lugg is approximately 101km long and has a catchment of approximately 1,077km2. The River Lugg has a number of tributaries, the main one being the River Arrow which meets the Lugg just south of Leominster. The Lugg has numerous weirs along its length which serve a variety of purposes from flood defence to abstraction to stabilisation of river planform. Some of the weirs pose a significant challenge to fish migration – preventing access to upstream habitat for fish and invertebrates. Recent collaborative efforts (EA and Wye and Usk Foundation (WUF)) have addressed some of the major obstructions allowing passage for salmonids and sometimes course fish to areas they have not accessed for decades. In addition to this, other actions are also underway to address water quality and abstraction issues and invasive species. Weirs also interrupt the natural sediment transfer dynamics of rivers, inhibiting or preventing the downstream movement of sediment, thus depriving the downstream reaches of sediment source. This may result in increased erosion of the banks and river bed as the river adjusts to maintain its natural sediment balance. The Lugg also possesses rights of navigation up as far as the town bridge at Presteigne and recreational canoeing is a feature of its traffic – especially in the lower reaches below Leominster.

River Lugg From its upland source in Powys in Mid Wales to its confluence with the Wye below Hereford in England, the River Lugg is considered to be one of the best British mainland examples of both a clay river and a river displaying a transition from nutrient-poor to naturally nutrient-rich water chemistry. Despite being canalised in some small sections of its 101km length and running through an intensively farmed catchment in its middle and lower reaches, it is a largely unpolluted natural river and supports river plant communities and otter populations of special interest. Natural England Citation Sheet


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


2.2 SSSI and SAC Management Units

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


Figure 2-2 Site locations covered by the January/February and October 2014 surveys and the River Habitat Surveys (1994-2007)


Table 2.1 River Lugg (England) SSSI units and condition assessment status

English SSSI Unit

Location RRP-seek funds to develop and implement

Condition Original adverse condition

reasons

Remedies underway to address adverse condition

(need continued implementation)

Threats to condition (not in priority order)

1 River Lugg (Wye SAC)

Unfavourable recovering

Fertiliser use, invasive freshwater species, siltation, physical modification and freshwater water pollution - agriculture/run off and discharge.

ELS, invasive species control programme, DWPP, Integrated Nutrient Management Plan.

Water pollution (delivery and funding of CSF/ELS and DWPP delivery). Invasive species control plan. Delivery of actions in River Restoration Plan and Nutrient Management Plan. Recreational risk (disturbance).

2 Bodenham Weir to Leominster


Fertiliser use, invasive freshwater species, siltation, physical modification and freshwater water pollution - agriculture/run off and discharge.

ELS, invasive species control programme, DWPP, Integrated Nutrient Management Plan.

3 Leominster to Mortimer’s Cross


Overgrazing, fertiliser use, invasive freshwater species, siltation, physical modification and freshwater water pollution - agriculture/run off and discharge.

ELS, invasive species control programme, DWPP, CSF delivery, Integrated Nutrient Management Plan.

4 Mortimer’s Cross to Presteigne


Overgrazing, fertiliser use, invasive freshwater species, siltation, physical modification and freshwater water pollution - agriculture/run off and discharge.

ELS, invasive species control programme, DWPP, CSF delivery, Integrated Nutrient Management Plan.

River Lugg Meanders

Eyton Favourable Features visible and intact. Natural Fluvial processes unconstrained. Natural erosion may soon mean some fences will need moving.


The SSSI units are designated for the following river habitat types (more detail is provided in Table 2.2 and Section 2.3.1):

Highland river with gravel and peat (Type VIII)

Rivers on sandstone, mudstone and hard limestone (Type VI)

Clay rivers with additional coarse substrates (Type II)

Fast flowing calcareous small rivers on mixed substrates (Type I) These habitats support characteristic species including: Atlantic salmon, bullhead, otter, and lamprey. The Lugg is also designated for riparian broadleaf woodland and fluvial geomorphology.

Table 2.2 River habitat types along the River Lugg based on Holmes (1983) plant community groups. These habitat types are typical of the differing types would look under conditions of minimal human influence.

Type Group Description Location

Type VIII C4iii Oligo-mesotrophic rivers, predominantly highland rivers with gravel and peat

Source to Gravel (Wales)

Type VI B4i Rivers on sandstone, mudstone and hard limestone – small sandstone river with shaded margins

Gravel to Aymestrey (Wales and England)

B3i Large rivers in their lower reaches on Old Red Sandstone

Wharton to Hope-under-Dinmore (England)

Type II A2iii Clay rivers with additional coarse substrates

Leominster to Mordiford (England)

Type I A1vi Lowland, low gradient rivers Wergins Bridge (Sutton St. Nicholas – England)

The lower section of the River Lugg downstream from Hope-under-Dinmore to the River Wye (as part of River Wye SAC) is an SAC designated for river habitat that supports certain internationally notable aquatic plant communities and populations of river and brook lamprey, Atlantic salmon, and otter. Some features that contribute to SSSI status also contribute to SAC status and are outlined in Table 2.3 below. Table 2.3 Species of interest within the SSSIs and SAC

Special feature SSSI SAC

Type VIII Highland river with gravel and peat

Type VI Rivers on sandstone, mudstone and hard limestone

Type I Fast flowing calcareous small rivers on mixed substrates

Type II Clay rivers with diverse substrates and flow patterns

Water crowfoot (Ranunculus)

Pillwort Pilularia globulifera

Water Vole Arvicola terrestris

Pea mussel Pisidium tenuilineatum

Aquatic beetles/alder fly Riolus cupreus, Riolus subviolaceus and Sialidae

Allis shad Alosa alosa

White-clawed (or Atlantic stream) crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes

Twaite shad Alosa fallax

Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar


Special feature SSSI SAC

Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus

Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri

River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis

Bullhead Cottus gobio

European Otter Lutra lutra

Watercourses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation

Geological/Geomorphological SSSI feature

River Lugg Meanders

Most of the ecological features found within the SSSIs have requirements specific to the ecosystem they are found in. This may include a narrow range of tolerance to physical habitat or flow water quality, riparian zone influences or hydromorphological requirements. To meet the requirements of ‘favourable condition’ a population must be self-sufficient and sustainable. Assessments of the condition of a population within a catchment consider the suitability of certain reaches to species-specific habitat, which may not be suitable throughout a given catchment. Whilst particular species (including SAC species) may form part of the designation for a site, their requirements would normally only be catered for to an extent as defined by the habitat type. Exceptions to this include: 1) where there is good reason to believe that a higher level of quality is required by a particular designated species and the river is naturally capable of supplying this quality; 2) where a species is the only designation feature and there is good reason to move away from characteristic habitat form and function of the river. For further information about the special features found within the SSSIs and SAC refer to Section 3.2 of the Technical Report.

2.3 River Lugg Restoration Vision

2.3.1 JNCC River Type

Rivers may be classified on the basis of their aquatic and marginal macrophytes; Holmes (1983) identified 56 plant communities, which were divided into ten types for the basis of SSSI selection. The four main river types on the River Lugg are shown below in Table 2.4 alongside their generic characteristics under low anthropogenic impact. These river types support some of the species that are also designated SAC in the River Lugg catchment. These descriptions form the restoration vision for the River Lugg.


Table 2.4 Four river types: major reasons for the SSSI designations of the River Lugg (taken from information in Mainstone, 2007)

JNCC river type

Characteristics of JNCC river types under conditions of low anthropogenic impacts

Ecological importance

Type I: Lowland, low gradient rivers

Low gradient catchments and river channels running over clay or alluvium. Stream power is somewhat variable but is generally low. Bed materials are likely to be dominated by silts and sands, with coarser gravels accumulating at riffles to an extent dependent on upstream sources and stream power. Flow patterns are likely to be dominated by glide, with coarser substrates underlying occasional riffles and finer materials underlying deeper pools.

Occasional logjams would be expected to generate stretches of ponded water providing additional and important habitat variability as well as woody debris for decomposer species. River bed gravels or other coarse substrate provide an essential but generally scant habitat for a wide variety of invertebrate and fish species these river types. Gravels and swifter flows also providing rooting opportunities for species, with an attendant fauna.

Type II: Clay rivers with diverse substrates and flow patterns

Low gradient catchment with river channels running over clay or alluvium (sometimes chalk). Stream power variable but generally low. Bed materials likely to be dominated by silts and sands with coarser gravels accumulating at riffles. Flow patterns are likely to be dominated by glide with coarser substrates underlying occasional riffles and finer materials underlying deeper pools.

Woody debris accumulations would be expected to contribute to flow type variability in this river type and create refuge habitats and pools for aquatic species. Woody debris is also important for decomposer species. River bed gravels or other coarse substrate provide an essential but generally scant habitat for a wide variety of invertebrate and fish species these river types.


JNCC river type

Characteristics of JNCC river types under conditions of low anthropogenic impacts

Ecological importance

Type VI: Base-rich, mesotrophic rivers in western and northern Britain, with a moderate to fast current.

Catchments tend to be mid-altitude. Moderate stream gradients have substrates dominated by gravels and pebbles. Outcropping bedrock and boulders are common features creating variable flow types including step-pools, riffles and glides. Exposed side and mid-channel bars both vegetated and unvegetated are common as well as sandy margins with some vegetation. Where there is a floodplain, active meandering may occur with vertical cliffs and point bars.

Riparian trees are important for providing a source of woody debris, leaf litter and exposed tree root systems as submerged habitat and refuge areas for fish and invertebrates.

Type VIII: Moderate-gradient sand/shale rivers below uplands

Similar to Type VII although steeper and more energetic, dominated by cobbles, boulders and bedrock.

Vegetation is dominated by bryophytes (such as Rhynchostegium riparioides, Chiloscyphus polyanthus and Hygrohypnum ochraceum) with exposed bedrock and chutes ideal for a range of riffle-dwelling invertebrates.


2.3.2 WFD Status

The River Lugg comprises a total of five WFD water bodies, two of which are in England and will be focused on as part of this study. The two water bodies are not classified as Heavily Modified Water Bodies and details of the WFD assessment are provided for in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5 WFD water bodies and status within the Lugg Catchment

Element Water Body

Water Body ID GB109055036790 GB109055042030

Water Body Name R Lugg - confluence River Arrow to confluence River Wye

R Lugg - confluence Norton Brook to confluence River Arrow

Water Body Length 44.8km 40.5km

Management Catchment Wye (98) Wye (98)

Hydromorphological Status

Not Designated as Artificial or Heavily Modified

Not Designated as Artificial or Heavily Modified

Overall Ecological Status Poor Status Good Status

Predicted Status Objective

Good by 2027 Good status by 2015

High chemical status by 2015

Protected Area Designation

SSSI SSSI

Biological Quality Elements

Current Biological Quality Poor High

Fish Poor No data

Macro-Invertebrates High High

Physico-chemical Quality Elements

Current Chemical Quality Good Good

Hydromorphology Quality Elements

Current Hydromorphological Quality

Not High Not High

Hydrology Not high High

Quantity and Dynamics of Flow

Not high High

Morphology Good Good

The River Lugg falls within the Severn River Basin District (RBD) in the Wye Management Catchment. To meet the WFD objectives and address the pressures on the water bodies, a River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) has been created for each RBD. As part of the Severn RBMP, Annex C provides a summary of a programme of investigations undertaken by the Environment Agency to improve our understanding on why certain water bodies are failing their WFD objectives and what actions could be taken to improve the status. A range of issues have been identified and some of the actions are as follows:

Improve access and habitat quality for fish (specifically on the River Lugg)


Reduce physical modification and diffuse pollution through practical actions (such as fencing and buffer strips) and remove fish obstruction

Weir removal of Environment Agency owned structures where appropriate and feasible

2.3.3 Dominant Geomorphological Function and Processes

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


Figure 2.3 Dominant reach functions within the Lugg catchment


Figure 2.4 Dominant reach processes within the Lugg catchment


These findings were observed during the January/February and October field surveys and using aerial photography. The historical map analysis supports the findings of a dominant function of a sediment transfer (61% of reaches), with few depositional features mapped (8%, sediment sink) and little channel change seen over a 120 year period. The proportion of reaches falling into each dominant geomorphological function is presented in Figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5 Dominant geomorphological function of the 26 reaches of the Lower Lugg. Note: information was extracted from aerial imagery and data from the spot checks and fluvial audits. The percentages do not represent river length as the reaches are not of equal length.

The Lower Lugg downstream of Leominster reflects a largely stable channel, reflected in 59% of the reaches exhibiting a stable geomorphological process (Figure 2.6). There has been some channel migration of the Lower Lugg, particularly upstream of Leominster where there is historic map evidence of channel migration. This is reflected in there being 37% of the river recorded as laterally adjusting (Figure 2.6). Combining the historical analysis with the surrounding topography, it suggests that despite the presence of depositional and erosional features there is little movement of the channel boundaries, particularly downstream of Leominster. The rate of erosion appears to be slow and the depositional features probably reflect an in-channel morphological adjustment in response to a naturally fluctuating sediment and flow regime.

27%

61%

4%

8%

Dominant Geomorphological Function

Exchange

Transfer

Source

Sink


Figure 2.6 Dominant geomorphological processes for the 26 reaches of the Lower Lugg. Note: information was extracted from aerial imagery and data from the spot checks and fluvial audits. The percentages do not represent river length as the reaches are not of equal length.

2.4 Wider Environment

Beyond the confines of the river planform a number of other receptors should be considered in the development of restoration visions. Each of these receptors will have specific stakeholders and interests resulting in modification (either naturally or through intervention) of channel functioning and distribution of habitats. 2.4.1 Designated Sites

The River Lugg abuts a number of SSSIs, including: The River Lugg, River Wye (Upper), Lugg and Hampton Meadows, Dinmoor Hill Woods, River Lugg Meanders, Rockhall Quarry, Byton and Combe Moors, Wellington Wood and Scutterdine Quarry (Natural England, 2014). The lower section of the River Lugg from Hope-under-Dinmore is also part of the River Wye SAC. 2.4.2 Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Habitat

UK Biodiversity Action Plans (for habitat and species) were succeeded by the UK Post 2010 Biodiversity Framework (2012). In England the most recent biodiversity strategy is ‘Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services’ and provides a comprehensive picture of how biodiversity commitments are being implementing at international and EU levels.

37%

59%

4%

Dominant Geomorphological Processes

Laterally migrating

Stable

Narrowing


The River Lugg is part of the Hereford Local Biodiversity Action Plan. Important habitat features within the River Lugg include those of migratory fish (particularly Atlantic salmon), otter and native freshwater crayfish. 2.4.3 Historic Environment

The Wye Valley (including the River Lugg) flows through an area with a rich historic environment which, despite evidence of prehistoric settlements, field systems, Roman sites, medieval castles and more recent industrialisation, occupation has remained at a sufficiently low level so as to not significantly impact upon the river environment (Natural England, 2012). The history of the landscape is linked to the former Royal hunting forest, farming, woodland management, mineral extraction and associated industries. Iron and coal have been exploited since Roman times with a wealth of tips, shallow small scale iron workings or scowles, quarry faces, horse drawn tram roads and disused railway lines. Some small adit coal mines are still worked by local free miners and small sandstone quarries remain active. Coppice woodlands provided charcoal for smelting and fuel while the forest was a major source of wood used in construction and shipbuilding. Other industries including tin plating, machine engineering, brick making, wire works and tanning are evident in the Wye catchment with remains visible in the numerous derelict industrial buildings and associated infrastructure. A review of information from the Heritage Gateway (2014) and the Multi-Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside (MAGIC, 2014) has identified several scheduled monuments, listed buildings and registered park and gardens within the vicinity of the River Lugg and its floodplain. The accompanying Technical Report provides details of the sites within the River Lugg corridor. There are a number of bridges spanning the river that are listed buildings or scheduled monuments, as well as weirs and mills adjacent to the river. These assets would need to be considered in any restoration strategy implemented but are unlikely to pose a significant constraint to any catchment scale river restoration measures. Care will need to be taken for any works within the vicinity of these archaeological constraints, with detailed mitigation measures likely to be required. 2.4.4 Landscape

Despite the localised industrialisation of the nearby Lower Wye valley since Iron Age times, there are limited obvious clues of industrialisation within the current environment, which has maintained its largely natural landscape. The landscape has been subjected to increasingly intensified agricultural practices, which were initially pasture/grazing, but in recent years is beginning to shift to more arable nature. There are also numerous mills north of Leominster and its tributary streams which have associated weirs. There are many distinctive semi-natural habitats some of which are of international and national importance including ancient woodland and replanted ancient woodland, traditional orchard, lowland meadows and fens. 2.4.5 Amenity, Recreation and Navigation

From Rosser’s Bridge near to Presteigne to the confluence with the River Wye the River Lugg is a public right of navigation. There are a number of weirs along the River Lugg which, along with the channel size, limit the possibility of navigation by larger boats. Some canoeing takes place on the river, mainly downstream of


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


3 Pressures and Impacts

3.1 Methodology

3.1.1 Desk Study

In order to identify the key morphological pressures on the River Lugg, a review of existing literature and data was undertaken. This included data and observations collated from national data on river ecology status (RMBP, WFD, SSSI/SAC designations) previous Lugg restoration report (Hyder, 2010), RHS surveys, aerial imagery and knowledge of historical modifications. A SCI-Map model output of sediment delivery risk which has been provided by the Wye and Usk Foundation has also been produced (see Section 3.2.1). The full findings of the desk study are reported in Section 3 of the Technical Report. This includes the SSSI and SAC condition assessments and the WFD status report and justifications. 3.1.2 Field Survey

To verify the desk study findings and gain a more complete picture of the condition of the physical structure (geomorphology) and ecology of the Lower River Lugg, a field survey consisting of a series of bespoke fluvial audits of the river and spot checks where audits were not possible was undertaken in January and February 2014, and during October 2014. Due to the widespread flooding in early 2014, which affected the Lugg catchment severely particularly in the lower reaches, field observations were limited. Further field surveys were carried out during October 2014 to complete the survey and cover area which had been omitted from the earlier surveys. This data was accompanied by observations from aerial photography which helped to define land-use pressures and potential impacts due to channel modifications along part of the river which had not been included in the field surveys.

