1

An assessment of habitat condition of coastal and floodplain grazing marsh within agri-environmental

schemes

Philip Dutt

November 2004

2

Contents

Acknowledgements 3

Summary 4

1. Introduction 5

1.1 Background 5 1.2 Objectives 5 1.3 Scope of the project 6 1.4 Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh 6

2. Survey planning and methodology 7

2.1 Selection of fields for survey 7 2.2 Data collection 8

2.2.1 Survey form 8 2.2.2 Survey database 9

2.3 Procedure and techniques 9 2.3.1 Survey logistics 9 2.3.2 Soil profile, penetrability and water table 9 2.3.3 Surface features 10 2.3.4 Sward height and composition 10 2.3.5 Ditch vegetation 10 2.3.6 Photographic record 10 2.4 Scoring protocol 11 2.4.1 Compliance scoring method 11 2.4.2 Tolerance 13

3. Results 15

3.1 Compliance with current scheme 15

3.2 Compliance with ideal wader breeding habitat criteria 15 3.2.1 Analysis of individual environmental parameters 15

3.3 Testing of the proposed Higher Level Scheme ‘indicators of success’

19 3.3.1 Analysis of individual environmental parameters 19 3.4 The contribution of agri-environment schemes towards the Coastal and

Floodplain Grazing Marsh HAP 21

4. Discussion 22

3

5. Recommendations 26

Appendix A Record sheet 27 Appendix B HLS GR8 – Maintenance of wet grassland for

breeding waders 30

Appendix C Breeding wader habitat survey criteria 32 References 34

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1. Distribution and representation of eligible and selected fields 8

Table 2. Proposed ‘indicators of success’ for option GR8

within the proposed Higher Level Scheme 13 Table 3. Analysis of failure rates in relation to soil type

and in-field features 17 Table 4. A breakdown by ESA of field failure under

breeding wader habitat criteria 18 Table 5. Comparison of failure rates between nature reserves

and non-reserves 18

Figure 1. Compliance score data entry screen 12 Figure 2. Assessment record data entry screen 14 Figure 3. Comparison of compliance rates 15 Figure 4. Failure rate for criteria in assessment of ideal breeding

wader habitat 16 Figure 5. Number of fields failing one or more criteria for breeding

wader habitat 16 Figure 6. Relationship between agreement start year and

compliance with breeding wader habitat criteria 19 Figure 7. Failure rate for ‘indicators of success’ within the proposed

HLS GR8 option 20

4

Acknowledgements This work was funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

The project could not have been completed without the assistance of numerous staff within Defra, particularly

RDS advisers, and the landowners or managers involved. Their support and help is gratefully acknowledged.

5

Summary This report summarises the findings of a project that sought to provide further information to the reporting

process for the Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh (CFGM) Habitat Action Plan (HAP). It also aimed to

provide guidance for the proposed Higher Level Scheme within the new Environmental Stewardship. The

objectives were as follows:

To assess the habitat condition of a proportion of grazing marsh currently within agri-environment schemes.

To field-test the proposed HLS ‘indicators of success’ for relevant wet grassland options.

To estimate the area of grazing marsh in agri-environment schemes that currently contributes to the Coastal

and Floodplain Grazing Marsh HAP.

A total of 149 fields from 45 agreements were assessed between late April and late June 2004. Although 86%

of fields complied with the agri-environmental scheme prescriptions (combined ESA and Countryside

Stewardship data), only 35% complied with a set of ideal breeding wader habitat criteria. A total of 60% of the

applicable fields or 4,687 hectares nationally were judged to be of sufficient quality to contribute towards the

HAP targets for Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh.

This study suggests that a wide variability of habitat condition exists within the schemes and that the current

prescriptions are too generalised to achieve ideal conditions for the desired breeding wader habitat.

Unsatisfactory water level and sward condition were found to be the major cause of failure. It was also

concluded that the targeting of fields for entry to the scheme could be improved.

The following recommendations are made:

The initial selection of sites entered into agri-environment schemes needs to be more critically assessed or

at least targeted for the desired result.

There is a need for detailed supporting guidance for the new Environmental Stewardship Scheme.

Follow-up visits are essential to maintain the quality of the managed land.

A repeat survey of habitat quality should be considered after 3-5 years of the new scheme.

6

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The UK Habitat Action Plan (HAP) for Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh (CFGM) sets ambitious targets

for the maintenance, restoration and creation of habitat. Large areas of grassland that may contribute towards

these targets are being restored and created through agri-environment schemes. These schemes are also

supporting the maintenance of existing areas of good quality grazing marsh across the country.

Breeding waders are a key feature of wet grazing marsh. The results of the Breeding Waders of Wet Meadows

Survey (Wilson et al 2005) showed that there had been a large decline in breeding waders using grazing marsh

between the surveys of 1982 and 2002 in England and Wales. In a countryside where there is considerable

investment being put into grazing marsh maintenance, restoration and creation via agri-environmental schemes,

the expectation should be for the decline in breeding waders to gradually be reversed as this new habitat

becomes suitable for waders. However, during the CFGM HAP reporting process it became apparent that the

habitat quality of grazing marsh is not currently assessed nor reported as part of the HAP and it is suggested

that there is a wide variation in the quality of new, restored and maintained grazing marsh.