3.2 Key Findings

3.2.1 SCI-Map Outputs for the Lugg Catchment

Modelling studies have been carried out on the catchment to define the areas deemed most at risk of sediment erosion under certain land-use cover. The Wye and Usk Foundation has in conjunction with Durham University run the Sci-Map model for the Lugg catchment, which calculates the sediment erosion and delivery risk under various land use scenarios. The Technical Report provides details on the models results under various land use scenarios but briefly, indications are that risk of sediment delivery within the catchment is to increase in the near future. This is based on predictions that a higher land area will be dedicated to arable land use and existing arable land will be more intensive. Under increased arable conditions, model predictions indicate that the areas around Kinsham, (reach 2), between Mortimer’s Cross and Leominster will be most at risk.


In the lower Lugg reaches, the area around Hope-under-Dinmore and Moreton-on -Lugg are among the area under increased sediment delivery risk according to Sci-Map. 3.2.2 RMBP and Key Pressures

The River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) states that the key pressures on the whole Wye catchment which need to be addressed to improve ecological status include:

Physical modification (including aggregate extraction)

Acidification

Alien species

Water quality (including chemical and organic pollutants, mainly from farming practices)

Sediments as a direct pollutant

Biota removal (including commercial fish take and weed control)

Direct biological pressures

Fish stocking (including disease and predation)

Abstraction and other artificial flow pressures As part of the Severn RBMP, Annex C provides a summary of a programme of investigations undertaken by the Environment Agency to improve our understanding on why certain water bodies are failing their WFD objectives and what actions could be taken to improve the status. A range of issues have been identified and some of the actions are as follows:

Improve access and habitat quality for fish (specifically on the River Lugg)

Reduce physical modification and diffuse pollution through practical actions (such as fencing and buffer strips) and remove fish obstruction

Weir removal of Environment Agency owned structures

These recommendations have been taken into account when devising remediation options for the main stem Lugg in this report. 3.2.3 Historical Works and Current Maintenance

There is evidence of channel change throughout the Lugg catchment from both anthropogenic and natural means. Historical maps provide an insight into the planform change from the 1800s to 1900s (www.old-maps.co.uk/index.html). In the upper reaches of the Lugg catchment by Llangunllo, the river planform has remained stable since the 1800s, with a number of mill leats being introduced around 1889. These mill leats appear to have been removed or cut off from 1977-1980, leaving a single channel. The River Lugg is most active in the rural areas upstream of Leominster, where there is evidence of channel migration. In the rural areas in between the villages south of Leominster there is also evidence of channel migration. The catchment has also been influenced by the introduction of man-made lakes (around the 1970s), weirs and channel straightening (e.g. 1970-1990 through Leominster).


The development of intensive agriculture from the 1950s in the Lugg catchment has led to a growing threat on the integrity and quality of the Lugg (and surrounding catchments) ecosystems (River Lugg Internal Drainage Board, 2010). The major works recorded along the Lugg were primarily focused around Leominster. The works included implementing embankments or improving current embankments, comprehensive schemes (i.e. channel deepening and widening), resectioning and pioneer tree clearance. The focus of these works, which took place between the 1950s and the 1970s, was for flood alleviation in response to major flood events. Major works continued into the 1980s but were increasingly driven by channel improvement schemes rather than flood concerns. Summary tables of key works in more recent times are provided in Table 3.1 (general works) and Table 3.2 (flood schemes) below. This provides dates and descriptions of the nature of the works undertaken at that time. Table 3.1 Summary of works undertaken within the Lugg Catchment between 1960 and

1969

Dates River Description of works

1963,1964,1965,1966, 1967,1968,1969

Lugg Stages I, II, III and IV of the Leominster Flood Alleviation Scheme - Raton Bridge to Crowards Mill. Works included a flood diversion channel, revetments, channel widening and deepening of Lugg and realignment of Ridgemoor brook

1968, 1969 Arrow Eardisland Brook - included dredging to prevent water entering the Southall Brook (part of Internal Drainage Board)

1961,1962,1963,1964 Lugg Hampton Bishop Stank - construction of flood embankments and walls

1960 Pinsley Brook Leominster to Kingsland works – included regrading/ deepening

1960 Eyton Common Brook

Short length of flood embankment at Eyton Common (to the south of Leominster town)

Table 3.2 Details of flood schemes undertaken on the Lugg catchment during the 1960s

Date(s) River Lengths affected

1963, 1964 Lugg Mortimer’s Cross to Lyepole

1965, 1966 Lugg Lyepole to Upper Kinsham Bridge

1965, 1966 Lugg Upper Kinsham Bridge to Rossers Bridge

1965, 1966 Lugg Rossers Bridge to Presteigne

1967, 1968 Lugg Rossers Bridge to Presteigne

1968, 1969 Arrow Pembridge Road Bridge to Noke Bridge

Additionally, pioneer tree clearance has taken place on the Lugg between 1956 and 1969. These works included the removal of obstructions such as fallen trees, overhanging branches, and bushes which were thought to interfere with flows (including flood flows). Channel maintenance works are still being carried out along the River Lugg by the Environment Agency from 2013-2014 (Environment Agency Flood Risk Maintenance Programme6.

6 http//www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/109548.aspx

1).


These include:

Bankside vegetation maintenance and structure maintenance (Leominster).

Essential obstruction removal on the basis of flood risk (Upstream of Leominster, Bodenham and north of Hereford).

Blockage removal to maintain navigation (Hereford to confluence with the River Wye).

3.2.4 Hyder (2010) Study

The River Lugg restoration report (Hyder, 2010) identified a number of channel modifications and impacts which if addressed could provide improvements in the river geomorphological and associated ecological habitat functions. They found the main impacts to be a result of weirs slowing and ponding flows reducing in-channel flow diversity and consequently reducing ecological diversity. The report noted that sedimentation of gravels occurred frequently, reducing their suitability as spawning habitat for fish and other species (invertebrates). Additionally, the presence of numerous weirs was thought to present a significant impediment to fish passage. The report also noted that some reaches had undergone channelisation – both recent and historical. In their appraisal of the river which consisted of a selection of eight short reaches between the towns of Presteigne and Mordiford, the chief impacts were defined and are listed below: Physical modifications:

Bridges

Weirs

Engineered bank profiles

Canalisation

Flood banks

Set back embankments. Other impacts on channel:

Sewerage Treatment Works (STW)

Water Abstractions

Sediment delivery to river. Table 3.3 below summarizes the eight reach characteristics as defined by Hyder (2010). The equivalent Jacobs 2014 surveys reaches are listed alongside for reference; however it should be noted that the Hyder surveys covered only eight reaches each of 100 -200 metres only, while the Jacobs survey reaches cover the entire length of river from Presteigne to the Lugg-Wye confluence.


Table 3.3 Hyder summary of reach characteristics and degree of modification as taken from their 2010 river restoration report

Name of

reach

NGR Recorded

river type

Selection criteria Jacobs 2014

Equivalent reach

Presteigne SO 32217

64387 to SO

32900 64315

Type V Appeared natural on map with

active meanders and no

obvious modifications.

Located on upper section of

the River Lugg in England.

LUGG001 and LUG002

Kinsham Gorge

SO 36993

65057 to SO

36544 64883

Type V Appeared natural on map with

channel constrained by

landform of the gorge and no

obvious modifications.

Located on upper section of

the River Lugg in England.

LUGG003

Gilberts Weir to Holgate Weir

SO 46230

61387 to SO

45704 61621

Type V Although this reach appeared

natural on the map with active

meanders it also had a

number of obvious regular

weir features. Located on

middle section of the river.

LUGG008

Eyton SO46492

61309 to SO

46796 60975

Type V Appeared natural with active

meanders. Also supported

weir structure and flood banks

discernible from aerial

photographs. Includes part of

the Lugg Meanders

Geological SSSI. Located on

the middle section of the river.

LUGG009 and LUGG010

Crowards Weir to Leominster Bifurcation weir and flood relief channel

SO 47198

60665 to

SO48335

60088

Type V Obviously modified with weir

structures, flood banks and

straight sections of channel

and a flood relief channel

around Leominster. Located

on the middle section of the

river.

LUGG012

Leominster

Station

SO 50256

58910 to SO

50136 59510

Type V Appeared to be a straight

uniform channel with flood

banks visible. Located on the

middle section of the river.

LUGG014

Bodenham SO 53658

51107 to SO

53634 51470

Type II Appeared to be a straight

uniform channel but no

obvious physical modifications

visible on maps or aerial

photographs. Located on the

lower reaches of the river.

LUGG019

Lugg

Meadows

Hereford

SO 56832

38113 to

SO56518

37206

Type II Appeared to be entirely

natural reach with no obvious

physical modifications.

Includes the Lugg Meadows

SSSI. Located on the lower

reaches of the river.

LUGG025


Name of

reach

NGR Recorded

river type

Selection criteria Jacobs 2014

Equivalent reach

Mordiford SO 56832

38113 to SO

56518 37206

Type II Appeared to be relatively

natural in form but flood banks

clearly visible from both maps

and aerial photographs.

Located on the lower reach of

the river, upstream of

confluence with the River

Wye.

LUGG026

3.2.5 RHS Habitat Modification Class Analyses

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


Figure 3.1 Map of RHS survey mid points and RHS class values


Figure 3.2 HMS class from RHS carried out between 1997 and 2007 on the Lugg showing both the number and percentage of RHS sites in each class

Table 3.4 Habitat Modification Class and Scores description for RHS data

Habitat Modification Class (HMC)

HMC Description Habitat Modification Score (HMS)

1 Pristine/ semi-natural 0-15

2 Predominantly unmodified 17-199

3 Obviously modified 200-499

4 Significantly modified 500-1399

5 Severely modified 1400+

3.2.6 Lugg Weirs Report

In an Environment Agency (2012) report on priority weirs on the main stem River Lugg, a total of 28 weirs were assessed and assigned with passability scores relative to salmonid, coarse fish, eels and minor species. The Technical Report details on the numbers of priority weirs on the main stem Lugg which act as impediments to passage. While fish passage is a key WFD driver, restoration of geomorphological process is required for SSSI condition, and for WFD morphology. The results are presented in Figure 3.3.

14%

43% 24%

5%

14%

Habitat Modification Score Class

HMS Class 1

HMS Class 2

HMS Class 3

HMS Class 4

HMS Class 5


Figure 3.3 Numbers of priority weirs on the main stem Lugg which act as impediments to fish passage. Action required in the form of further assessments, fish passage options or weir removal nominations, are highlighted in red.

3.2.7 Description of Pressures in Relation to Impacts on Channel

Geomorphology and Ecology

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Salmonid Coarse Eels Minor ActionRequired

Salmonid

Coarse

Eels

Minor

Action Required


A summary of anthropogenic pressures noted within the River Lugg is presented in Table 3.5.


Table 3.5 Pressures caused by human activity and their impact on the Lugg SSSI

Feature Description of impact Consequences Example

Riparian zone

Degraded riparian vegetation or absent riparian buffer strip Change in the type of terrestrial vegetation along the river corridor away from that characteristic of the river type, due to land use. This may include complete removal due to urban developments, ploughing or reduction in variety and density of vegetation due to grazing by livestock Lack of trees There are sections of river which have limited riparian flora and may benefit from additional tree planting. The scarcity of trees and consequently woody debris in some reaches are a relic of the pioneer tree clearance undertaken chiefly between 1956 and 1969.

Increases the surface runoff reaching the channel which may supply high loads of fine sediment or dissolved nutrients

Increases the vulnerability of the river corridor to erosion (soil loss) during floods where the ground is bare

Makes the banks more vulnerable to erosion (e.g. lack of roots binding the banks)

A thin riparian buffer zone acts as a poor filter for such runoff

Lack of riparian vegetation reduces cover for fish from bird predation, and habitat for fly-life, which is fish food source

May make the banks more vulnerable to accelerated erosion (e.g. lack of roots binding the banks)

Lack of a supply of woody material which would, if present, vary flow and sediment deposition patterns and associated habitat benefits (particularly beneficial for Type II and VI rivers, Table 2.4)

Lack of channel shading increases summer water temperatures

Lack of cover for fish and otter

Reduced organic input from leaf fall may reduce habitat suitability for lamprey ammocoetes

Increased macrophyte and algal growth in high nutrient reaches

Reduced foraging and nesting/roosting opportunities for birds and bats



Banks Degraded bank face vegetation Change in the type of bank face vegetation along the river corridor away from that characteristic of the river type (see Table 2.4), due to land use or channel modification. This may include damage by livestock or modifications such as channel straightening, bank protection and channel maintenance

Reduced the habitat variability along the banks and channel margins

Lack of riparian vegetation reduces cover for fish from bird predation, and habitat for fly-life, which is fish food source

Reduces feeding opportunities for salmonids (less aerial invertebrates)

Exposed banks are more vulnerable to erosion (lack of roots binding the banks)

Straight and resectioned reach

Accelerated sediment delivery Accelerated delivery due to land-use and management practices Increased sediment delivery due to intensification of farming practices and land management which leaves pathways to river channel exposed Accelerated bank erosion Increase in bank erosion due to land use or channel modification. This may include damage by livestock or modifications such as channel straightening, bank protection and channel maintenance

Smothering of spawning gravels reduces suitability for lamprey, bullhead and salmonids, all of which require clean gravels and cobbles to spawn in, and for egg survival

Loss of bank side cover

Fine sediment increase within the water column which may be detrimental to faunal communities – impeding fish respiration capacities and macrophyte growth.

Potential shift in invertebrate and plant communities to those that are more tolerant of silt.

Incidents of turbidity affect ability of fish species to survive- salmon tolerance for turbidity is low.



Modifications Channel resectioning and realignment

The resectioning of the river channel, creating a trapezoidal cross section is often associated with land use or attempts to improve flow conveyance The channel section through Leominster town has been highly modified with an embanked channel and limited diversity and opportunities for habitat

Weirs

Numerous weirs have been installed along the length of the River Lugg for various reasons, from flow attenuation and flood control, to stabilisation of meanders (at Lugg Meanders) This interrupts the channel connectivity and fish passage opportunities. Some of the weirs possess heritage value and as such cannot be nominated for removal but fish passage options are a potential means to improve connectivity and meet WFD goals.

Reduces the habitat variability along the banks

Lack of cover for fish

Reduced invertebrate community resulting in reduced food supply for fish

Loss of habitat connectivity (e.g. spawning habitat may be disconnected from juvenile habitat)

Reduces the variation in flow patterns associated with sinuous channels such as fast and slow areas and secondary circulations. This reduces the range of habitats associated with different flow velocities (see Table 2.4)

Resectioned channels typically have a higher stream energy than would be anticipated naturally and are often incised (through erosion), thereby increasing the risk of bank erosion/geotechnical failures

Higher flows in trapezoidal channels are particularly hostile to fish (especially fry) and invertebrates, causing loss or fragmentation of localised populations, especially where refuges are missing (fallen trees and backwater features)

Reduced deposition may result in a reduction in spawning habitat for salmonids, lampreys and other lithophilous fish (e.g. barbel, chub and dace)

Channelised and resectioned reaches through/near Leominster town



Floodplain Lack of floodplain connectivity due to embankments

Creating embankments along the river bank tops may increase the amount of water that may be contained in the channel before the floodplain is inundated

Reduction in the occurrence of floodplain inundation means that fine sediment, which would otherwise be deposited in the floodplain, is deposited within the channel, this may increase siltation

Embanked channels typically have a higher stream energy than would be anticipated naturally, thereby increasing the risk of bank erosion/geotechnical failures

Embankments may be subject to sudden breaches, which may cause erosion of the land surface on the floodplain beyond

If embankments are over-topped flow may become trapped behind the embankments and increase the duration of floodplain inundation

This leads to reduction in the effectiveness of sediment transfer thus increasing sedimentation and associated vegetation in-channel, causing channel choking with vegetation during summer low flows and poor oxygenation

Flow Hydrological connectivity and floodplain storage Many sections of the Lower Lugg are incised as a result of historical dredging practices, Although some flood alleviation schemes along the Lugg have been implemented to slow down the water and create some areas of storage, this is only in small localised areas.

The river is disconnected from its floodplain

A lack of natural features, such as backwaters and wet woodlands, reduces floodplain connection between the river channel and floodplain, reducing natural storage of water in high rainfall events.

Water is more likely to pass through the system at a faster rate, leading to flows rising faster than they might in a more naturally functioning system


3.3 Vision for the Lugg

The restoration vision for the Lugg is based on restoring a more natural river habitat function and form. This will benefit the flora and fauna typical of the river type, whilst taking into account constraints such as the built environment and infrastructure. Restoring the geomorphology of the different river types as far as possible will allow the recovery of the ecology of the River Lugg. The Vision for the River Lugg SSSI (Hyder, 2010) summarises the key points as shown in the blue box below.

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


3.4 Summary

Generally, the Lugg exhibits some good examples of undisturbed planform, geomorphic processes and function. More specifically, the areas around Byton through to Amestrey gorge and south toward Lugg Meanders SSSI show relatively natural planform and may thus provide a good basis to work towards by prescribing restoration efforts in other areas where anthropogenic disturbance has led to reduced habitat quality. Figure 3.4 below shows an example of the naturally active River Lugg around Byton and show its naturally meandering planform with berm formation depositional bar and actively eroding banks. A fairly complex emergent plant community is evident here although the reach could benefit from some riparian tree planting.

Figure 3-4 The river Lugg near Byton with naturally meandering planform and erosional and depositional features

The Lugg above Leominster has reaches which show a predominantly natural physical character. The main pressures in this area are numerous weirs which interrupt the longitudinal connectivity and prevent characteristic fish species from accessing areas which would naturally form part of the riverine habitat. For the most part, the impact of these weirs is minor enough not to interrupt the overall geomorphic processes of sediment transfer, erosion and deposition and many natural features such as point bars, active meanders, and gravel shoals are evident. Other pressures presented at certain sites are increase sediment delivery due to intensive land use – especially where arable land is not being optimally managed and where buffer strips are thin or non-existent. Poaching has occurred in places which may accelerate sediment delivery to the system. The river through Leominster is heavily modified and consists of large-scale channel realignment, bank reprofiling and revetments, the incorporation of weirs and little to no riparian shade or habitat. Despite the constraints placed on restoration efforts in this area due to flood risk concerns, improvements to hydromorphology and habitat may still be implemented through this section. From Leominster town through to the Lugg-Wye confluence, the river cross section is natural in places, but there is evidence of channel over-deepening and numerous flood embankments. Connectivity, both lateral and longitudinal, is thus a key area for restoration in this area, coupled with efforts to increase in riparian vegetation which will help temper sediment delivery to the watercourse and provide flood attenuation.


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


Table 3.6 Reach by reach summary of the RHS Habitat Modification Score Class, SSSI unit and condition and WFD water body and overall ecological status

Reach ID

Number of RHS sites

RHS

HMC SSSI unit

SSSI condition

WFD water body

ID WFD water body name

Overall ecological

status

Morphology (WFD

supporting element)

Lugg001 0 N/A

4 Unfavourable recovering

GB109055042030

River Lugg – Confluence Norton Brook to Confluence River Arrow

Good Ecological Status

Supports Good

Lugg002 1 3

Lugg003 0 N/A

Lugg004 0 N/A

Lugg005 0 N/A

Lugg006 0 N/A

Lugg007 0 N/A

Lugg008 1 1


Lugg009 0 N/A

Lugg010 0 N/A

Lugg011 0 N/A

Lugg012 1 5

Lugg013 0 N/A

Lugg014 1 3


Lugg015 1 5

Lugg016 1 1

Lugg017 1 2

GB10905503670

River Lugg – Confluence River Arrow to confluence River Wye

Poor Ecological Status

Supports Good

Lugg018 0 N/A


Lugg019 0 N/A

Lugg020 4 3, 2, 5, 1

Lugg021 1 3

Lugg022 1 2

Lugg023 5 2, 4, 2, 2, 2

Lugg024 1 2

Lugg025 1 3


Reach ID

Number of RHS sites

RHS

HMC SSSI unit

SSSI condition

WFD water body

ID WFD water body name

Overall ecological

status

Morphology (WFD

supporting element)

Lugg026 1 3


4 Potential Solutions

4.1 Selecting Restoration Solutions

As summarised at the end of Chapter 3, the River Lugg SSSI has reaches that are reasonably naturally functioning, whilst other reaches are more modified, impacting on the river habitat. This varied picture is reflected in the existing RHS data and new data collected in developing this restoration plan. RHS classification and further data collected this survey. The possible restoration solutions outlined for the River Lugg have been developed based on the previous data and information collated in the desk study element, and further field data collected in order to address gaps in existing knowledge. Potential restoration options are proposed for all of the defined reaches where required. This study and literature review has shown the most widespread pressure relates to riparian management. Measures prescribed to tackle this will aim to prevent further habitat degradation due to accelerated sediment delivery to the stream, and will tackle existent issues due to channel and bankside modifications and flood storage problems. Other significant pressures such as weirs and embankments are dealt with where encountered and measures to improve stream habitat and connectivity proposed. This Management Report should also be used to support the conservation of high quality sites (i.e.: those reaches classed under ‘natural recovery/conserve and protect’, as well as restoring sites where anthropogenic morphological pressures exist and natural recovery is not happening. Full ‘restoration’ of sites may not be possible due to topographical and land use constraints, such as valley sides, flood defence and transport infrastructure, but restoration of the sites should be attempted where feasible.

4.2 Meeting WFD Objectives

Developing restoration measures that help to achieve ‘favourable condition’ will also help achieve the objectives of the WFD. Improving the morphology of the river channel and addressing the impacts of land use pressures on the floodplain would help achieve and maintain Good Ecological Status, and would not cause any deterioration in the status of the water body.

4.3 Room for River Approach

The “room for river” approach or “making space for water” is an important philosophy for river restoration. It marks a shift in thinking for river management. For decades floodplains have been built on and rivers constrained by urban developments. Consequently the river’s natural migration, processes and connection with its floodplain have been constrained and often prevented. The “room for the river” approach to flood and erosion risk management and habitat restoration is increasingly being used across continental Europe, including a national programme in Holland, and on powerful rivers such as in the Rhine, Meuse, Danube and Loire, primarily as a way to manage flood risk7.

7 The following web links are two useful sources of river restoration case studies, which

approaches which allow the river to move across its floodplain: Europe’s River Wiki: http://restorerivers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page UK’s RRC Manual of River Restoration Techniques: http://www.therrc.co.uk/rrc_manual.php


The “room for the river” approach takes into account the following:

Dynamic fluvial systems are often unable to adapt naturally to changes in rainfall because they are constrained by traditional flood defence structures. Climate change is likely to mean more intensive rainfall, resulting in increased river flooding and changes in patterns of erosion. Traditional flood management solutions will continue to have a key role but alone may not always be effective or sustainable in the face of increasing flood and erosion risk over the next century, as acknowledged by the Government’s strategy “Making Space for Water” (Defra, 2005) and the Pitt Review (Pitt, 2008).

The risks caused by the historical and current management of mobile rivers, and a potential “room for the river”, or “making space for water” restoration approach is illustrated in Figure 4.1. Where critical infrastructure is a constraint, a similar “erodible corridor” approach may be taken. The erodible corridor concept “consists of defining a corridor in the alluvial floodplain, within which decision-makers will not seek to control erosion using engineered protections. At its simplest the concept tries to balance the environmental benefits of allowing the river to move freely (within the corridor), and allowing sedimentary processes to occur and the economic benefits derived from protecting property and infrastructure (outside the corridor).

The “room for the river” approach may also be reflected in and linked to the development of a riparian zone comprising a variety of flora, which is allowed to establish up to 12m away from the river’s edge (see Riparian zone management visualisation box, in Section 4.7). The “room for river” approach will enable the river to move more freely and could be targeted as a restoration measure where lateral migration is evident. The “room for river” approach may only be applied where flood risk to property and the build environment may be effectively managed and no adverse effect on flood risk results. In addition, suitable land management incentives are required to support the land management that may be required where constraints to river movement are removed. The local landscape setting also needs to be considered in deciding whether a “room for river” restoration approach is proposed. Detailed negotiation with landowners is required along with detailed feasibility studies to determine where this approach could be applied.


Figure 4-1 Risks relating to embankments and reinforcement on mobile river (top), and potential benefits of restoration and making room for the river (bottom)

4.4 Restoration Types

Restoration measures to restore the river to the condition described in the restoration visions (Section 4.7), take the form of riparian zone restoration measures or/and channel restoration/rehabilitation. Riparian zone restoration is proposed extensively throughout the River Lugg catchment and channel restoration/ rehabilitation is confined to local areas and weir removal proposals as generally, river morphology is considered largely to display good fluvial geomorphology


throughout the catchment. The chief measures proposed take the form of the following five restoration ‘classes’.

4.5 Scale and Timing of Restoration

The restoration measures have been further classified into four categories based on the degree of intervention needed, have each been assigned a colour code (Table 4-1). These categories are as follows: 1. Significant channel restoration - where the river has been extensively

modified by major structures such as weirs, channel straightening and extensive lengths of bank reinforcement.

2. Assistance with natural channel recovery or measures to improve habitat and flow within the constraints of modified water bodies - where the river has started to recover a natural morphology, or displays the ability to recover, to past channel modifications, but the ability of the river to adjust fully or within a short time scale is considered unlikely without human intervention. There is typically less disturbance to the river in the short term compared to ‘significant channel restoration’.

3. Natural recovery/ Conserve and protect (no active restoration) - where the river channel is actively recovering a natural morphology from past channel modification. Natural fluvial processes are altering the channel bed and banks and improved habitats are developing. Optimal channel morphology is considered likely to develop without human intervention or some improvements such as riparian zone replenishment could be implemented. Routine maintenance should be practiced within the reach including control of invasive non-native species and coppicing to control phytophthora.

4. Riparian zone management (including tree planting and woody debris installation) - where riparian zone is degraded or where invasive species are growing. Where riparian zone management is recommended, tree planting and reduced grazing pressure are the principal measures intended for implementation. Where such measures are not possible, woody debris installation should be considered providing it does not have a negative impact on recreational pursuits such as canoeing. Riparian management also includes coppicing to control phytophthora.

Each of the four different categories have different timescales for implementation/ commencement of the works and the full recovery of the section of river being restored (Table 4.1).

Five Restoration Classes Proposed:

1. Riparian buffer zone and riparian planting

2. Weir removal

3. Land management measures

4. Channel cross-section enhancement

5. Flood storage measures


Table 4-1 Reach scale and restoration option categorisation

Category Colour code

Description Timing Impacts on geomorphology and ecology

Significant channel restoration

Red Opportunities for weir removal, weir improvement, or the removal of extensive bank reinforcement. Also the realignment or re-meandering of channel sections

Commencement of works dependent on funding available (short to long term). Full recovery, including established habitats, expected between 10 and 30+ years (medium to long term) depending on scale of works

Improve connectivity between channel and riparian zone / floodplain. Improves bank habitat. Improve sediment dynamics within reach. Improve flow and substrate diversity.

Assisted natural channel recovery

Orange Removal or installation of minor channel structures (localised or short sections). Removal, set-back or breaching of embankments to create flood storage zones, improve floodplain connectivity. I Channel cross-section re-profiling and installation of bioengineering measures.

Commencement of works dependent on funding available (short to long term). Full recovery, including established habitats, expected between 3 and 15 years (short to medium term).

Improve connectivity between channel and riparian zone / floodplain. Improves bank habitat.

Natural recovery/ Conserve and protect

Yellow The channel is currently adjusting towards favourable condition and no specific intervention is required, or some improvements such as riparian zone replenishment could be implemented

Already occurring (immediate). Full recovery, including established habitats, expected between 3 and 15 years (short to medium term).

Allow deposition of coarse sediments for spawning and juvenile life stages.

Riparian Zone Management

Blue Riparian zone measures are proposed to improve sediment budget and dynamics with the river system, or to encourage a more natural temperature control and lateral migration rate within the stream. This could be achieved by enhancing buffer strip, tree planting and management, and occasional fencing where needed. Riparian zone works may also provide flood relief measures if targeted to strategic locations.

Commencement of restoration measure dependent on landowner agreement, cooperation, funding and potentially legislation (short to long term). Full recovery/establishment of habitats expected between 3 and 15 years (short to medium term).

Reduced fine sediment input from surface runoff and increased marginal cover for fish. Remove fine sediment from surface runoff to prevent siltation of substrates.


4.5.1 Urban Restoration in the Lugg Catchment

The River Lugg flows through two towns – Presteigne in the upper catchment and Leominster which is located in mid-catchment, as the river geomorphology naturally goes through the transition from upland to lowland river types. Through the Leominster reaches the river is severely constrained by development and infrastructure. These areas are also considered as high flood risk. In this area, the river has been subjected to intense modification pressures – with straight channelised sections with limited flow diversity and habitable substrate. Unique restoration plans have thus been proposed for these areas, which involves bioengineering which appears to offer habitat improvement potential even within these highly modified sections with few other restoration options. Bioengineering methods, coupled with bankside shading may provide a way forward for problem reaches within the catchment, and further details are provide on this in Section 4.7.

4.5.2 Relatively Unmodified Reaches

For those reaches in good condition (with no or very few modifications) or for which only minor potential riparian zone restoration has been proposed (e.g. reaches 3 and 17), the standard guiding principles of conservation and protection from degradation should apply and are as expressed below:

Conserve the existing riparian and river bank vegetation, this will include coppicing to maintain tree health and control phytophthora where appropriate

Look for opportunities to improve the width, density, composition of the riparian zone

Retain woody debris within the channel (unless it poses a significant flood risk to buildings, navigation or infrastructure)

Do not increase the number of channel modifications. New or replacement modifications should only be permitted with appropriate consent, where there is an immovable constraint and using agreed sympathetic techniques to minimise impacts

Ensure that, if new land drainage ditches are excavated, or old ones restored, these are not routed to directly discharge into the river but are routed into an area of wetland or wet woodland to ensure that this water is filtered before entering the channel.

These principles should be applied to the whole river (in addition to the specific proposals). Additionally, the following principles should apply to the restoration of the whole river:

Restoration measures should work in tandem with the natural processes of the river; allowing lateral migration of the channel, and utilising natural recovery as much as possible

Improve the connectivity between the floodplain and the river channel where it has deteriorated through re-sectioning

Restoration at all scales should be monitored to enable adaptive management and improve measures implemented elsewhere in the catchment.

4.6 Descriptions of the Restoration Measures

Restoration measures for the Lugg river types (based on Mainstone, 2007) that are relevant and applicable to the River Lugg as follows:


Weir removal measures on the Lugg may serve to enhance river continuity and habitat connectivity within the watercourse. Proposals need to bear in mind potential limitations on removal –such as flood attenuation purposes or the heritage value of certain structures.

Installation of bioengineering measures and embankment removal or set back in selected areas to restore in-channel biodiversity and floodplain connectivity and function respectively.