The higher level (HLS) within the new agri-environment scheme (Environmental Stewardship) to begin in 2005

will be monitored by a set of ‘indicators of success’ determined for each option. For wet grasslands, these

include targets for sward structure and water levels, providing some data on habitat quality (Appendix B).

1.2 Objectives

This project seeks to provide further information to the CFGM HAP reporting process and to provide guidance

for the proposed HLS. The objectives were as follows.

1. To assess the condition of a proportion of grazing marsh currently within appropriate ESA and Countryside

Stewardship agri-environment schemes against

a. the management prescription of the existing scheme, and

b. a set of ideal environmental parameters for breeding wader habitat.

2. To field-test the proposed HLS ‘indicators of success’ for relevant wet grassland for breeding waders option

by comparing them with the above.

3. To estimate the area of grazing marsh in agri-environment schemes that currently contributes to the Coastal

and Floodplain Grazing Marsh HAP.

4. To provide recommendations where appropriate.

1.3 Scope of the project

The scope of the project was as follows:

to assess a selection of fields from all the Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) schemes and Countryside

Stewardship Scheme (CS) sites, where appropriate conditions for grazing marsh were the objective;

to assess fields from selected agreements using a stratified sampling methodology, to give a final sample set

that reflects the distribution of fields across geographical, tier level and soil type ranges, and;

to assess fields within the breeding period for waders, a time when habitat conditions are critical.

7

1.4 Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh

The following habitat definition and status is taken from the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) for

CFGM:

“Grazing marsh is defined as periodically inundated pasture, or meadow with ditches which maintain the water

levels, containing standing brackish or fresh water. The ditches are especially rich in plants and invertebrates.

Almost all areas are grazed and some are cut for hay or silage. Sites may contain seasonal water-filled hollows

and permanent ponds with emergent swamp communities, but not extensive areas of tall fen species like reeds;

although they may abut with fen and reedswamp communities.

The exact extent of grazing marsh in the UK is not known but it is possible that there may be a total of 300,000

ha. England holds the largest proportion with an estimate in 1994 of 200,000 ha. However, only a small

proportion of this grassland is semi-natural supporting a high diversity of native plant species (5,000 ha in

England, an estimated 10,000 ha in the UK).

Grazing marshes are particularly important for the number of breeding waders such as Snipe Gallinago

gallinago, Lapwing Vanellus vanellus and Curlew Numenius arquata they support. Internationally important

populations of wintering wildfowl also occur including Bewick’s Swan Cygnus bewickii and Whooper Swans

Cygnus Cygnus”

Targets for CFGM within the UK BAP are as follows:

Maintain the existing habitat extent (300,000ha).

Maintain the quality of existing habitat.

Rehabilitate 10,000 ha of grazing marsh habitat which has become too dry, or is intensively managed,

by the year 2000. This would comprise 5,000 ha already targeted in ESAs, with an additional 5,000 ha.

Begin creating 2,500 ha of grazing marsh from arable land in targeted areas, in addition to that which

will be achieved by existing ESA schemes, with the aim of completing as much as possible by the year

2000.

2 Survey planning and methodology

2.1 Selection of fields for survey

Information about individual agri-environmental agreements was provided by DEFRA’s central Geographic

Information Unit at Leeds in the form of an Excel spreadsheet. An initial listing of fields by scheme and

agreement number was made by selecting all those agreements that included tiers or supplements that could

potentially contribute to the CFGM HAP targets. These were higher tier ESA and CS agreements with raised

water levels.

The ESA agreements included:

o extensive or permanent grassland,

o river valley grassland,

o wet grassland,

o marshland,

o arable reversion to grassland.

The CS agreements with raised water included

o lowland pasture

o lowland hay meadow.

The selected fields were listed with attributes such as

supplements applied such as

o breeding wader

o raised water level

8

o wildfowl pasture

o grazing marsh

start year of agreement

IACS map reference

landscape character or topography e.g. enclosed valleys, altitude

tenure.

The initial source list from DEFRA was filtered to exclude fields that would not be expected to support lowland

waders based on the following attributes:

enclosed river valleys on the grounds that the fields would have too much cover in the field boundaries

fields at an altitude above 200m

agreements in place for less than 2 years i.e start year 2003.

This gave a list of fields eligible for inclusion within the assessment as shown, by scheme, in Table 1. Each

scheme’s eligible fields are also shown as a percentage of the total by the number of fields and by field area.

This shows that the Broads ESA, Essex ESA, Somerset ESA and CS dominate, each with around 20% of the

total number of fields. Essex appears to have slightly larger fields on average and increases its representation

when considered by field area.

To achieve the final selection, agreements were chosen at random from all the ESA schemes and CS

agreements in similar proportions to the representation of each scheme to the total. The CS schemes were

chosen to represent the geographic spread of the agreements. A final list of 100 candidate agreements for

survey was drawn up. Letters were sent to agreement holders on the list to advise them of their selection for

survey. Agreement holders were then contacted by phone to arrange a survey visit and visits undertaken until

the end of the critical spring period.

The breakdown of fields eventually sampled, and their representation of the eligible fields from the initial

source listing, is shown in Table 1. The Countryside Stewardship Scheme agreements were in Cumbria,

Gloucestershire, Yorkshire, Sussex, Staffordshire and Suffolk. The sample is a reasonable match to the

balance of eligible fields, with the possible exception of North Kent being slightly better represented. A total of

149 fields from 45 agreements were finally visited. The sample was 7% of the total of eligible field and 8% of

the total eligible area.