Riparian zone improvements include measures to reduce accelerated sediment supply, to provide more shade to the channel to benefit fish and to provide the means for large woody debris accumulation downstream which will enhance riverine habitats, flow types and channel bank erosion rates

Land and livestock management includes measures to interrupt the sediment delivery pathways from agricultural land to the river corridor

The creation of backwaters encourages areas of storage within the river channel, but also to create habitat and flow diversity within uniform sections of the river. Additionally, the creation of wet woodland habitat within the riparian zone, provides enhanced habitat while increasing flood storage capacity

(a) Weir Removal

Where it is deemed appropriate within the main-stem Lugg, weir removal may serve to enhance river continuity and habitat connectivity within the watercourse, and serve as a direct means to improving WFD status by improvement in habitat quality for fish and invertebrates. (b) Cross Sectional Improvements

For the Lugg, two chief enhancements affecting river/riparian cross sections have been proposed: (i) The installation of bioengineering measures in urban areas where other restoration measures may not be applicable or feasible. (ii) Embankment removal or set back in selected areas to restore floodplain connectivity and function where this action does not conflict with the CFMP Policy for the Unit. (iii) Cross sectional re-profiling and bank protection removal could also be proposed where there is adequate space relative to channel width. Reprofiling could restore some riparian zone ecological function in terms of sediment deposition, vegetation growth and habitat for riparian species. Reprofiling may also increase channel capacity which may serve as a flood risk mitigation measure. (c) Riparian Zone Improvement

Increase riparian trees and scrub. An absence of trees along the river edge reduces the sources of woody debris, leaf litter and exposed tree roots, which provide submerged habitat for fish and invertebrates. In the absence or dearth of an adequate riparian buffer strip, the likelihood of increased sediment delivery rates to the watercourse is increased – particularly during wet weather events. Additionally, poor riparian vegetation also makes river banks more prone to erosion, thus increasing sediment supply of the river and may result in accelerated bank erosion and consequent channel migration. Additionally, management of existing trees is important to ensure that riparian vegetation is as complex in structure as possible, thus increasing riparian biodiversity, sediment interception ability and the inherent resilience of the riparian zone. Of key importance to have mixed riparian vegetation of varying age range, which will also act to ensure the longer term robustness of the


riparian buffer zone. Improving links between the river and its floodplain may also create habitat opportunities, improve sediment control and create flood storage areas (see (e) below). Woody material within the channel would need appropriate management so as not to compromise flood risk, recreation or navigation. Tree management through coppicing should also be carried out as a management measure to control the spread of phytophthora. The coppicing of infected trees will encourage regeneration of the tree, prolong tree life and help to control the spread of the disease. (d) Land Management Techniques

Provide landowner advice on measures to interrupt the sediment delivery pathways from agricultural land to the river corridor, and advice on incentives (such as catchment sensitive farming grants) to implement these measures. Additionally, advice on tillage direction and crop planting (winter cover) may help to reduce the rate and amount of topsoil lost from agriculture to the watercourse. Measures to prevent excessive poaching of the river banks and access to the water edge are also be included with in this class of restoration options. In terms of limiting stock access to water courses and excessive trampling, the preferred measures and approaches are the provision of stock watering sites, reduced stocking rates (may vary seasonally) and temporary fencing. If the remaining option is permanent fencing, care must be taken to ensure that is does not compromise flood risk management or be inappropriate for the landscape character. (e) Flood Storage Opportunities

Propose the creation of backwaters to encourage areas of storage within the river corridor, but also to create habitat and flow diversity within uniform sections of the river. Creation of wet woodland habitat within the riparian zone would provide enhanced bird, fish, mammal and invertebrate habitat along with areas of increased flood storage capacity within the floodplain. These storage areas would help to reduce flood peaks (attenuation) and increases the timespan over which a flood event will peak. This would prove a particularly beneficial characteristic in a flashy river prone to flood events, such as the Lugg.

4.7 Restoration Visualisations

The following boxes provide descriptions and illustrations of the various restoration measures outlined in Section 4.6. Each box includes the category of restoration, the potential benefits to geomorphology and ecology, and the general constraint associated with each restoration measure. A further measure applicable throughout the catchment is the control of invasive non-native species. As such, the detail of the control of invasive non-native species is not the focus of the following visualisations and plans but is one of the actions required in order to achieve favourable condition. Action is underway to tackle invasive non-native species, but it should also be considered as integral component of river restoration projects.


1. Riparian zone management Category: Riparian zone management

Description:

Riparian zone management may involve a range of actions that allow a mosaic of different habitats to develop along the river. Riparian buffer and woodland regeneration may reduce accelerated sediment supply; provide more shade to the channel to benefit fish and to provide the means for large woody debris accumulation downstream which will enhance riverine habitats, flow types and help to reduce channel bank erosion rates. Woody debris accumulations must neither compromise flood risk management nor navigation.

The intention is not to create an entirely wooded corridor but to create a more varied corridor where land use pressure is reduced.

Actions could include combinations of the following:

Providing a strip of species rich grassland parallel to the channel which is cut periodically

Planting clumps of trees vegetation between meanders to create a wider corridor of vegetation

Allowing periodic summer grazing by livestock to reduce undesirable species and prevent over-shading.

If grazing is not possible, alternative forms of vegetation management could be undertaken such as rotational mowing, occasional thinning out, pollarding or coppicing of trees

A more densely vegetated river corridor – which includes stands of trees and or/wet woodland, will contribute to the supply of woody material to the channel, and has multiple benefits in terms of flow diversity creation, habitat provision for a range of species – from invertebrates to fish to mammals.

Illustration:

Riparian corridor of native mixed trees and shorter vegetation - parallel to straighter channel (foreground) or creating a wider corridor along meandering sections (in distance).

Areas dedicated to riparian vegetation may also be coupled with backwater creation efforts, which if populated by hydrophilic species may provide widened habitat opportunities for aquatic species as well as increase flood storage capacity during wet weather periods.

Potential benefits:

Helps concentrate any siltation along the channel margins and in areas of slow flow such as pools and backwaters.

Improves water quality by acting as a filtration system for run-off (e.g. fine sediment, phosphorus) and restricting access of livestock to the bank and river channel.

Creation of a source of woody material to provide morphological diversity through small-scale erosion and sediment deposition in the channel, creating a variety of habitat niches for various aquatic species.

Bank-side vegetation creates diversity in shading and cover-important for juvenile fish.

Bank side trees help regulate water temperature by provided shade, this may offer a significant benefit in future by off-setting the impact of climate change.

Reduced rates of bank erosion due to the increase in vegetation cover.

Bank-side trees and dense vegetation may provide habitat for otters and bats.

potential flood risk benefits by providing storage, increasing infiltration, slowing run off , which helps reduce size of flood peak downstream

Potential constraints

Creating a riparian corridor will require a change in land management, it will therefore be necessary to provide appropriate incentives and funding (see Section 6).

Ensure that riparian vegetation and wood material does not impact negatively in flood risk or navigation.

Riparian corridor – strip of land parallel to the river


2. Weir removal or modification Category: Significant channel restoration

Description:

The total or partial removal of a man-made structure within the river channel to reinstate sediment and flow dynamics and connectivity for fish and invertebrates. This may be a major engineering project - dependent on the size of the obstruction in question. Project design will require expert geomorphology assessment of potential related effects such as knickpoint erosion in the upstream direction and the effect of increased conveyance and sediment transport downstream. Hydraulic modelling may be required in order to assess potential effects on flood risk. .

Where weir removal is not deemed a viable option due to constraints such as flood risk or infrastructure, the possibility of fish passage options past the obstruction should be considered, with a natural bypass being the preferred option, Fish passage past an obstruction may help to achieve WFD objectives by opening up a watercourse to key indigenous species and providing increased available habitat area within the catchment.

Illustrations:

Kentchurch Weir removal project

Past

As of 2011:

Example of a weir removal project on the river Monnow catchment (Images courtesy of the Wye and Usk Foundation).

Potential benefits:

Increased connectivity for fish and invertebrates within a catchment.

Opens up new areas of catchment to fauna which were previously deprived access.

Restores natural flow and sediment dynamics where they were previously interrupted, and establishes a more naturally functioning system that is more resilient to extremes of flow and temperature.

More natural river channel shape, including banks support a more diverse range of habitats, including undercut and naturally vegetated banks (providing fish cover and juvenile habitat, and resilience in extremes of flow and temperature).

Potential constraints and other considerations

Removing weirs may not always be a straightforward option, it may require relatively long timescales to plan and implement and is likely to be followed by a period of channel adjustment.

Many weirs are protected in terms of heritage value and this will need to be taken into account in developing projects, but there may still be scope for weir modification despite these limitations.

Flood risk considerations need to be taken into account when proposing weir removal.

Geomorphological assessment of bank stability and the likelihood of knickpoint erosion and bank collapse, should be carried out.

Risk of opening up the river to invasive species which may gain access to upper catchment reaches (e.g.: Signal crayfish).

Land use and land boundaries may change as the channel adjusts following weir removal, land management incentives may be required to support this change.

Where weir removal is not feasible, fish passage options should be considered where the structure is an impediment to the passage of key species within the catchment (salmonid and coarse fish will have differing abilities in terms of the hydraulic head differences they may surmount).


3. Land management practices Category: Riparian zone management

Description:

Land management needs use best practice methods to minimise run off of sediment and nutrients from agricultural land. This is particularly important in high risk areas where soils and/or slopes mean there is a high risk of run off. Land management approaches that may reduce the amount of runoff, fine sediment/topsoil and sediment-bound contaminant delivery to the river system through land management practices such as;

However, much may be done to

Providing landowner advice on tillage methods and directionality where arable crops are concerned – tillage where field furrows are dug perpendicularly in relation to the watercourse, will deliver sediment to the river at a much higher rate than those planted with furrows parallel to the watercourse. Also, winter crop cover will prevent a large amount of topsoil loss to water bodies.

Identification of pathways for sediment delivery to watercourses may be identified. (This is one aspect which the Environment Agency, the Wye and Usk Foundation and Natural England catchment sensitive farming officers are currently advising landowners on). These pathways may take the form of track wheelings in fields, or informal paths/tracks. These paths may be intercepted by vegetation to reduce the rate and volume of sediment delivery to the river system.

Appropriate grazing regimes are needed to contribute to riparian zone maintenance. Periodic low intensity grazing may ensure riparian buffer strips maintain a high plant biodiversity through ensuring that trees and shade-loving plants do not dominate.

Where it is not possible to establish a low intensity grazing regime, fencing off of riparian zones to allow vegetation growth and limit stock access to river (where there is a significant poaching risk) may be appropriate. Fencing must neither compromise flood risk nor have a negative impact on landscape and visual aspects of the catchment.

Illustration:

Best practice measures employed to ensure minimal top-soil loss to water courses.

Winter crop sowing which reduces that likelihood of soil loss /sediment /nutrient delivery to watercourses. Winter is the period of highest rainfall in the UK. Wind erosion is also likely during this season. These risks are minimised when a field is put under winter cover.

Potential benefits:

Helps reduce input of sediment and nutrients from, and fosters an understanding and appreciation of ecosystem functioning among riparian landowners.

Potential for increased farming revenue if fields remain vegetated year-round.

Reduced rates of top soil erosion due to the increase in vegetation cover and limitation in sediment pathways.

Bank-side trees and dense vegetation may provide habitat for otters and bats.

Riparian corridor – strip of land parallel to the river

Tillage direction parallel to river

Field paths seeded


4 (a) Bioengineering works Category: Minor in-channel works

Description:

A bioengineering approach to improving highly modified channel may consist of floating ‘treatment’ wetlands which may effectively provide a vegetated edge to channels with hard steel or concrete edges. The floating edging is capable of moving up and down within the water column in response to flow levels, and may generally withstand flow velocities of up to 4 metres per second.

Indigenous plants may be installed on a modular system which may mean that installation and subsequent regeneration may be fulfilled within a period of months.

The suspended root system beneath the water surface promotes the establishment of aquatic biofilms, which may cleanse the water through the breakdown, sorption and metabolic transformation of nutrients and impurities, while reducing their availability to algae, lemna and other aquatic weeds.

Illustrations:

Prior to bio-engineered vegetation installation:

Future (Month 4):

Future (Month 9):

© Images courtesy of Biomatrix Water.com

Potential benefits:

Improved water quality through urban reaches.

Increased biodiversity triggered by presence of vegetation – promoting invertebrate life and fish communities.

May help achieve WFD objectives.

May result in an attractive waterscape aesthetic.

Potential constraints and other considerations

Control of any debris and trash which may be more susceptible to building up, will need consideration.

Maintenance in terms of the edging’s amenity value and vulnerability to vandalism should also be considered.

Ensure that flood risk is not increased


4 (b) Embankment removal, set-back or breach Category: Assisted natural recovery

Description:

The removal or breaching of embankments re-establishes floodplain connectivity and may be combined with other cross-sectional enhancements (see 4a and 4c). This would enhance the lateral connectivity in localised sections and encourage floodplain processes as well as riparian habitat corridors to be established. In association with embankment removal, bank reprofiling may also take place if the embankments are along the river edge. This looks to enhance areas where morphological diversity and habitat diversity may have been removed. Enhancing the existing trapezoidal channels in some of the reaches will aim to create non uniform bank profiles and assist natural recovery within the channel.

Illustration of embankment breaching work:

Present:

Following recovery (year 1):

Following recovery (year 10) varied flora establishes:

Potential benefits:

Provides connectivity between the river channel and the surrounding floodplain reducing flood impacts downstream.

Reduces ‘wash out’ impact of flood flows on in-channel habitats and ecology by allowing water flow energy to dissipate beyond the channel (removing the risk of catastrophic failure of the embankments in high flow events).

Allows the deposition of fine sediment onto the floodplain thereby reducing the likelihood of the deposition of fine sediment within the river channel.

Improves drainage of the floodplain by allowing surface water to drain freely into the river channel.

Removes the risk of catastrophic failure of the embankment where the river bed has aggraded between the embankments.

Potential constraints and other considerations:

Will increase the frequency of floodplain inundation which may necessitate changes in farming practices on the floodplain. A flood risk assessment impact on upstream and downstream reaches would be required at the feasibility stage.


4 (c) Cross-sectional reprofiling Category: Assisted natural recovery

Description:

Cross sectional reprofiling involves the alteration of the river bank slope, usually where the banks are excessively steep (possibly eroding) or have been reinforced or modified, often in urban areas. Bank protection may also be implemented as a flood defence or meander stabilizing measure. The alterations may be to soften the bank slopes - often asymmetrically, and provide some variation within the profile which may assist natural recovery and encourage marginal vegetation and wildlife habitat opportunities.

Illustration: Bank protection removal and natural reprofiling

Present:

Following recovery (year 1):

Year 10:

Potential benefits:

Habitat opportunities created on new bank profile. Marginal vegetation may be encouraged with correct flow ranges and substrate.

Increased channel capacity will aid attenuation of peak flows

Cross sectional changes would aid flow diversity within the channel with varying flow velocities over new bank profile.

Potential constraints and other considerations:

Increased land-take for wider river bank area, which would be a major consideration in built up areas such as Leominster town


5. Flood storage and backwater creation Category: Riparian zone management

Description of actions:

Flood storage issues within the Lugg catchment are a chief concern to resident and landowners. As seen in the section above, the river channel has historically been overdeepened and channelised in sections with a view to containing flood flows and keeping riparian land dry.

Planting of suitable species integrated with constructed backwaters parallel to the channel would provide flood storage space – which remained ‘online’ throughout the year, and provided increased habitat diversity -such as nursery areas for juvenile fish and refuges for faunas during periods of spate flow.

As expressed above - as part of cross section enhancements, the breaching of flood embankments will create a closer connection between the river and the floodplain. The area behind the embankment could be dedicated to wet woodland plantation and remain an amenity area during drier periods.

Illustration:

The addition of wet woodland may provide increased storage capacity for flood flows and help avoid the catastrophic effects of inundation of farmland and residential areas.

These areas are populated by riparian tree species such as willow and alder which may withstand extended periods of flooding without detrimental effect.

Potential benefits:

Increase in flood storage capacity. This could be carried out with respect to areas of increased flood risk (as indicated by Internal Drainage Board flood risk maps) and strategically placed upstream of any higher risk areas.

Increase in habitat quality within the catchment.

Potential constraints/considerations:

Backwater creation on or near farming land would require landowner participation. Permissions and landowner consent/participation would be part of the process.

Where larger works are proposed – such as offline wet woodlands which involve embankment breaching, this will require more detailed calculation to assess the degree of flooding that may be expected over certain timescales, and wetland designs (and breaches) will need to be designed according to predictions.

63

5 Reach-by-Reach Restoration Options

5.1 Individual Reach Restoration Options

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

64

Table 5-1 Morphological pressures affecting the reaches of the Lower Lugg (where grey = none; red = extensive >33% of the reach and orange = present <33% of the reach). The presence of these pressures is used as an indicator of restoration potential

Reach ID SSSI Unit

Number of RHS sites

Habitat Modification Class (at each RHS site)

Modifications Sediment Riparian Zone Degradation

Lack of Natural Flood Storage

Bridges Weirs

Reinforced bed/bank

High fine sediment

Poaching

LUGG001 4 0

LUGG002 4 1 3

LUGG003 4 0

LUGG004 4 0

LUGG005 4 0

LUGG006 3 0

LUGG007 3 0

LUGG008 3 1 1

LUGG009 3 0

LUGG010 3 0

LUGG011 3 0

LUGG012 2 1 5

LUGG013 2 0

LUGG014 2 1 3

LUGG015 2 1 5

LUGG016 1 0

LUGG017 1 1 1

LUGG018 1 1 2

LUGG019 1 0

LUGG020 1 0

LUGG021 1 4 3, 2, 5, 1

LUGG022 1 1 3

LUGG023 1 1 2

LUGG024 1 5 2, 4, 2, 2, 2

LUGG025 1 1 2

LUGG026 1 1 3


Table 5-2 Reach descriptions, pressures and restoration options for Lugg reaches

Reach

Grid Reference

Reach Description Pressures Status Restoration Category

Restoration measures Proposed

Lugg001 SO30763 65417

Reach through Presteigne punctuated by 4 minor weirs. Some bank reinforcement. Land use: Pasture/ Urban-Suburban.

Sediment input. Channel planform restrictions Abstraction.

6 Riparian zone management and Land management practices

Increase riparian buffer width. Possible fencing where land use is semi-improved grassland (poaching risk) (flood risk and landscape and visual will need to be taken into account for fencing). Reduced stocking density could be an effective alternative to fencing.

Lugg002 SO32552 64405

Middlemoor to boundary of woodland at Kinsham. Land use: Pasture dominated to arable dominated. Actively meandering sections with naturally eroding banks and depositional features. Lack of riparian corridor.

Risk of increased sediment input from arable land and poaching. Increased sediment load from Hindwell Brook.

6 Riparian zone management

Increase riparian buffer strips with mixed height vegetation. Create dynamic wooded zone to encourage riverine habitat (spawning and 1+ parr development) and water temperature regulation.

Lugg003 SO36332 64210

Lower Kinsham to Upper Kinsham. River flows through wooded section, with naturally eroding banks and depositional features.

Good flow diversity, substrate and presence of depositional features creating habitat diversity in the river.

8 Conserve and protect

N/A

Lugg004 SO37157 65146

Meanders at Byton to Lyepole weirs. Dynamic planform with steep naturally eroding banks, and depositional features.

Pasture very close to river – with access. Tree cover occasional – single lined and of mostly uniform age.


Dynamic wooded or semi-wooded zone created. Increase buffer strip width to at least 15m, and wider in areas to encourage riparian wildlife habitat.

Lugg005 SO39170 65130

Lyepole weirs to Amestrey weir. Gravel-bedded river section through gorge. Good flow diversity, shading and general

Weir at Lyepole impeding passage for coarse fish. Minor sediment input due to runoff from woods.

8 Significant channel restoration

Weir removal to be investigated or formal fish passage installed.


Reach

Grid Reference



habitat.

Lugg006 SO41804 65963

Amestrey weir to Yatton court weir. Gravel-bedded river section through gorge. Good flow diversity, shading and general habitat. Good variation in depositional features and areas of naturally eroding bank. Secondary channel provides greater habitat heterogeneity.

Weir at Yatton court may be impeding passage for smaller fish species. However, not likely removable due to heritage status.

9 Conserve and protect

Potential for fish passage feasibility study possible to look at technical or other fish passage option at this location. Abstraction at Ballsgate weir to be monitored for over-abstraction and action taken for habitat improvements if required. A first approach could be installation of a low-flow channel to aid fish passage in this area.

Lugg007 SO42765 65263

Yatton Court to Mortimer’s Cross weir. Gorge-like but straighter section, adjacent to road. Wooded on one bank with some depositional features.

Weir at Mortimer’s Cross a significant barrier to fish passage.

7 Assisted recovery

Weir removal not an option due to heritage value but fish passage feasibility study possible to look at technical or other fish passage option at this location.

Lugg008 SO42517 63918

Mortimer’s Cross to Lugg Meanders. Land use: Pasture and arable dominated. Some depositional features and eroding banks.

Sediment input from arable land. (Furrows running perpendicular to river). No distinct buffer.


Land management advice in this area. Focus on tillage direction and reducing sediment delivery pathways to river. Also, crop winter planting scheme may be beneficial.

Lugg009 SO46208 61376

Lugg meanders 1. Section with good flow diversity active planform but fairly intensive arable and pasture riparian land use.

Poaching pressure and sediment input from arable.


Riparian planting of shrubs, trees of varying native species and of differing ages to create dynamic zone with reduced sediment risk from nearby arable and pasture use. Reduced stocking density to address poaching pressure.

Lugg010 SO46645 61081

Lugg Meanders 2. Short section river flowing within wet woodlands.

Sediment input from arable.


Riparian planting - Increase capacity of wet woodland area – could be beneficial flood storage option upstream of Leominster


Reach

Grid Reference



town.

Lugg011 SO46782 60973

Lugg Meanders 3. Section between two weirs.

Poaching pressure and sediment input from arable. Pooling at weirs with sediment deposition, some good flow diversity between the weirs.

6 Significant channel restoration (with riparian zone management)

Investigate weir removal. These weirs may only serve as ‘meander stabilisation’ weirs which could be potentially removed as the channel form part of rehabilitation of the natural channel geomorphology and floodplain regeneration. Reduced stocking density to address poaching pressure.

Lugg012 SO47186 60676

Weir at Mousenatch to Kenwater weirs. Reach just before Leominster town. Highly modified for flood defence.

Weirs and channel straightening.

4 Significant channel restoration

Removal of two upstream weirs proposed. (Other two possibly important for head level retention into Leominster. Increased riparian tree planting and cultivation of wet woodland /backwaters could provide habitat, slow down sediment delivery & increase scope for flood defence.

Lugg013 SO48327 60132

Kenwater weir to The Marsh. (Section through north Leominster). Highly modified for flood defence.

Channelised section with little flow diversity.


Insertion of an active edge bank

river bioengineering system

within the highly modified river

section in this area. Alternatively, cross sectional reprofiling may serve to improve habitat within this reach interspersed riparian tree cover on bank sides may help with summer temperature control.

Lugg014 SO49968 59716

The Marsh (Leominster) to Eaton. Highly modified trapezoidal channel.

Agricultural pressure. Sediment delivery from land surface and tributary streams.


Increased tree cover. Option for the addition of active edge bioengineering systems, which rise and fall with changing water level.


Reach

Grid Reference



Buffer strip width increase in contributing stream areas (Cogwell Brook, Main Ditch, Cheaton Brook).

Lugg015 SO50749 58495

Eaton to Wharton. Land use: Pasture/arable. Intermittent riparian corridor. Uniform channel.

Planform better here but increased pressure from grazing/poaching and diffuse sediment delivery. Also sediment delivery from tributary Arrow – very coloured.


Increased buffer strip width. Riparian management in terms of decreasing grazing pressure – fencing may be an option. For the sediment delivery from the Arrow tributary, the installation of wet woodland area within the Arrow riparian zone – close to the Lugg confluence may help temper the amount of sediment reaching the main stem Lugg - especially during higher flow events.

Lugg016 SO51008 55111

Wharton – 500m downstream. Modified section with bank reinforcement on the right bank due to the A49. Limited features.

Planform straight with a vertical reinforced bank on the right bank. Constrained channel.

3 Assisted natural channel recovery

Incorporation of active edge bioengineering systems, which rise and fall with changing water levels to create habitat diversity within the section. In-channel enhancements could include implementation of woody debris.

Lugg017 SO51075 54816

Wharton – 500m downstream to Hope-under-Dinmore Uniform section with some wooded sections.

Planform straighter – possibly historically realigned and over-deepened. Some pressure from diffuse sediment input and poaching but section through golf course and woodland looks good.


Increased riparian cover in pasture areas and potentially fencing where needed, and to encourage riparian vegetation growth. (Fencing could be a temporary measure). This reach could be a targeted area (pending landowner consultation etc.) for wet woodland creation – thus enhancing riparian flood storage.

Lugg018 SO51499 Hampton Court Weir – Irregular meanders, 6 Natural Possibility of left bank buffer strip


Reach

Grid Reference



52592 Bowley. incised stretch of channel. Embankments present. Channel overwidened and overdeepened historically. 1:5 depth to width ratio. Fish pass installed at weir (Larinier).

recovery /Conserve and protect

enhancement (currently very thin) widening and increased tree cover in this reach.

Lugg019 SO2652 52300

Bowley to Bodenham. Section through intensive arable land with little buffer strip and thin riparian cover.

Arable runoff- intensive land use with little riparian buffer in this section. Historically dredged/deepened.


Riparian buffer strip requires enhancement in this area. Possibility of wet woodland creation to intercept and create sink for sediment runoff and slow down delivery rate to stream.

Lugg020 SO53477 51133

Bodenham to train line. Steep vertical banks, some depositional features and naturally eroding banks.

Pasture land with fairly sparse tree /riparian cover.


Increase tree cover. Plant trees /bushes/shrubs of varying ages and heights so that varying degrees of shade is achieved next to channel. Potential for creation of flood storage areas in adjacent fields on the left bank.

Lugg021 SO51264 50991

Section of river east of train line.

Intensive arable land with very thin buffer strip (<10m).


Increased tree planting and cultivation of wet woodland /backwaters could provide habitat, slow down sediment delivery & increase scope for flood defence.

Lugg022 SO51164 48585

Train line crossing to Moreton Bridge Uniform channel. Sections of the river are embanked, particularly around Marden.

Intensive pasture. Sparse riparian cover.


Increased riparian cover and possibly fencing in areas. Potential to set back embankments or for removal.

Lugg023 SO51641 Moreton Bridge to Sutton Pasture on left bank. 7 Riparian zone Increased buffer width. Tree


Reach

Grid Reference



45625 St. Nicholas. Section through woodland, with good planform and some shading.

Animal access to river. management planting.

Lugg024 SO52815 45212

Wergins bridge to Shelwick green. Good planform and geomorphologically active.

Pressure due to proximity of arable and pasture fields with minimal buffer in this reach.


Buffer strip. Capacity to increase areas of woodland and riparian shading. Minimise animal access to river (possibility of fencing).

Lugg025 SO53413 43063

Shelwick to Lugg Bridge Set back embankments on both banks. Uniform channel, some depositional features.

Possibly historically channelised section - for infrastructure. Pasture and arable land adjacent with no buffer.


Minimise animal access to river. Reinstate riparian cover for sediment control, habitat creation and water temperature regulation.

Lugg026 SO53164 41825

Lugg Bridge to Mordiford. Good planform and geomorphologically active. Naturally eroding banks with depositional features. Vertical banks reducing floodplain connectivity in low flows. Some sections have set back embankments.

Pressure due to agricultural land use (both pasture and arable) and sediment inputs (such as field drains).


Widen buffer strip and plant variety of trees, bushes & tall herbs. Introduce buffer strips near major outfall structures to minimise fine sediment input into the river.


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


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


5.2 Restoration Plans

The reach-by-reach restoration options have been drawn-up and are presented the following series of tables. The reaches are grouped in descending order in an upstream to downstream direction. The plans comprise the following components:

Classification of restoration option proposed

Category of intervention required/restoration option (colour)

Reaches identified for the measure

SSSI designation

Annotated maps, aerial and ground based photographs detailing the suggested actions

Summary of potential benefits and constraints The dimensions of restoration actions shown on the plans are indicative and do not necessarily represent the actual footprint of the activity, which would be determined by future detailed planning of actions in discussion with landowners (see Section 5). The plan outlines the options that have been identified as desirable to meet the conservation objectives for the river. This Management Report will be updated following consultation to include stakeholder feedback.


River Lugg: Reaches Lugg001 and Lugg002

Category: Riparian zone management

Restoration measures: 1. Riparian buffer zone widening/ creation and woodland regeneration/ creation 3. Land management: Reduce stock densities and grazing frequency

SSSI Unit 4 Unfavourable recovering

Context:

Minor weirs present through Presteigne

Land use: pasture/ urban suburban around Presteigne

Land use downstream of Presteigne: pasture and arable farming

Pressures:

Sediment input from land use and poaching

Channel planform constraints due to infrastructure(bridges / roads)

Abstraction

Accelerated bank erosion due to lack of cover

No/ poor riparian buffer zone typical of Lugg001 and Lugg002. Expansion and widening of the riparian zone is recommended. Poor riparian structure results in increased bank erosion, increased sediment input to the channel and poor riparian and marginal channel habitats. Livestock also cause more damage to banks and increase in sediment input to channel where there is poor riparian vegetation structure. The lack of channel shading will also result in high stream water temperatures.

Restoration Actions:

Create a corridor of natural riparian vegetation along both banks

Increase the width of the existing riparian zone, ideally up to 15m wide to increase habitat diversity, sediment trapping and improve stability of the riparian zone and river banks

Reduce livestock densities and grazing frequency to enable establishment of the riparian zone

Exclude stock from fields adjacent to the river during the winter months or periods of prolonged wet weather especially whilst riparian vegetation establishes

Provide drinking water troughs in fields adjacent to the river to reduce the frequency of livestock descending banks to access the river for drinking

Change direction of furrows on tilled land to run parallel to the channel to reduce sediment pathways to the river.

Poaching, tilled land and lack of riparian buffer strip is a source of fine sediment, which can affect the bed of the river when deposited, smothering gravels used for spawning. The trampled banks provide some habitat for invertebrates; however elevated volumes of fine sediment are unnatural to the catchment and a sign of high stocking density.

Aerial images © Google Earth


Actively meandering reach showing erosion and depositional features with numerous point bars. Riparian cover along the banks would help to naturalise the rates of bank erosion and provide sediment trapping from the adjacent agricultural land to reduce sediment loading in the channel. Changing tillage direction to run parallel to the channel would also reduce sediment pathways and reduce sediment input to the channel from runoff.


Action Site specific details Site specific benefits Site specific constraints

Widening of current buffer strip widths

Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees Refer to the Riparian Zone Management table in Section 4.7.

Reduction in sediment load delivered to river. Provides channel shading to reduce stream water temperature, shelter, habitat and food for mammals and aquatic species. Benefits ecosystem services, such as biodiversity, flow regulation, water quality and climate change adaptation.

Requires landowner consultation, consent and participation. There would be some loss of productive agricultural land along the bank top with associated financial implications.

Investigation and reduction in sediment pathways to water course

Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees. Ensure track which run perpendicular to river minimised

Reduction in sediment load delivered to river.

Requires landowner consent and participation

Change in tillage direction and crop planting timings

Ensure winter cover for tilled fields. Ensure tillage direction does not run to river. Field drain sediment traps to be considered where needed.

Any increase in riparian planting (as sediment interception method) provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species

Minor land-take from agriculture, may require agri-environment scheme of Catchment Sensitive Farming Grant.



Widening of current buffer strip widths in the downstream section of the reach adjacent to Lugg004 reach




Expansion of woodland cover if opportunity available to further enhance the habitats present in this reach

Planting of native trees, tall herbs and grasses.

Provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species

Minor land-take from agriculture. Beneficial in long-term.

Tree management Coppicing of trees where appropriate to control the spread of phytophthora.

Control of the disease within the catchment; maintaining and preserving tree health.

Requires landowner action.

River Lugg: Reach Lugg003 Lower Kinsham to Upper Kinsham

Category: Natural Recovery/ Conserve & Protect

Restoration measures:

6. Protect and conserve the current physical habitat and processes. Ensure any activities do not compromise the status of the river and its habitats.


Context:

River flows through wooded section with naturally eroding banks and depositional features.

Good flow diversity and channel substrate with presence of depositional features creating habitat diversity in the river.

Pressures:

Potential for sediment delivery to river due to forestry activity

Discrete areas are dedicated to livestock management


Preserve and conserve existing woodland habitat along the river banks and within the floodplain

Expand woodland cover if opportunity is available

Explore opportunity to expand the riparian buffer width, ideally up to 15m wide, in the downstream section of the reach to further enhance this reach. This could involve planting of native tree species along the river bank to create a stand of trees along the riparian corridor width as opposed to single line trees. This would dovetail into actions for reach Lugg004

Ensure future activities do not compromise the existing habitats of the river channel, riparian zone and floodplain

Carry out a programme of coppicing to control phytophthora where appropriate to preserve the existing tree stock and control the spread of the disease.

Heavily wooded reach providing good quality habitat, channel stability, sediment trapping and floodplain roughness beneficial for natural flood risk management.

Riparian buffer zone width could be expanded here to tie in with restoration actions for reach Lugg004, which would improve bank top vegetation structure and bank resilience to erosion processes. This measure would also enhance the ecological value of the riparian corridor.


Investigate opportunity for woodland creation here to further enhance this reach and facilitate natural recovery.



Widening of current buffer strip widths throughout the reach, extending into adjacent reaches








Wet woodland creation Design suitably located and shaped online areas where backwaters may form.



Woodland creation Plant variety of native trees, riparian shrubs, tall herbs and grasses.

Provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species Reduction in sediment load delivered


River Lugg: Reach Lugg004 Meanders at Byton to Lyepole weirs

Category: Riparian Zone Management

Restoration measures: 1. Riparian buffer and woodland regeneration/ creation



Context:

Dynamic planform

Steep naturally eroding banks

Depositional features.

Pressures:

Tree cover occasional – single-lined and of mostly uniform age

Pasture very close to river – with access.

Expand riparian buffer zone width on both banks throughout the reach, ideally to 15m wide and potentially extend into Lugg003 reach to further enhance the conserve and protect value of Lugg003. This would improve bank top vegetation structure and bank resilience to erosion processes. This measure would also enhance the ecological value of the riparian corridor.


Create a corridor of natural riparian vegetation along both banks where a riparian zone is absent





Preserve and conserve existing woodland habitat along the banks and within the floodplain

Expand existing woodland habitats through woodland creation

Coppicing of trees where required to manage and control the spread of phytophthora where appropriate.

Create/ extend wooded/ semi-wooded zones. Arrows denote possible locations for planting/replanting


to river.





River Lugg: Reach Lugg005 Lyepole weirs to Amestrey weir.

Category:

Significant channel restoration


Restoration measures: 1. Riparian buffer and woodland regeneration/ creation 2. Weir removal

Weir removal to be investigated or fish passage installed

Increase width of riparian buffer zone

Buffer strips around plantations to control sediment runoff


Context:

Gravel-bedded river section through gorge.