Table 1. Distribution and representation of eligible and selected fields

Scheme Total

fields

Eligible

fields

Area of

eligible

fields (ha)

% of

total by

field

% of

total by

area

No of

selected

agreements

& (No of

fields)

% of

selected

total by

field

% of

selected

total by

area

Avon 154 78 302 4 4 1 (2) 1 2

Broads 1005 436 1374 21 18 8 (24) 16 15

Essex 747 492 2265 23 29 10 (36) 24 23

North Kent 338 79 458 4 6 4 (22) 14 21

Somerset 616 508 1401 24 18 8 (26) 17 12

Suffolk 650 62 158 3 2 2 (8) 5 4

Test 49 30 128 1 1 2 (4) 3 2

Upper Thames 78 38 156 2 2 2 (3) 2 2

Countryside

Stewardship

1291 396 1570 19 20 8 (24) 16 19

Totals 2119 7812 45 (149)

2.2 Data collection

2.2.1 Survey form

9

The survey form was based on one previously developed by the RSPB in order to undertake rapid assessments

of lowland wet grassland breeding wader habitat on its own reserves. These assessments were designed to be

undertaken during the wader breeding season when the habitat needs to be in good condition.

The RSPB survey form was made more applicable to the wider value of grazing marsh (see section 1.4) by

including a section on ditch habitat quality, based on English Nature’s criteria for favourable status of such

habitats. The revised survey form used for this project is shown in Appendix A. The form includes sections for

gathering information about the site (Part A), management (Part B) and the habitat condition (Part C).

2.2.2 Survey database

A database was built in ACCESS 2000 with data entry screens based on the layout of the survey form. Tables

were structured to reflect the hierarchy of schemes, sites, agreements and fields. The values of the assessment

record were held in one table for ease of export to any other database system.

2.3 Procedure and techniques

2.3.1 Survey logistics

The aim was to visit 2 sites per day and assess 2-5 fields per site. The visits were timed for the period April to

June, the critical period for ideal hydrological and sward conditions for breeding waders and, in consequence,

for many of the requirements of the current schemes.

The perimeter of each field was walked to confirm the identity of the field from the agreement map and tier

description, and to establish the layout of boundary features such as drains, ditches and hedges. If no map was

available, a sketch map was drawn to reconcile with a map at a later date.

As maps were not always available, a GPS reading was taken whenever weather permitted. The instrument

used was a Magellan Meridian Marine, which is capable of resolution to +/- ten metres.

2.3.2 Soil profile, penetrability and water table

A location for examining and recording the soil profile and water table was determined in order to avoid the

disturbed soil adjacent to ditches and to avoid the areas where the water table was most influenced by the ditch.

This was generally the lowest point of the field but at least 20 m from a ditch or water body.

Soil profiles were examined to record the soil type using a combination Eijkelaamp auger, with 15 cm cores

taken down to 100cm. Notes were taken of any soil colouring or conspicuous features in the profile. These

field observations were compared with the soil characteristics deduced from 1:250,000 maps of the Soil Survey

of England and Wales published in 1983.

The depth of the water table was measured from the auger holes. The extent of surface flooding (percentage

cover) was estimated from the bodies of sheet water on the field but did not include water in surface features.

The sheet flooding was categorised by depth ranges of less than 10cm, 10-20cm and greater than 30 cm.

The ‘nail test’ is one of the proposed HLS ‘indicators of success’ within the relevant wet grassland options. It

measures soil wetness (penetrability) by the ease with which a ‘6 inch’ (15 cm) nail could be pushed in at

various points in the field. The electric fencing stake used for the sward stick had a 15 cm spike which could be

used to probe the soil without breaking the walking pace too much. The nail and the stake were compared in the

same soil and it was determined that the stake would bend in soil that was too hard to push in the nail with ease.

10

At least 10 measurements of soil penetration per field were taken by using the spike on the end of the sward

stick.

2.3.3 Surface features

The presence or absence of surface features within the field was noted. Where relevant, for example with

channels and rills, the wetness of the feature was recorded. An estimation of the extent (percentage cover) of

each feature was also noted, although this proved difficult in practice, particularly with rills in old saltmarsh

landscapes. The following features were noted.

Rills, channels, foot-drains, gutters and other undulations

Ponds and wader ‘scrapes’

Molehills and anthills

2.3.4 Sward height and composition

Sward height and composition were assessed continuously by walking diagonal transects. A ‘sward stick’,

formed from an electric fencing stake, was used for measuring sward height, and assessing soil penetration as

discussed above. The stake was marked to enable sward height, ditch water levels and water table depths to be

recorded. The percentage cover of sward was measured in a number of height ranges; bare ground, less than

5cm, 5-15cm, 15-30cm and greater than 30 cm. To ensure a standard measurement of sward height and to

minimise the effect of flowering spikes, ‘a sward height disc’ was used. This was allowed to fall freely down

the measuring stick and the height recorded where it came to rest on the sward. The disc was 12 cm wide and

weighed 21 grams. A minimum of ten measurements was taken.

The sward composition was recorded by percentage cover. The cover of fine grasses, sward forming sedges,

tussocks of grass or juncus species, and ruderal species such as thistles, dock and ragwort, were all noted.

2.3.5 Ditch vegetation

Data was collected on the quality of the ditch habitats by including elements of English Nature’s favourable

status monitoring on the recording form. Ditches were walked to gauge their variability and a minimum of one

50-metre stretch was assessed that was representative of the ditches of the whole field. Provided a subsequent

50 metres was not significantly different, the initial assessment was used. The length of ditch assessed was

recorded, along with proportions of open water, emergent aquatic vegetation, duckweed (lemna spp) and algae.

The number of aquatic plant species per 50m stretch, both submerged and emergent, was recorded. Finally,

ditch water levels relative to field level were also recorded.

2.3.6 Photographic record

Photographs were taken to illustrate key observations or features of the field and were linked to the database.

2.4 Scoring protocol

2.4.1 Compliance scoring method

Fields were assessed for compliance against the management prescriptions of the existing agri-environment

scheme and against a set of ideal environmental parameters for breeding wader habitat. The proposed HLS

‘indicators of success’ for relevant wet grassland options were also field-tested by applying a theoretical

compliance. Compliance with a set of ditch quality criteria was also assessed in order to estimate the area of

grazing marsh in agri-environment schemes that currently contributes to the Coastal and Floodplain Grazing

Marsh HAP. These are discussed in more detail below.

11

Compliance with current scheme

Fields were recorded as complying with the current agri-environment scheme if all associated prescriptions

falling within the scope of the survey were met. In the majority of cases, this related to ditch or water table

levels, or very obvious field operations such as overall spraying. Due to short-term variability of ditch water

levels in dry spells, the water level is based on the highest reading from the ditch level or water table

measurement.

Ideal breeding wader habitat compliance

The breeding wader habitat requirements were derived from ranges for environmental parameters used in

species advice leaflets produced by the RSPB, and are attached as Appendix C. The ranges were set to the

lowest minimum or highest maximum for a particular parameter from the collective requirements of Lapwing,

Redshank and Snipe. In practice, a field would have to be suitable for at least one species. However, this would

have to be interpreted within the geographical context of the site. For example a field that was unsuitable for

Lapwing because the sward was too high would be unlikely to be regarded as suitable for breeding Snipe if it

was on heavy clay soils in East Anglia (depending on water levels), but might be if it was on peat soils with a

high water table.

The compliances were scored in the relevant tick boxes in the data entry screen just above the assessment

record as shown in Figure 1. Each exception is listed on a separate line in the compliance box. Fields were

recorded as meeting the breeding wader habitat requirements provided the following boxes were ticked:

Water level. Water level measurements were based on the highest reading from the ditch level or water

table measurement. If the water table is below criterion on a clay soil type but ditch levels are high enough

to fill surface features or create sheet flooding then the water levels are scored as satisfactory.

Sward height and composition. In the sward height assessment, bare ground was not considered essential

if there was adequate sward in the less than 5cm range. In sward composition, tussocks were not considered

essential but greater than 50% tussock cover was unacceptable. The cover of ruderal plants was considered

unacceptable if higher than 10%.

Proximity of hedge / tree cover. Research has shown that Lapwings nesting within 50 metres of a hedge

or tree line have lower breeding success than those beyond 50m. Therefore, fields that are smaller than 4 ha

are not generally suitable unless they form part of a larger block of suitable fields. Breeding waders are

likely to avoid these smaller fields, probably due to an increased risk of predation. In the assessment, fields

where more than 10% of the field was within 50 metres of hedges or trees were considered unacceptable.

Power lines were not considered.

Figure 1. Compliance score data entry screen

Field-testing of HLS

Fields were tested against the ‘indicators of success’ for the ‘GR8 - Maintenance of wet grassland for breeding

waders’ option within the proposed HLS. The ‘indicators of success’ are shown in Table 2 and the full option

listed as Appendix B. This is of course a hypothetical assessment as not all fields would in practice be entered

12

for the option and the success indicators shown in grey and/or emboldened (Table 2) are flexible and to be set

by the scheme adviser in relation to the individual site. Fields were recorded as potentially meeting the

requirements of the proposed HLS if there were no 'exceptions' in the compliance box against points 1, 2, 3, 4,

5 and 7 in the ‘indicators of success’ using the guideline compliance levels (emboldened). Each exception was

listed on a separate line in the database.

Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh HAP

Finally, an estimation was made of the percentage of fields in agri-environment schemes that could contribute

to the Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh HAP. This was derived by calculating the percentage of fields

that either met the criteria for ideal breeding wader habitat, or the criteria for ditch condition.

Table 2. Proposed ‘indicators of success’ for option GR8 within the proposed Higher Level Scheme

2.4.2 Tolerance

Due to the difficulty of visual assessment and the sampling methods, a tolerance of +/- 5% of the specified

figure, or 5 cm, was applied to all measures in the assessments. In a small number of cases, fields were assessed

after the target date for a feature eg in June where requirements for ditch water levels were specified up to the

end of May. In these cases, a judgement was made as to the condition during the specified period rather than

conditions on the survey date. This judgement was made from other on-site indications and an estimation of the

likely change since the cut-off date. In borderline cases, the benefit of the doubt was always given.