Good flow diversity, shading and general habitat Pressures:

Weir at Lyepole impeding passage for coarse fish.

Minor sediment input due to runoff from woods.


Weir removal or provision of a fish pass is a possibility that could be investigated at the weir at Lyepole at the upstream section of this reach. A flood risk assessment would be required to assess the impact of weir removal. If the weir is removed, coupled with planting of riparian vegetation, this would benefit both the natural hydromorphology and ecology. Establishment of appropriate riparian vegetation would help control the rate of channel adjustment to more natural levels.

Mere Hill Wood and Beechenbank Wood: create vegetation buffer zone along the margins of coniferous plantation or swales downslope of plantations to trap sediment where sediment is being carried to the river by runoff

Weir removal or installation of a fish pass is recommended to enable longitudinal connectivity of the river. Whilst a fish pass would enable the migration of aquatic species upstream, the weir still poses a barrier to sediment transfer downstream, thus depriving the system of sediment. This sediment deprivation may result in increased erosion of bed and banks downstream.

Investigate the potential for mixed native woodland/ wet woodland creation within this floodplain zone




Weir removal Investigate possibility of weir removal. Plant variety of native riparian flora (including extension of existing wet woodland)

Allows natural fluvial processes to dominate Provides cover for mammals and habitat

Potential land use change as channel adjusts, requires landowner consent and consultation

Significant channel works associated with weir removal

Allow natural channel adjustment (erosion and deposition) to occur

Provides diversity of habitat for fish and invertebrates and potentially birds if vertical cliffs form.

Minor loss of land. Need to establish riparian buffer and may need to put in place support such as an agri-environment scheme agreement to support change in land management.

Fish pass installation Investigate the options for installing a fish pass if weir removal is not viable

Enables fish species to migrate upstream to partially overcome the barrier to migration that the weir presents

Modification to the structure would be required along with some disturbance to the banks and channel during installation.

Bypass channel creation

Creation of a channel linking the river upstream and downstream of the weir

Reconnects the river and longitudinal connectivity. This enables species migration, sediment transfer downstream and increase in flow and river habitat diversity

The new channel will require land take and landowner agreement. Flood risk assessment and WFD assessment is likely to be required.

Widening of current buffer strip widths throughout the reach, extending into adjacent reaches








Wet woodland creation Design suitably located and shaped online areas where backwaters may form.







Woodland creation Plant variety of native trees, riparian shrubs, tall herbs and grasses.

Provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species Reduction in sediment load delivered to river.






Investigate feasibility of removal of weir to improve longitudinal connectivity of the river system

Investigate options for fish pass installation should weir removal be unfeasible

Creation of a bypass channel to re-establish longitudinal connectivity as an alternative to weir removal or fish pass installation





Preserve and conserve existing woodland habitat along the banks and within the floodplain. This may include coppicing of trees to control phytophthora

Create buffer strips along the margins of plantations where sediment is being carried to the channel by run-off.



Protect and conserve the current physical habitats through this reach

Prevent activities that would cause damage or deterioration of current habitat status and river dynamics.

Preserve existing habitat quality. The weir may be of heritage importance posing a permanent barrier on the river continuity.












River Lugg: Reach Lugg006 Amestrey weir to Yatton court weir.

Category: (Assisted) Natural Recovery/ Conserve & Protect

Restoration measures: 6. Natural Recovery/ Conserve & Protect



Context:

Gravel-bedded river section through gorge.

Good flow diversity, channel shading and good general habitat.

Good variation in depositional features and areas of naturally eroding bank.

Secondary channel provides greater habitat heterogeneity.

Pressures:

Weir at Yatton court may be impeding passage for smaller fish species. However, not likely removable due to heritage status

Abstraction pressures nr Ballsgate



Expand woodland cover if opportunity is available

Explore opportunity to expand the riparian buffer width, ideally up to 15m wide to further enhance this reach. This could involve planting of native tree species along the river bank to create a stand of trees along the riparian corridor width as opposed to single line trees.

Ensure future activities do not compromise the existing habitats of the river channel, riparian zone and floodplain.

Protect and conserve the current physical habitat and processes. Ensure any activities do not compromise the status of the river and its habitats. Create/ enhance riparian buffer strip through this reach, including tree planting could be considered to further enhance this reach. The buffer strip should preferably be 15m wide to enable the establishment of a stand of trees and a diverse understorey. This measure would help to stabilise the banks, provide marginal habitats and channel shading. Tree management: coppicing of trees is recommended where there is a risk of phytophthora.

Weir

Meandering reach with associated erosion and depositional features. Enhancement of the riparian zone would assist natural recovery of this reach and enhance habitat diversity.



Fish pass installation Investigate the options for installing a fish pass if weir removal is not viable

Enables fish species to migrate upstream to partially overcome the barrier to migration that the weir presents

Modification to the structure would be required along with some disturbance to the banks and channel during installation.

Bypass channel creation

Creation of a channel linking the river upstream and downstream of the weir

Reconnects the river and longitudinal connectivity. This enables species migration, sediment transfer downstream and increase in flow and river habitat diversity

The new channel will require land take and landowner agreement. Flood risk assessment and WFD assessment is likely to be required.


Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees Refer to the Riparian Zone Management table in Section 4.7



Tree management Targeted coppicing of trees to manage phytophthora where appropriate

Controls spread of the disease and encourages regeneration of affected tree

Requires land owner cooperation

River Lugg: Reach Lugg007 Yatton court weir to Mortimer’s Cross Weir

Category: Significant channel restoration

Assisted recovery

Riparian Zone management


2. Weir removal 2. Bypass channel 3. In channel works - fish passage 1. Riparian zone management



Context:

Gorge-like but straighter section, adjacent to road. Wooded on one bank with some depositional features.

Pressures:

Weir at Mortimer’s Cross a significant barrier to fish passage.


Explore options for improving longitudinal connectivity of the river upstream and downstream of Mortimer’s Cross weir. Weir removal is likely to be prohibited due to heritage value so options for improving fish passage, such as a fish pass or bypass channel, should be investigated.

Explore opportunity to expand the riparian buffer width to further enhance this reach. This could involve planting of native tree species along the river bank to create a stand of trees along the riparian corridor width as opposed to single line trees.

Tree management may be required to control phytophthora.

Weir removal at Mortimer’s Cross may not be an option due to the heritage value but a fish passage feasibility study could look at technical or other fish passages options at this location. This could include creating a bypass channel to reconnect the river upstream and downstream. This would deliver benefits of not only enabling fish passage but also enabling sediment transfer downstream and increasing flow diversity and river habitats.

Create/ enhance riparian buffer strip through this reach, including tree planting. The buffer strip should preferably be 15m wide to enable the establishment of a stand of trees and a diverse understorey. This measure would help to stabilise the banks, provide marginal habitats and channel shading.

Tree management: coppicing of trees is recommended where there is a risk of phytophthora.

The creation of a bypass channel around the weir structure could be investigated within this area of floodplain.

Upstream section of the reach showing erosion and depositional features associated with meander bends. Improvements to the riparian zones would assist natural recovery of this reach.


River Lugg: Reaches Lugg008

Mortimer’s Cross to Lugg Meanders




1. Riparian zone management



Context:

Land use: Pasture and arable dominated. Some depositional features and eroding banks.

Pressures:

Sediment input from arable land (furrows running perpendicular to river). No distinct buffer zone.

Poaching pressure and sediment input from arable land use.

Sediment input from arable land use.

Lugg008: Land management advice in this area. Focus on tillage direction so that furrows do not run towards the channel to reduce sediment delivery pathways to river. Also, a winter crop planting scheme may be beneficial. Increasing the width of the riparian buffer strip would improve sediment trapping and reduce siltation of the river. Riparian planting where riparian vegetation is absent, in particular in the section downstream of Mortimer’s Cross. Poor riparian structure results in increased bank erosion, increased sediment input to the channel and poor riparian and marginal channel habitats. Livestock also cause more damage to banks and increase in sediment input to channel where there is poor riparian vegetation structure.

Land management measures for better control of sediment delivery from agriculture – especially arable land within the Lugg catchment could be of benefit to the riverine ecosystem. In reach Lugg008, certain fields adjacent to the watercourse are tilled but appeared to remain bare during the time of the winter survey. Landowners may benefit from advice on current best practice methods – such as tillage direction and sediment pathway interruption, in order to ensure this type of management does not result in sediment and nutrients reaching the river.

Lugg008 immediately upstream of Lugg Meanders. Tilled land use pressure – align furrows away from the channel to reduce sediment pathways to the river. Enhance the riparian zone by increasing the width of the riparian vegetation and create a riparian buffer strip where absent; especially where intensive agricultural land use extends to the top of the river bank. This could include woodland/ wet woodland creation.

Riparian enhancement.







Some wet woodland creation

Design suitably located and shaped online areas where backwaters may form.







Change in tillage direction and crop planting timings

Ensure winter cover for tilled fields. Ensure tillage direction does not run to river. Field drain sediment traps to be considered where needed.

Any increase in riparian planting (as sediment interception method) provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species

Minor land-take from agriculture, may require agri-environment scheme of Catchment Sensitive Farming Grant.










Tree management to control phytophthora.

The Wye and Usk Foundation ran the Sci-Map sediment delivery risk model for the Lugg catchment. The excerpt from the model output opposite indicates the sediment delivery risk in the Mortimer’s Cross areas – reaches Lugg006, Lugg007 and Lugg008 for a scenario which is dedicated to ‘all arable’ land cover – as worst case scenario, but one which is increasingly predicted, as land-use in the catchment is increasingly turned to arable crop farming. As is evident from the model output here, the reaches in question are located near high risk sites which could benefit from land management best practice efforts.

In an area as intensively farmed as the Lugg catchment, adequate buffer zones and interruption of sediment pathways are of huge importance. The benefits of participating in best practice techniques are manifold – from decrease in fine sediment infiltration into spawning gravels to water quality improvements due to decrease in nutrients reaching stream, to ecological habitat creation and increase in habitat quality status. The Nutrient Management Plan, Diffuse Water Pollution plan and Wye and Usk Foundation work will identify risk areas where best practice land management is required.



Lugg meanders 1 to Lugg meanders section 2



1. Riparian buffer and woodland regeneration/ creation

5. Flood storage



Poaching is a source of fine sediment, which can affect the bed of the river when deposited, smothering gravels used for spawning. The trampled banks provide some habitat for invertebrates; however elevated volumes of fine sediment are unnatural to the catchment and a sign of high stocking density.

Context:

Lugg meanders 1. Section with good flow diversity active planform but fairly intensive arable and pasture riparian land use.

Lugg Meanders 2. Short section of river flowing within wet woodlands.

Pressures:

Sediment input from arable land (furrows running perpendicular to river). No distinct buffer zone.

Poaching pressure and sediment input from arable land use.

Sediment input from arable land use.

This reach is of high geomorphological interest due to the tortuous meanders and SSSI status. This reach is of high priority for conservation. Further improvement to the conservation value of this reach is to introduce measures that would reduce pressures and impacts present along this reach and the creation of semi-natural floodplain habitat.







Tree management to control phytophthora where appropriate.

Riparian planting of shrubs, trees of varying native species and of differing ages along this reach to create a dynamic zone with reduced sediment risk from nearby arable and pasture use. Reduced stocking density to address poaching pressure on both banks.

Identify zones for wet woodland creation. This could provide flood risk benefits to Leominster by providing increased flood storage capacity at Lugg meanders. This would also enhance the geomorphological value of this reach as increasing landscape diversity, habitat and conservation value and biodiversity.







Some wet woodland creation

Design suitably located and shaped online areas where backwaters may form.












Restoration option:

2. Weir removal

Category: Significant channel restoration

Restoration measures

2. Weir removal


Restoration actions:



Weir removal Investigate possibility of weir

removal at these sites. Plant

variety of native riparian flora

(including extension of existing

wet woodland)

Allows natural fluvial processes to

dominate

Provides cover for mammals and

habitat

Potential land use change as

channel adjusts, requires

landowner consent and

consultation

Significant channel works

associated with weir removal

Allow natural channel adjustment

(erosion and deposition) to occur

Provides diversity of habitat for

fish and invertebrates and

potentially birds if vertical cliffs

form.

Minor loss of land. Need to

establish riparian buffer and

may need to put in place

support such as an agri-

environment scheme

agreement to support change

in land management.

Weir removal is a possibility that could be investigated near the Lugg meanders and down towards Leominster. Bearing in mind the flood risk constraints going into the town, many of the weirs in this vicinity appear not to serve the purpose of flow attenuation but could have been installed more for the purpose of meander ‘stabilisation’ so that natural fluvial geomorphological processes would not continue at natural rates, but rather slow down – thus allowing more certainty in terms of land use and field boundaries. If the weirs were removed, and coupled with planting of riparian vegetation, this would benefit both the natural hydromorphology and ecology. Establishment of appropriate riparian vegetation would help prevent manage the rate of channel adjustment. .

As can be seen in the aerial photograph above, the area is under intense cultivation – chiefly arable, so landowner cooperation would need to be sought and support for accompanying riparian options arranged. The area within the Lugg Meanders – nominated an SSSI in itself due to its natural fluvial features of erosion and deposition. These aspects can be further enhanced by the removal of some of the many artificial weir structures, which may not be necessary to flood risk and whose removal could increase habitat and hydromorphological quality.

As can be seen from the above aerial image and adjacent images, there are existing areas of wet woodland within the Lugg Meander SSSI and reach Lugg011 in particular. The coupling of an extension of this woodland with weir removal can serve to increase flood storage and create natural attenuation during times of spate, as well as the ecological and hydromorphological benefits mentioned earlier.

Weir locations Reach Lugg012

Weir location Reach Lugg011 (meander stabilization)



Cross section

enhancement

River bioengineering system, which rise

and fall with changing water level, within the

highly modified river section in this area

Improve in-channel habitat diversity

Because system rises and falls with

changing water levels, floating channel

habitats would not increase flood risk

Improves aesthetics of the river

making it more attractive for residents

and visitors to Leominster

Public engagement is recommended

to inform residents how these

floating habitats work, so not to raise

public concern over increased flood

risk.

Requires planning permission and

local authority participation.

Riparian zone

improvement

Intersperse riparian tree cover on bank

sides through LUGG013

Help to control summer temperature

Leaf litter create biomass for in-

channel wildlife (invertebrates) –

Potentially limited space along the

river corridor

Increase buffer strip width (minimum of

12m) in contributing stream areas (Cogwell

Brook, Main Ditch and Cheaton Brook)

Reduce sediment delivery from the

tributaries, especially during higher

flow events.

Provides habitat diversity for aquatic

and riparian species (e.g. backwater

creates fish refuge areas during high

Landowner consultation is required

because of potential loss of

agricultural land along bank top, with

financial implications.

River Lugg: Reaches LUGG013 to LUGG014

Kenwater weir to The Marsh (Leominster)


Minor in-channel works


1. Riparian buffer zone widening/ creation and woodland

regeneration/ creation

4. Channel cross-sectional enhancement

SSSI Unit 2-3 Unfavourable recovering

WFD water body:

GB10905503670


Morphology: Supports Good

Context:

Highly modified channel for flood defence (LUGG013)

Highly modified trapezoidal channel (LUGG014)

Pressures:

Channelised section with little flow diversity (LUGG013)

Agricultural pressure - sediment delivery from land surface and tributary streams (LUGG014)

Photograph of the ‘active edging’ system in action in-situ

Lugg River section through Leominster (LUGG013 – correct) - a possible candidate reach for bioengineering approaches

Schematic of edging fixation and plant/root arrangement

Bioengineering works Channelized sections of river can have degraded ecology due to lack of morphological diversity, suitable substrate, bankside vegetation and flow diversity. In the absence of options to apply current river restoration technique to revert back to more natural planform, process and function, bioengineering presents an attractive alternative for improving bankside habitat while ensuring the integrity of flood control structures. At Leominster, there is the potential for bioengineering ‘active edging’ which can present habitat and water quality improvement opportunities through the town as well as amenity value. This approach, potentially coupled with increased tree cover over banks, may provide an improved diversity of habitat for invertebrates and fish.

Aerial image © Google Earth


flows).

Reduce livestock densities and grazing

frequency to enable establishment of the

riparian zone (LUGG014)

Exclude stock from fields adjacent to the

river during the winter months or periods of

prolonged wet weather especially whilst

riparian vegetation establishes

Provide drinking water troughs in fields

adjacent to the river to reduce the

frequency of livestock descending banks to

access the river for drinking.

Reduce fine sediment supply and

improve diversity of riparian zone and

stability of the river banks Provides

cover for mammals and a naturalised

aquatic habitat.

Complies with Habitats Directive and

Biodiversity 2020. Benefits the

ecosystem services of Herefordshire

and Lowlands NCA , such as

biodiversity, flow regulation, water

quality and climate regulation (see

Section 3.3)







Riparian zone improvement Increase the width of the existing riparian

buffer strip, ideally at least 12m wide



stability of the river banks Provides

cover for mammals and a naturalised

aquatic habitat.