Values measured in the field were entered in the tabbed section at the bottom of Part C of the data entry screen

as shown in Figure 1. The acceptable range for the parameter is shown below the relevant data fields. If the

values satisfy the range the appropriate check box is ticked. Each tabbed page is divided into 2 sections. The

check boxes and ranges above the hairline apply to the breeding wader habitat requirements. Those below apply

to the proposed HLS scheme.

1. In-field scrub cover should be zero/less than 5% and scrub cover over the ditches should be zero/less than 10%.

2. On fields smaller than 10ha, boundary hedges should be less than 2 metres high.

3. 10% to 80% of the field should have wet soil (such that a 6-inch nail can be pushed into the ground with ease) between 1 April and 30 June.

4. 5% to 25% of the field should have standing water between 1 Mar and 31 May (in hollows, scrapes, ditch edges, foot drains etc.).

5. The cover of tussocks of grass, rush or sedge (year-round) should be between 5 and 40%. (A tussock is a single plant or a clump of plants at least 15cm wide, that is more than 5cm taller than the surrounding vegetation.)

6. Between 5 and 75% of the field should have standing water, to a maximum depth of 25cm, between 1 November and 28 February (in so far as weather conditions permit).

7. The internal ditch area should consist of 10-75% open water (with or without submerged or floating aquatic plants) and 10-75% emergent plants such as reed or reedmace.

8. The target wader species (xxxxx) should be present between 1 March and 30 June, with their behaviour in May/June indicating the presence of young (for lapwing and oystercatcher efforts should be made to see fledged young, but without causing disturbance).

9. Where the site is an SSSI, the habitats meet, or are recovering towards, the favourable condition targets; in particular the diversity and/or abundance of characteristic species in guidance from EN.

13

Figure 2. Assessment record data entry screen

Breeding Wader Habitat range HLS range

14

3 Results

A total of 149 fields from 45 agreements were assessed. Fields were surveyed between late April and late June.

The weather during this period was unusually dry so water levels were probably lower than they would be on a

five-year average.

3.1 Compliance with current scheme

A total of 128 fields (86%) complied with the prescriptions of the current scheme as far as could be ascertained

(Figure 3). In the majority of cases, this involved checking ditch water levels were in compliance. In a few

cases, it involved the achievement of objectives such as good establishment of grass in an arable reversion.

Many of the prescriptions covered aspects of management which couldn’t easily be checked during the course

of the survey visit, for example, livestock units per hectare or fertiliser rate so it was assumed that these fields

complied unless there were good reasons, such as field evidence, for assuming otherwise.

Twenty-one fields (14%) did not satisfy the prescriptions laid down in the existing management prescriptions.

Of these 21 fields, 19 had inadequate water levels and two were arable reversions where the sward had failed to

establish.

Figure 3. Comparison of compliance rates

86%

35% 34%

9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Current Prescription Ideal wader habitat Proposed HLS (4

criteria)

Proposed HLS (6

criteria)

3.2 Compliance with ideal breeding wader habitat criteria

Of the 149 fields surveyed, 52 (35%) complied with the ideal breeding wader habitat criteria (see Figure 3).

The reasons for failure are analysed below.

3.2.1 Analysis of individual environmental parameters

A total of 97 fields did not meet the ideal breeding wader habitat condition. The percentages of fields failing to

meet the criteria for sward height and composition, water levels and percentage proximity of hedges or trees in

a boundary are shown in Figure 4. These are discussed further below. Figure 4 shows that unsatisfactory sward

condition (either height or composition) and water levels were the main causes of compliance failure.

15

Figure 4. Failure rate for criteria in assessment of ideal breeding wader

habitat

42%

25%

29%

40%

26%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Sward condition

(overall)

Sward height Sward composition Water levels Hedge/tree

proximity

Of the 97

fields failing, 43 (44%) failed on just one criterion with only 1 field failing on all the criteria. Figure 5 shows

that 75 fields (77%) could be brought into condition by correction of just one or two factors. Where fields failed

just one criterion, incorrect water levels were the cause in 21 cases (50%); 18 were too dry and 3 too wet.

Figure 5. Number of fields failing one or more criteria for breeding

wader habitat

43

32

21

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Failing 1 Failing 2 Failing 3 Failing 4

Water Levels

Incorrect water level resulted in failure in 59 fields (40%) out of the 149 assessed. Fields failed where water

tables were too low, where there was insufficient or no wet surface features or flooding, or where surface

flooding exceeded 50% of the field. Of the 59 fields failing, 95% were not wet enough and only 5% (3 fields)

were too wet. The early spring of 2004 was unusually dry, as noted above, and this may have contributed to the

failure rate of this criterion. However, only 18 fields failed on just this criterion so the overall failure rate is

unlikely to have been significantly different.

A further analysis looked at soil types, dividing fields into those with soils with a high permeability (such as

peats) from those with soils of low permeability (such as poorly structured clays). Although there was a slightly

higher failure rate on low permeability soils, both overall and on water levels, this was not significant (Table 3).

In-field water features (such as wader ‘scrapes’, foot-drains or rills) are considered beneficial for maintaining

good conditions for breeding waders. Such features (whether natural or created) were recorded in 78 (52%)

fields and with a higher rate of occurrence in those fields with low permeability soils. Analysis of just these

16

fields with in-field features revealed a lower failure rate for the water level criterion (see Table 3), supporting

the idea that such features are beneficial.

Table 3. Analysis of failure rates in relation to soil type and in-field features

All fields

N=149

High permeability

soils N=40

Low permeability

soils N=109

Overall failure rate

(all criteria)

65% 60% 67%

Failure rate for water

level criterion

40% 35% 41%

Presence of in-field

features

52% 35% 59%

Failure rate for water

level criterion (fields with

in-field features only)

26% 14% 28%

Sward height and composition

Overall sward condition (either height or composition) resulted in assessment failure in 63 fields (42%). Sward

composition was marginally the more significant factor, with failure in 43 fields (29%). Sward height resulted

in failure in 37 fields (25%), through having an excessive amount of vegetation too tall for waders or, in a

single case, where the sward had failed to establish. Only 19 fields (13%) failed on both sward height and

composition.

Of the 43 failing fields, 34 (79%) had too much ruderal vegetation (thistle, dock or ragwort), 11 (26%) had too

much rush cover, and 7 (16%) had too many grass tussocks. Some fields clearly failed on more than one

criterion.

Proximity of hedge/tree cover

A total of 39 fields (26%) were considered to have failed under this criterion. Waders are unlikely to breed in

these fields because of the potentially high risk of predation. Only 4 fields failed on just this criterion.

Variation between schemes

Table 4 shows the breakdown of field failure for each ESA scheme and for the CSS sites. The numbers are too

small to make any definitive conclusions. However, some interesting points emerge. Incorrect water regime

was the primary cause of failure in Essex and Somerset, 2 areas distinctly different in soil type and geographic

location. By contrast, North Kent (similar in soil and location to Essex) has no fails in water regime at all.

Incorrect sward was the primary cause of failure in the Broads and North Kent. The geographically spread CSS

sites had evenly spread failure rates.

Table 4. A breakdown by ESA of field failure under breeding wader habitat criteria.

Scheme No of

fields

surveyed

No of

fails

Incorrect

water

regime

Incorrect

sward

height

Incorrect

sward

composition

Hedges/trees

too close

Avon 2 2 0 0 1 1

Broads 24 13 5 4 8 5

Essex 36 31 26 14 6 11

North Kent 22 8 0 3 7 3

Somerset 26 19 15 3 5 4

Suffolk 8 1 0 1 1 1

17

Test 4 4 2 2 4 4

Upper Thames 3 3 3 3 2 3

CSS 24 16 8 7 9 7

Totals 149 97 59 37 43 39

Nature reserves

A total of 43 fields within the assessment were managed as part of a nature reserve. An analysis of the failure

rates between these and the non-reserve fields is shown in Table 5. Although failure rates on natures reserves

were lower (as might be expected), over half of the fields within reserves failed on at least one criterion.

Table 5. Comparison of failure rates between natures reserves and non-reserves.

All fields

N=149

Nature reserve

fields N= 43

Non-nature reserve

fields N=106

Overall failure rate (all

criteria)

65% 53% 70%

Failure rate for water

level criteria

40% 28% 44%

Agreement start year

Figure 6 shows the number of fields failing to meet the breeding wader habitat criteria in relation to their

agreement start year. Most of the agreements appeared to start in either 2001 or 2002, although it was not

possible to identify agreements that had been renewed. All of the earliest agreement field failed, whilst the

proportion of fields failing to meet the criteria appears to decrease with the later start years.

Figure 6. Relationship between agreement start year and compliance

with breeding wader habitat criteria

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

No. of fields

No. failing to meet

criteria

3.3 Testing of the proposed Higher Level Scheme ‘indicators of success’

Of the 149 fields assessed, only 14 (9%) complied with all 6 of the selected ‘indicators of success’ for the

proposed GR8 Maintenance of wet grassland for breeding waders (see Figure 3). Although this is a much

lower compliance than that achieved against the ideal breeding wader habitat criteria, it is also a more rigorous

test. Moreover, the soil penetration test was found to produce spurious results during the assessment (see

below).

18

With the tests for soil penetration and ditch condition removed from the assessment, 50 fields (34%) complied

with the remaining 4 criteria (water, sward composition, proximity of hedges and scrub). This is the closest

match to the assessment for ideal wader breeding habitat, and closely matches the result (50 fields to 52 fields).

3.3.1 Analysis of individual environmental parameters

A total of 135 fields fell outside the guidelines for at least one of the 6 ‘indicators of success’ (see Figure 3).

This figure fell to 99 if just the 4 ‘indicators’ most compatible with the wader habitat assessment are

considered. The percentages of fields failing to meet the criteria for water levels, soil penetrability, sward

composition, scrub, hedges and ditches are shown in Figure 7. These are discussed further below

Figure 7. Failure rate for 'indicators of success' within the

proposed HLS GR8 option

46% 48%

36%

28% 26%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Water levels Soil

penetrability

Sward

composition

Scrub Hedge Ditches

Standing water 5% to 25% of the field should have standing water between 1 Mar and 31 May (in hollows, scrapes, ditch edges, foot drains etc.). Incorrect water level resulted in failure in 68 fields (46%) out of the 149 assessed. Fields failed where water

tables were too low, where there was insufficient or no wet surface features or flooding, or where surface

flooding exceeded 25% of the field. The number of failures is higher than the equivalent test under ideal wader

habitat because of the more restrictive criterion for flooding (maximum extent of 25% rather than 50%).