Complies with Habitats Directive and





River Lugg: Reaches LUGG015

Eaton to Wharton



1. Riparian buffer zone widening/ creation and woodland

regeneration/ creation


5. Working with natural processes to manage flooding


WFD water body:

GB10905503670



Context:

Mixture of pasture and arable land use. Intermittent riparian corridor. Uniform channel.

Pressures:

Grazing/poaching providing diffuse sediment delivery.

Sediment delivery from tributary Arrow.

Wet woodland planting can act as valuable flood storage measures. These areas can open up areas of floodplain which naturally provide high storage capacities as compared to meadow or farmland. This approach can replace the need for channel incision and dredging - which has been carried out in the past to create increased in-channel flood capacity, but which bears consequences for aquatic ecology and fluvial morphological diversity which supports it.

The Arrow–Lugg confluence is an area of high sediment delivery and the addition of wet woodland in the area at the confluence – just within the Arrow catchment, could help reduce sediment delivery as well as provide flood attenuation.

As can be seen from the Internal Drainage Board map – illustrating high risk areas for flooding, two of the chief areas of concern on the main-stem Lugg are around Leominster, Bodemham and Wellington.


An effective approach to wet woodland or backwater water creation could be to situate the new measure upstream of high-risk flood areas, in order that flood water attenuation may occur in the area upstream before the high risk areas are affected. This would serve to lessen the effect of spate events in areas which are most prone.

Backwater/wet woodland creation in the areas around Leominster golf course (Lugg015) and Bodenham (Lugg018) could aid flood alleviation at the Bodenham high risk area.

Buffer zone enhancement Wet woodland

creation


Biodiversity 2020. Benefits the

ecosystem services of Herefordshire

and Lowlands NCA, such as

biodiversity, flow regulation, water

quality and climate regulation (see

Section 3.3)

Land management

measures

Decrease grazing density. Fencing may be

an option.



stability of the river banks.





Wet woodland creation. Design and create suitably located and

shaped creation of wet woodland area

within the Arrow riparian zone – close to the

Lugg confluence

Reduce sediment delivery from the

Arrow tributary, especially during

higher flow events.

Provides habitat diversity for aquatic

and riparian species (e.g. backwater

creates fish refuge areas during high

flows).

Minor land-take from agriculture,

may require support through agri-

environment or other scheme.

Flood storage measures. Plant variety of native riparian trees

(woodland creation).

Flood attenuation upstream of high risk

area.

Requires landowner consent and

participation.


River Lugg: Reach Lugg016 Wharton to 500m downstream

Category: Assisted natural recovery


4. Cross sectional enhancements SSSI Units 2 Unfavourable recovering

Photograph of the ‘active edging’ system in action in-situ Schematic of edging fixation and plant/root arrangement

Restoration options for the short reach Lugg016. Due to the proximity of the road, reprofiling / removal of embankment is not likely an option, unless it was replaced by a similarly hard but potentially two-stage defence. Active edge technology could be a viable approach to improving habitat and shading though the reach. On the left bank, there is potential for enhancing and widening the riparian zone and for wet woodland and backwater creation.


Bank reprofiling. Alteration of current bank profiles to create more natural banks typical of this river.

Creation of more natural bank habitats and flow diversity.

Flood risk assessment is likely to be required to explore the impacts of changes to the cross sectional profile of the channel. This may also require a WFD assessment. Landowner agreement would be required. Changes to the cross sectional profile and any enhancement works must not have a negative impact on the adjacent infrastructure.

Install active edge bioengineering.

Installation of bioengineering along the bank face to create localised enhancement

Creates habitat for species and increases habitat diversity.

Landowner agreement would be required.

Context:

Modified section with bank reinforcement on the right bank due to the A49. Limited features.

Pressures:

Planform straight with a vertical reinforced bank on the right bank. Constrained channel.


Explore options for bank reprofiling along this reach to create more natural bank profiles without compromising flood risk or the major adjacent infrastructure.

Explore options for insertion of active edge bioengineering systems to enhance local in-channel habitat diversity.

Explore opportunity to expand the riparian buffer width to further enhance this reach. This could involve planting of native tree species along the river bank to create a stand of trees along the riparian corridor width as opposed to single line trees.

Undertake a programme of tree coppicing where appropriate to control the spread of phytophthora and encourage regeneration of the trees.

Installation of active edge bioengineering systems along this reach, which rise and fall with changing water levels, will assist the creation habitat diversity within this reach. In-channel enhancements could include implementation of woody debris and re-profiling of banks.


Potential for active edge technology

here

Cross sectional reprofiling and

riparian enhancement / wet woodland

creation potential here


to in-channel habitat diversity. Changes to the cross sectional profile and any enhancement works must not have a negative impact on the adjacent infrastructure.


Plant variety of native riparian shrubs, tall herbs, grasses and trees Refer to the Riparian Zone Management table in Section 4.7



Tree management Targeted coppicing of trees to manage phytophthora where appropriate

Controls the spread of the disease within the catchment and encourages regeneration of affected tree

Requires land owner cooperation



Riparian zone improvement

Increased riparian cover in pasture areas (ideally up to 15m) and potentially fence where needed to encourage riparian vegetation growth. Fencing could be a temporary measure. Reduce livestock densities and grazing frequency to enable establishment of the riparian zone. Exclude stock from fields adjacent to the river during the winter months or periods of prolonged wet weather especially whilst riparian vegetation establishes Provide drinking water troughs in fields adjacent to the river to reduce the frequency of livestock descending banks to access the river for drinking.

This would increase habitat diversity, sediment trapping and improve stability of the river banks.

Working with natural processes to manage flooding - this reach could be a targeted area (pending landowner consultation etc.) for wet woodland creation – thus enhancing riparian flood storage.

This would increase habitat diversity and sediment trapping.

River Lugg: Reaches LUGG017 Wharton to Hope-under-Dinmore


Restoration measures: 1. Riparian buffer zone widening/ creation and woodland regeneration/ creation 3. Land management measures 5. Working with natural processes to manage flooding

SSSI Unit 1 (and part of the River Wye SAC)


WFD water body: GB10905503670

Poor Ecological Status Morphology: Supports Good

Context:

Low sinuosity, uniform morphology with some wooded sections.

Pressures:

Planform straighter – possibly historically realigned and over-deepened.

Some pressure from diffuse sediment input and poaching but section through golf course and woodland looks good.

Expansion and widening of the riparian zone is recommended in LUGG017. Poor riparian structure results in increased bank erosion, increased sediment input to the channel and poor riparian and marginal channel habitats. Livestock also cause more damage to banks and increase in sediment input to channel where there is poor riparian vegetation structure. The lack of channel shading will also result in high stream water temperatures.



Reach 017 could be considered for backwater creation to provide alleviation, while potentially creating amenity areas - for example if created within the environs of the golf course. Backwater creation or wet woodland planting can act as valuable flood storage measures. These areas can open up areas of floodplain which naturally provide high storage capacities as compared to meadow or farmland. This approach can replace the need for channel incision and dredging - which has been carried out in the past to create increased in-channel flood capacity, but which bears consequences for aquatic ecology and fluvial morphological diversity which supports it.

An effective approach to wet woodland or backwater water creation could be to situate the new measure upstream of high-risk flood areas, in order that flood water attenuation may occur in the area upstream before the high risk areas are affected. This would serve to lessen the effect of spate events in areas which are most prone.

Buffer zone widening

Wet woodland creation



Protect and conserve the current physical habitats through this reach

Prevent activities that would cause damage or deterioration of current habitat status and river dynamics.

Preserve existing habitat quality. The weir may be of heritage importance posing a permanent barrier on the river continuity.





River Lugg: Reach Lugg018 Hampton Court Weir to Bowely.

Category: (Assisted) Natural Recovery/ Conserve & Protect

Restoration measures: Natural Recovery/ Conserve & Protect


Context:

Irregular meanders and incised channel through this reach.

Larinier fish pass installed at weir. Pressures:

Embankments present.

Channel overwidened and overdeepened historically exhibiting a 1:5 depth to width ratio.



Explore opportunity to expand the riparian buffer width, ideally up to 15m wide to further enhance this reach. This could involve planting of native tree species along the river bank to create a stand of trees along the riparian corridor width as opposed to single line trees.

Ensure future activities do not compromise the existing habitats of the river channel, riparian zone and floodplain.

Enhancement of the riparian zone on the right bank downstream of the weir may help to stabilise the bank which is subject to erosion due to the impacts the weir is having on flow patterns and velocity resulting in channel widening.


Possibility for left bank buffer strip enhancement, which is currently very thin. Widening of the buffer strip along with increased tree cover in this reach would assist recovery of natural processes. The widening of the buffer strip would tie in with riparian improvements made downstream.



Example of riparian buffer strip creation along the downstream section of this reach. Extending this buffer strip upstream would assist natural recovery and enhance the riparian corridor and habitat diversity.




Riparian buffer zone widening and woodland regeneration/ creation

Increase habitat diversity, sediment trapping and stability of the river bank.

Minor land-take from agriculture, may require support through agri-environment or other scheme Creation of wet woodland creation to work

with natural processes to manage flooding. Design suitably located and shaped online areas where backwaters may form (LUGG019 and LUGG021).

Provides habitat diversity for aquatic and riparian species (e.g. backwater creates fish refuge areas during high flows). Intercept sediment runoff, creating a sink for sediment slowing down delivery rate to the stream. Provide flood defence

Increase tree cover (LUGG020). Plant trees /bushes/shrubs of varying ages and heights so that varying degrees of shade is achieved next to channel.

Naturally regulate water temperature. Water quality improvements due to biological interactions within water column.

Consultation with land owner. Financial support through agri-environment schemes may be required.

River Lugg: Reaches LUGG019 to LUGG021 Bowley to trainline


Restoration measures: 1. Riparian buffer zone widening/ creation and woodland regeneration/ creation 5. Working with natural processes to manage flooding





Context:

Section through intensive arable land with little buffer strip and thin riparian cover (LUGG019 and LUGG021).

Steep vertical banks, some depositional features and naturally eroding banks (LUGG020).

Pressures:

Diffuse sediment pollution from arable runoff due to intensive land use with little riparian buffer in this section (LUGG019).

Historically dredged/deepened (LUGG019).

Pasture land with fairly sparse tree /riparian cover (LUGG020).

Intensive arable land with very thin buffer strip (<10m) (LUGG021).

Poor riparian structure results in increased bank erosion, increased sediment input to the channel and poor riparian and marginal channel habitats. Livestock also cause more damage to banks and increase in sediment input to channel where there is poor riparian vegetation structure. The lack of channel shading will also result in high stream water temperatures.

The aerial images illustrate LUGG019 and LUGG021 which could be considered for backwater creation and wet woodland flood storage measures. Measures undertaken within reaches 019 and 021 would also provide some buffer for the likely sediment runoff from intensive arable production in those areas.


LUGG021 – east side of the trainline

LUGG019




Increased riparian cover and possibly fencing in areas (LUGG022). Increased buffer width and tree planting (LUGG023 and LUGG024) Capacity to increase areas of woodland and riparian shading. Minimise animal access to river (possibility of fencing) (LUGG024)

Improve habitat biodiversity, increase sediment trapping and increase bank stability.

Minor land-take from agriculture, may require support through agri-environment or other scheme.

Assisted natural recovery Potential to set back or breach embankments (LUGG022 and LUGG024)

Improve floodplain connectivity, improving biodiversity, and acts as a sink for sediment.

Loss of land during times of high flow, potential change of land use. May require support from agri-environment scheme.

River Lugg: Reaches LUGG022 to LUGG024 Trainline to Shelwick


Assisted natural recovery

Restoration measures: 1. Riparian buffer zone widening/ creation and woodland regeneration/ creation 3. Land management measures 5. Working with natural processes to manage flooding





Context:

Uniform channel. Sections of the river are embanked, particularly around Marden (LUGG022)

Section through woodland, with good planform and some shading (LUGG023)

Good planform and geomorphologically active (LUGG024). Pressures:

Intensive pasture. Sparse riparian cover (LUGG022).

Pasture on left bank. Animal access to river (LUGG023)

Pressure due to proximity of arable and pasture fields with minimal buffer (LUGG024)

Bank top and set back embankments (LUGG022 and LUGG024)

Embankment removal, set back or breaching

The aim of embankment creation along or adjacent to river bank tops is to increase the amount of water that can be contained in the channel before the floodplain is inundated. This is now thought to have drawback in terms of the amount of sedimentation which remains in-channel and the degree of damage done to banks and floodplains if (when) the defences are breached.

The approach of removing, setting back or breaching embankments can creating flood storage and attenuation zones for rivers which are prone to winter (wet weather) spate events, as is the Lugg.

Embankment at Lugg024

Reach Lugg024 is a potential candidate reach for embankment breaching. Form the aerial photograph (left) there are areas of woodland and farmland which could potentially be transformed into flood storage zones / wet woodlands. This approach in tandem with embankment breaches, could serve to lessen the effect of major state events by using the storage area as flood attenuation measures. Potential locations for embankment breaching were thought to be around the following locations: (Grid refs: SO52894 44887 & SO53448 43429). Landowner agreement would be required along with a detailed flood risk assessment.


Possible location for Embankment breaching




Minimise animal access to river and reinstate riparian cover. Reduce livestock densities and grazing frequency to enable establishment of the riparian zone Exclude stock from fields adjacent to the river during the winter months or periods of prolonged wet weather especially whilst riparian vegetation Provide drinking water troughs in fields adjacent to the river to reduce the frequency of livestock descending banks to access the river for drinking. Widen buffer strip and plant variety of trees, bushes & tall herbs. Introduce buffer strips near major outfall structures to minimise fine sediment input into the river.

Provides sediment control, habitat creation and water temperature regulation.

Landowner consultation is required because of potential loss of agricultural land along bank top, with financial implications.

River Lugg: Reaches LUGG025 – LUGG026 Shelwick to Mordiford


Restoration measures: 1. Riparian buffer zone widening/ creation and woodland regeneration/ creation 3. Land management measures



WFD water body:

GB10905503670



Context:

Set back embankments on both banks. Uniform channel, some depositional features (LUGG025).

Lugg Bridge to Mordiford. Good planform and geomorphologically active. Naturally eroding banks with depositional features. Vertical banks reducing floodplain connectivity in low flows. Some sections have set back embankments (LUGG026)

Pressures:

Risk of point and diffuse sediment loading due to proximity of arable and pasture fields with minimal riparian buffer strips

Sediment inputs from field drains

Poor riparian structure results in increased bank erosion, increased sediment input to the channel and poor riparian and marginal channel habitats. Livestock also cause more damage to banks and increase in sediment input to channel where there is poor riparian vegetation structure. The lack of channel shading will also result in high stream water temperatures.



Riparian buffer zone widening potential

Possible woodland creation


6 Implementing the Plan

6.1 Working with Landowners and Land Managers

To restore the Lower River Lugg SSSIs and SAC to favourable condition the Environment Agency and Natural England recognise the need for effective and positive engagement with land owners and land managers in the Lugg catchment. Delivering the restoration plans will involve working in partnership with a range of individuals and organisations.

6.2 Prioritisation and Cost

The Lugg is considered to have a relatively natural morphology – especially in its upper reaches (units 3 and 4 of the SSSIs), and one that supports Good Ecological Status. A review of the existing data combined with spot check visits during January/February 2014 and October 2014 revealed that although there are a number of pressures on the river there are solutions available to cope with the long term predictions of land-use change in the catchment. Like most catchments in Britain the riparian zone vegetation could be improved through tree planting and creation of a riparian scrub. Surface runoff containing fine sediment from tilled fields was noted, with lack of adequate buffer strips in some areas. The extent and severity of livestock poaching was limited although present, and the need to prevent access has been marked where required. Best land use practices should be encouraged catchment-wide to arrive at a minimised top-soil loss to the river with its inherent benefits to both ecology and farming alike, in terms of increased habitat potential and increased efficiency of agricultural productivity. Table 6.1 below outline some broad costings for the proposed actions outlined in this report.

Table 6.1 Cost for restoration measures

Action Min

cost

Max

cost Assumptions Broad cost

Remove

embankment

£2/m £138/m Cost based on length

of embankment.

Disposal costs of

material not included

N/A

Fill gaps in

riparian

vegetation by

planting

£7/m £10/m Assume 50% of

channel length

(between both banks).

Based on 12m

riparian width and

£400/ hectare

(£345/ hectare)

Improve

riparian corridor

(including tree

planting)


channel length

(divided between both

banks).