Soil wetness (penetrability) 10% to 80% of the field should have wet soil (such that a 6-inch nail can be pushed into the ground with ease) between 1 April and 30 June. The soil penetration test resulted in failure in 71 fields (48%) out of the 149 assessed. Fields were passed if at

least 10% but not more than 80% of the field passed the soil penetration test. Although this figure is not

dissimilar to the water level test (as would be logical), there was in fact a considerable mis-match in individual

fields. This was due to 2 factors. The first was that many peat soils would score 100% for this test even where

water levels were unsatisfactory. The second was an adherence to the 10-80% penetration range (although

recognised that this is a guide and should be set by the adviser), with the result that a number of fields with a

suitable water level achieved 100% penetrability.

Sward composition The cover of tussocks of grass, rush or sedge (year-round) should be between 5 and 40%. (A tussock is a single plant or a clump of plants at least 15cm wide, that is more than 5cm taller than the surrounding vegetation.) The sward composition test resulted in failure in 54 fields (36%) out of the 149 assessed. This is slightly higher

than the equivalent test in the ideal wader habitat assessment because it is more restrictive with a maximum of

40% (rather than 50%) and a minimum of 5% (rather than no minimum).

19

Hedge height On fields smaller than 10ha, boundary hedges should be less than 2 metres high. Incorrect hedge height resulted in failure in 38 fields (26%) out of the 149 assessed.

Scrub cover In-field scrub cover should be zero/less than 5% and scrub cover over the ditches should be zero/less than 10%.

Excessive scrub cover resulted in failure in 41 fields (28%) out of the 149 assessed

Ditch condition The internal ditch area should consist of 10-75% open water (with or without submerged or floating aquatic plants) and 10-75% emergent plants such as reed or reedmace.

Incorrect ditch condition resulted in failure in 84 fields (56%) out of the 149 assessed.

3.4 The contribution of agri-environment schemes towards the Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh HAP

A definition of Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh is given within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. It

emphasises the importance of these habitats for breeding and wintering waterbirds, notably waders and

waterfowl. Ditches, and the flora and fauna they support, are also a key feature.

This study has assessed the quality of a random sample of fields within agri-environmental schemes against a

set of parameters that define an ideal breeding wader habitat and has looked at the quality of ditches within the

fields. Although wintering wildfowl are recognised as important, this study was unable to assess fields for this

feature.

It is considered that the following should be counted towards the HAP targets for Coastal and Floodplain

Grazing Marsh:

fields that meet the criteria for breeding wader habitat, plus

fields that meet the criteria for good ditch habitat but otherwise fail the wader criteria.

The corresponding figures for this are

35% of fields sampled

25% of fields sampled

This gives 60% as an estimation of the percentage of fields in favourable condition, based on these two criteria.

Using the total number of eligible fields derived for this study (7,812 ha - Table 1.), it can be estimated that a

minimum of 60%, or 4,687 ha, is of sufficient quality to count towards the HAP targets for Coastal and

Floodplain Grazing Marsh. Although it is recognised that other factors (such as wintering wildfowl) will

contribute to the overall quality of this habitat type, it is assumed that these two key factors will account for

most of the variability.

20

4 Discussion

Old and new schemes

It is positive to note that the vast majority (86%) of fields assessed were complying with the management

prescriptions for the relevant ESA/Countryside Stewardship Scheme. So why has the national decline in

breeding waders not yet been reversed? This study suggests that the answer lies in the variability of habitat

condition within the schemes. When comparing the current schemes with the much lower levels of compliance

with ‘ideal breeding wader habitat’ (35%) and with the ‘indicators of success’ for the GR8 - Maintenance of

wet grassland for breeding waders’ option within the proposed HLS (34%), it is evident that the current

prescriptions are too generalised to achieve ideal conditions for the desired wader habitat. The key criteria of

water level and sward condition were not achieved in a significant number of cases, and targeting of fields for

entry to the scheme may not have been as good as it could have been (see below). It has to be recognised

however, that a proportion of agreements would have been set up for features other than waders, such as

botanical importance.

However, the results indicate that the proposed HLS has the potential to be a significant step forward to

achieving the desired conditions for breeding waders. It is arguably even more rigorous than the criteria for

ideal breeding wader habitat, although this assessment was unable to employ the flexibility with which an

adviser would apply and target the new scheme to a particular field or agreement. In the closest, match for

match, assessment of the ‘indicators for success’ with ‘ideal wader habitat’, the result was almost identical.

Waders should benefit under the new scheme if it is applied appropriately.

Problems with achieving ideal wader habitat

With regard to creating ideal conditions for breeding waders, fields failed mostly on sward condition and water

levels. Incorrect sward condition accounted for more failures than water levels. This is perhaps surprising, as

sward may be seen as potentially more controllable. Many sites were under-grazed or had swards with too

much ruderal vegetation or rush. Possible reasons for this may include the following:

Inflexibility with grazing within the current schemes.

Climate change (warmer winters) and general nutrient enrichment leading to longer spring swards.

A lack of awareness of ideal conditions.