Based on 12m

riparian width

£400/ hectare

(£379.80/

hectare)

Bioengineering

(Leominster)

£190/m £190/m Assume 200m

channel length

£95,000


Action Min

cost

Max

cost Assumptions Broad cost

(Leominster) and

300m for reach 016

Wet-woodland

creation


channel length –

sporadic areas

£400/ hectare

(£345/ hectare)

6.3 Shaping the Actions

The level of detail to which the restoration options are described in this report reflects a strategic focus. To accurately cost and implement the restoration actions, further work will be required to undertake feasibility studies and then develop outline and detailed designs for each of the restoration actions included in the plans. The degree of feasibility assessment and design work required will depend upon the details of each restoration action and the outcomes of further consultation. An indication of the potential scale of this work is provided in Table 6.2. Both stages of this further work would need to be undertaken in co-operation with land owners who will play an important role in shaping the detail of future restoration work. Co-operation and engagement will not end with the implementation of restoration measures. The Environment Agency and Natural England will continue to work proactively with land owners to ensure the long terms success and sustainability of the restoration measures. This will include monitoring the restored areas and where necessary, undertaking adaptive management. Management of the river and its surroundings is an ongoing and long term process, with an emphasis on maximising the habitat value of the river environment. As mentioned previously, the management and control of invasive non-native species needs to be an integral component of any restoration project. Examples of the types of management that might be necessary include:

Managing woody debris within the channel in line with best practice and ensuring any woody debris does not compromises flood risk or navigation

Managing living trees through coppicing or pollarding to maintain healthy trees and managing the supply of woody material and the degree of shading

Where fences are required, keeping fences in a good state of repair to exclude farm animals from poaching river banks, and managing the riparian vegetation within the fence line

Rarely but occasionally removing blockages, caused by a localised build-up of debris (including wood or rubbish), from the river channel.

6.4 An Opportunity

Floodplain landowners and managers are currently faced with a range of challenges including:

Crop damage and/or soil loss associated due to flood events (which are natural, but due to climatic change likely to increase in frequency and magnitude in the future)

Managing nutrient runoff in accordance with the catchment diffuse water pollution plan

Maintaining land drainage in areas where the river is re-adjusting following the cessation of land drainage maintenance work


Limits on water availability for abstraction, especially during the summer (which is likely to increase in frequency and severity due to climatic change).

The Statutory Bodies recognise these pressures and want to work with farmers to help them deal with these issues whilst protecting the internationally important wildlife within the river. This Management Report offers a means by which farmers may be supported to meet the challenges of farming the floodplain. It is designed to be a strategic, high level guide and will assist in the targeting and uptake of agri-environmental schemes and provide an opportunity for farmers to seek financial assistance to adapt their practices. For example, financial support may be given to farmers to change land management practices where land is subject to repeated flood impacts (crop damage or soil loss) and/or land drainage issues. Similarly the restoration plans may be used as means of supporting farmers who wish to apply for grants or other funding streams, to fund adaptive floodplain land management e.g. woodland planting may be funded through grant schemes.

Table 6-2 Summary of potential further work required to develop designs to accurately cost and implement each option

Restoration Measure

Action Feasibility Assessment Design

Requirements

Rip

aria

n z

one m

ana

ge

me

nt

Improve riparian zone.

Determine the actual extent (e.g. width or length) of improvements required Determine whether it will be necessary to undertake planting or just allow natural colonisation and succession to occur through appropriate management Evaluate the need for alternative land management arrangement (e.g. fencing, crossing points and livestock watering arrangements).

Produce a plan of the proposed improvements from which the actual extent of the works may be derived, enabling a detailed cost to be derived.

Assis

ted n

atu

ral re

covery

Remove bank protection (along resectioned banks).

Consider factors such as such as: ecological constraints, ground conditions, access to the site and potential means of disposing of spoil. The importance of these factors is likely to vary.

Produce a specification for the removal of the bank protection, including drawings illustrating how the work should be undertaken and how the site should look on completion.

Reprofile resectioned banks – where no natural recovery exists.

Breach or remove embankment.


Sig

nific

ant

ch

an

ne

l w

ork

s

Reprofile river banks which have been historically resectioned.

Determine the actual extent of realignment required, and whether small sections along the longer stretch of resectioning can achieve the same benefits as reprofiling the whole section. Undertake flood risk analysis to ensure no adverse flood risk on urban areas. Consider factors such as ecological constraints, archaeological features, ground conditions, access to the site and potential means of disposing spoil. Consider the landscape and cultural aspects of the work, to maximise benefits. Undertake feasibility studies for weir removal or alteration to overcome the barriers the weir presents. A flood risk assessment is likely to be required for modification or removal of the structures.

Produce a specification for the reprofiling of bank with any bank protection removal, including drawings illustrating how the work should be undertaken and how the site should look on completion. Look to combine reprofiling with removal of bank protection and riparian zone improvement, to potentially create wetlands, wet meadows or wet woodland. Similarly look to combine embankment modifications with riparian zone improvements

Breach or remove embankments (larger earth works)

Install bioengineering to increase habitat diversity within modified reaches

Weir removal, fish pass installation or weir bypass channel

6.5 Delivery Mechanisms, Guidance and Sources of Funding

Whole river restoration plans are based on multi-partner working, time horizons suited to the nature and scale of each site’s problems and solutions (typically over 20 to 30 years), a negotiated settlement to any disagreements, and a best endeavours approach to implementation. Funds need to be secured to maintain best endeavours over time, including rolling bids to obvious budgets such as Environment Agency’s Flood and Coastal Risk Management (FCRM) capital works, European Funds, and Environmental Stewardship, along with opportunistic bids to a range of other funding sources including European programmes. Similar work from organisations, including ‘third sector’ partners such as the Rivers Trusts, has a vital part to play. Delivering the restoration vision will involve working in partnership with a range of individuals and organisations including:

Angling Associations

The Wye and Usk Foundation

Water companies (Welsh Water (Dŵr Cymru) and Severn Trent Water)

National Farmers Union

Country Land and Business Association

Forestry Commission


The Wildlife Trusts. All stakeholder contributions that may help to deliver this plan will be welcomed. 6.5.1 Water Framework Directive Improvement Fund

In 2011 the Government in England announced a £110m fund to improve the health of over 880 lakes, streams and other water bodies, whilst also helping to boost local involvement in caring for blue spaces. £92 million will be provided over the next four years to remove non-native invasive weeds and animals, clear up pollution, and remove redundant dams, weirs, and other man-made structures so that wildlife may thrive in water catchments across England. An additional £18 million was allocated during 2011 to provide help to farmers to install measures such as buffer strips and fences to protect watercourses and other actions to prevent agricultural pollution, under the Catchment Sensitive Farming programme. Alternative funding streams will need to be identified to take forward WFD actions and mitigation measures for delivering the WFD objectives. Funding for WFD projects may be available under the New Countryside Stewardship Scheme, see Section 6.5.4. 6.5.2 European Funding

The Innovation and Environment Regions of Europe Sharing Solutions (Interreg) are co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). It includes monies for water management, including:

Improving quality of water supply and treatment, including co-operation in the field of water management

Supporting integrated, sustainable and participatory approaches to management of inland and marine waters, including waterway infrastructure

Adapting to climate change effects related to water management. The LIFE+ programme is the EU’s funding mechanism for the environmental improvement initiatives. LIFE projects support a wide range of water-related issues, such as urban water management, industrial wastewater treatment, river basin monitoring and improving groundwater quality. LIFE has co-financed over 3000 projects across the EU, equating to approximately €2.2bn to the protection of the environment. To date the LIFE programme has had four phases. The next funding period for the LIFE programme is 2014-2020 with a budget of €3.4 billion in current prices. The LIFE 2014-2020 Regulation holds focus on the Environment and Climate Action sub-programmes of the overall LIFE programme. There are three priority areas within the ‘Environment’ arm of the new programme: environmental and resource efficiency; nature and biodiversity; and environmental governance and information. Climate change adaptation, mitigation, governance and information are covered by the ‘Climate Action’ branch. Thematic priorities have been identified within the LIFE sub-programmes, of which nature, water and biodiversity are identified as among the priorities. Best practice, innovation and demonstration projects, including dissemination/ information projects are also identified as being among the priority projects.


The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) provides grants for the development of a fisheries sector that is sustainable, profitable, well managed and internationally competitive. 6.5.3 Environmental Stewardship Schemes

The Environmental Stewardship schemes have historically been an appropriate source of funding for this type of work, and were particularly appropriate to measures aimed at improving the riparian zone and giving the river more space by defining such land as buffer strips. Improvements to the riparian zone may also provide improved soil conservation, especially in arable areas. Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform means that Environmental Stewardship schemes in England are changing and the current Rural Development Programme for England ended in December 2013. The new CAP proposal is for a New Countryside Stewardship Scheme, see Section 6.5.4. 6.5.4 New Countryside Stewardship Scheme

The Countryside stewardship is a new scheme for the next Rural Development Programme for 2014 – 2020 and is likely to be open from January 2015. The Countryside Stewardship scheme is expected to replace the Environmental Stewardship scheme and the English Woodland Grant Scheme with a single new scheme. Countryside Stewardship will be open for applications from farmers, foresters and other land managers. Payments are likely to be awarded through a multi-criteria analysis of potential policy objectives designed to assist the prioritisation of applications. Whilst the priorities are not currently formally agreed, the working assumptions for the Countryside Stewardship priorities are likely to include:

Meeting Biodiversity 2020 ambitions and the requirements of the Habitats, Species and Birds Directives.

Raising the priority of soil and water agendas, including the WFD.

Delivery optimises the use of synergies with other priorities, such as woodland creation, soil improvements and air quality.

Climate change resilience will be an over-arching objective. Further information is available at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/farming/funding/developments.aspx 6.5.5 Glastir

In Wales, Glastir has replaced the existing agri-environment schemes. It commenced in January 2013 and will remain valid for the next few years. It pays for the delivery of specific environmental goods and services aimed at:

Combating climate change.

Improving water management.

Maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. It is designed to deliver measurable outcomes at both a farm and landscape level in a cost effective way and consists of the following five elements:


Glastir Entry (previously called All-Wales Element (AWE)) - a whole farm land management scheme open to application from all farmers and land managers throughout Wales.

Glastir Advanced (previously called Targeted Element (TE)) - a part farm scheme which runs alongside AWE. It is intended to deliver significant improvements to the environmental status of a range of habitats, species, soils and water. This may require changes to current agricultural practices. Financial support from the Welsh Government is targeted at locations where action will lead to the required result.

Glastir Commons (previously called Common Land Element) - designed to provide support for the delivery of environmental benefits on common land.

Agricultural Carbon Reduction and Efficiency Scheme (ACRES). A capital grant scheme available to farmers and land managers who hold an AWE contract. It is aimed at improving business and resource efficiency, and reducing carbon emissions of agricultural and horticultural holdings

Glastir Woodlands (previously called Woodland Element) - designed to support land managers who wish to create new woodland and/or manage existing woodlands (see Glastir Woodlands Creation Scheme below).

Glastir is funded by the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-2013. This is financed by the Welsh Government and the European Union. 6.5.6 Catchment Sensitive Farming

In England Catchment Sensitive Farming is a partnership between the Environment Agency and Natural England, funded by Defra and the EU Rural Development Programme. The initiative delivers practical solutions to reduce diffuse pollution from agricultural land to protect water bodies and habitats. (See also Section 6.5.4 Countryside Stewardship.) 6.5.7 Nutrient Management Plan

A Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) has been produced for the River Wye SAC (of which the Lugg is part of). NMPs identify the main sources of nutrients in the catchment and set out the measures to manage the sources of nutrients to an appropriate level. In the case of the River Wye SAC, the NMP is specifically focused on phosphorous. The recommended measures to reduce levels of phosphorous in the River Wye, include the establishment of riparian buffer strips, cultivate compacted tilled soils, establish artificial wetlands, fence off rivers and streams from livestock, loosen compacted soil layers in grassland fields and farm track management. 6.5.8 Farming Advice Service

A new Farming Advice Service has been set up by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which offers free expert advice to farmers to help understanding of the requirements of Cross Compliance, Greening (the Basic Payments Scheme) and the European Directives on both water protection and sustainable pesticide use. This service provides events including workshops, farm walks, drop-in clinics and newsletters. Whilst funding is not available, this advice could be used to assist the shaping of sustainable restoration management plans that also deliver wider environmental benefits.


6.5.9 Forestry Commission English Woodland Grant Scheme

The planting of riparian woodland may be supported by the English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) administered by the Forestry Commission. This stream of funding has been designed to develop the co-ordinated delivery of public benefits from England’s woodlands. Grants are available to improve the stewardship of existing woodland and to promote and enable the creation of new woodland. This scheme is likely to be merged into the Countryside Stewardship scheme which will be launched with the new Rural Development Programme for 2014 – 2020. 6.5.10 Wye and Usk Foundation

The Wye and Usk Foundation (WUF) has grants available to undertake work in the main-stem Wye and its tributaries. The foundation is the key partner within the Lugg catchment under the catchment based approach (CaBa) initiative, which aims at acting as a platform for informing parties engaged in catchment management and help to avoid duplication of effort. Each year, the Wye and Usk Foundation receive grants to undertake invasive species control. This is a funding mechanism that could be accessed as part of a partnership approach to the restoration plans. Further information on the Wye and Usk Foundation is available at: http://www.wyeuskfoundation.org/ 6.5.11 Lugg Living Landscape Project

Herefordshire Wildlife Trust is developing a major multi-purpose delivery and engagement project focusing on the River Lugg between Hereford and Leominster. The objective of the project will be re-naturalisation of the River Lugg Floodplain and will include:

Re-instatement of natural habitats in the immediate floodplain, buffering the river and allowing more natural geomorphological evolution of the river channel

Restoration of floodplain grassland and establishment of reedbeds

Restoration of gravel pits within and adjacent to the floodplain to provide conservation benefits alongside recreational activities

Appropriate management of bankside trees and woodland, including the retention of wet deadwood habitats

Specific projects to support key species. This project would allow key partners such as the Agency and Natural England to meet Habitats Directive and WFD requirements, deliver actions set out in this plan, potentially alleviate flooding, improve water quality thereby meeting Diffuse Water Pollution Plan and Nutrient Management Plan objectives. There is also scope for the project to achieve a wider range of benefits and link into economic development, green infrastructure and health and wellbeing. 6.5.12 Leominster Flood Alleviation Scheme

The current flood defences are being reviewed in the light of modelling work that was carried out in 2013 and a range of options are being considered to improve the


standard of flood protection for the town. Solutions will be sought that integrate engineering and environmental requirements and where feasible deliver actions that support delivery of this Restoration Plan.


7 References

Atkins (2007) River Wye Navigation Phase 2 Health and Safety. Report to the Environment Agency. Brookes, A (1983) Downstream morphological and ecological effects of river channelization schemes. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Southampton Burke, N (2011) Physical controls on salmon spawning habitat quality and embryo fitness: An integrated analysis, PhD thesis, University of Southampton Defra (2005) Making space for water, Taking forward a new Government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England, March 2005 Dyson (2008) Countryside Council for Wales Core Management Plan (including conservation objectives) for River Wye Special Area of Conservation Environment Agency (2012) All priority weirs on the River Lugg (Position as at Dec 2011). Environment Agency (2009) Severn River Basin Management Plan, Annex B http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/124941.aspx Environment Agency/ Countryside council for Wales / English Nature (2006) River Lugg Conservation Strategy Halcrow (2012) Development of an Ecologically Based Vision for the River Wye SSSIs (version 2, River Wye Restoration Vision) Harvey J.P. and Cowx I.G. (2003) Monitoring the River, Brook and Sea Lamprey, Lampetra fluviatilis, L. planeri and Petromyzon marinus. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No. 5, English Nature, Peterborough Holmes, N.T.H. 1983. Typing British Ri6ers According to their Flora, Focus on Nature Conservation No. 4, Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough. Holmes, N.; Boon, P. and Rowell T (1999) Vegetation communities of British rivers: a revised classification. JNCC, Peterborough. Hyder (2010) River Lugg Restoration Project – Development of an ecologically based vision for the River Lugg SSSI. River Lugg Internal Drainage Board (2010) Biodiversity Action Plan. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2014) Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Rivers, Version January 2014 (updated form March 2005) ISSN 1743-8160 (online) Mainstone, C. (2007) Rationale for the physical restoration of the SSSI river series in England. Natural England, Peterborough. Natural England (2011) River Lugg Conservation Objectives (Consultation Draft)


Pitt, M. (2008) The Pitt Review: Learning lessons from the 2007 floods, available at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100807034701/http:/archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/pittreview/thepittreview/final_report.html RRC Manual for River Restoration Techniques, available at http://www.therrc.co.uk/rrc_manual.php [accessed on 20.02.14] Wheeldon, J., Mainstone, C. and Cathcart, R. (Natural England) (2010) Guidelines for the restoration of physical and geomorphological favourable condition on river SSSIs in England Websites Bing (2014) aerial imagery available at http://www.bing.com/maps/ [accessed on 20.03.14] Old Maps (2010) Historical maps available at http://www.old-maps.co.uk/index.html [accessed on 20.02.14] Wye and Usk Flood Management Plan http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/64223.aspx

Documents

River Lugg Restoration Plan Management Report …...restoration, which are presented here along with guidance for implementation of the plan, with respect to stakeholder involvement