During the visits, a number of landowners complained about the early grazing restriction on some tiers and this

was borne out by the sward height often being too high. In some areas, this is compounded by active growth

during the winter such that sward height in the spring is not really affected by late or aftermath grazing in the

previous year. In this respect, the proposed HLS should be helpful, setting sward targets rather than controlling

grazing. Alternatively, landowners may not fully be aware of the sward requirements of breeding waders, a

problem that may be solved by increased training of advisers and agreement holders and additional follow-up

visits to check on progress. The schemes would benefit from additional monitoring to identify potential

problems at an early stage and to give encouragement and motivation to farmers. It is likely that a combination

of the above factors are involved, perhaps with varying emphasis in different parts of the country.

It is not easy to achieve ideal water levels every year, this is evident from the failing fields within the sample of

nature reserves in the assessment. If these sites, where conservation is the primary objective, cannot achieve it,

we cannot expect any different from other landowners. Having said that, the study did show that a number of

private landowners were creating some excellent habitat, beyond what would be reasonably expected. The

spring of 2004 was unusually dry; achieving ideal water levels would have presented difficulties in many areas.

However, it is clear that too many fields were too dry. The key problems will include the following:

Poor overall control of water within the defined area.

A lack of topographic features within the field.

A lack of knowledge of ideal water regimes and how to achieve them.

21

Water levels are not always completely within the control of agreement holders and this may present real

problems with water control. This is particularly true for the more permeable soils where there are fewer

options for prolonging field wetness through the provision of in-field surface features such as scrapes or foot-

drains. Those fields that had in-field features tended to fare better, supporting the benefit of providing such

features. There was however, no clear difference in the results between soil types.

The percentage of fields failing the assessment due to the proximity of hedge or tree cover is perhaps

surprisingly high, especially considering obvious sites, for example enclosed valleys, were screened out. This

strongly suggests that fields targeted for breeding waders need to be assessed more rigorously on entry to the

scheme.

Analysis shows that there is considerable regional variation in the results. However, this does not seem to be

related to soil type or to geographical location. Factors that may contribute to regional differences include the

contribution and experience of individual advisers. Further analysis showed that agreements with later start

years were more likely to comply with the ideal breeding wader habitat. This would appear to be the reverse of

what might be expected. Although it may be a spurious result, possible explanations include the fact that it was

not possible to identify renewed agreements and that therefore some agreements had been running an additional

10 years, or that perhaps as more knowledge is gained, later agreements are better designed.

Overall, there is much to learn about re-creation of habitat, with our knowledge and understanding also

advancing all the time. It should also be recognised that achieving ideal conditions on grazing marsh is not

easy and it may take a number of years of ongoing management. It was obvious, but not unexpected, that some

agreement holders are more advanced than others in this respect. There is likely to be varying knowledge

amongst advisers also, particularly with staff changes. Training for both agreement holders and advisers may

help share and extend the knowledge, and without it, success rates are always likely to be depressed.

Field testing the ‘indicators of success’

The results suggest that the proposed scheme should be successful in creating conditions for breeding waders if

the ‘indicators of success’ are achieved. The HLS would seem to be a significant step forward in that it allows

for a more tailored set of success indicators which should target the production of more specific and

heterogeneous habitat with clear end objectives.

Local knowledge is all-important, and advisors will need the flexibility to apply targeted management

prescriptions and indicators of success. This survey was undertaken before detailed guidance had been

produced as to how they should be applied in practice. Such guidance will be very beneficial. Although there is

much more room for discretion on the part of advisers, it will need understanding and discipline to ensure a

reasonably standard application of the scheme across all areas.

The following comment may be made on the individual indicators:

Standing water. The percentage of standing water within a field is generally an easy test to apply,

although estimation of the percentage cover of water in surface features can be difficult. In general, water

in such features is better for waders, and for the management of the sward, than sheet flooding. For

example, a 10% cover distributed between 5 foot-drains and a scrape would be more beneficial than a 20%

cover of sheet water.

Soil wetness (penetrability). The ‘nail test’ is proposed as a method of judging soil wetness by simulating

the ease by which a wader’s beak will penetrate the soil. A number of issues arose with this test; the degree

of force used to push the nail in, the variability of soil wetness within a field (particularly if soil wetness

was being achieved by surface features) and the type of soil. Completely dry peat soils may satisfy the test

but conversely a nail may not penetrate a saturated clay soil with ease. The guidelines suggest that 10-80%

of the field should have wet soil (satisfying the test). It is unclear why this 80% maximum is suggested as

several fields with ideal water levels achieved 100%.

22

Overall, this test needs to be treated with some care, it can provide a useful indication of conditions but

should not be applied rigorously.

Sward structure. This is an easy test to apply, particularly with knowledge of ideal sward conditions. The

only difficulties were encountered when dealing with relatively tall, even swards that may be suitable for

Snipe. However, this is unlikely to be a problem where an adviser sets the indicators for a specific field or

target species.

Hedge height and scrub cover. The 3 measurements under these headings were found in practice to

correlate quite closely, so it is possible that a combined measure could be devised. This could be simplified

to an estimate of the percentage of the field not falling within 50 metres of hedges or trees over 2 metres

Ditch vegetation. This was found to be the most variable feature in the fields and the most difficult to

assess. In addition, beyond the percentage cover for emergent aquatic vegetation and open water,

domination by algae was a common problem. To achieve a better assessment of ditch quality it may be

beneficial to include some measure of vegetation indicating water quality problems such as the cover of

algae or duckweed.

Estimating the contribution of agri-environment schemes to the CFGM HAP

Estimating the percentage of agri-environment schemes that might contribute to the HAP presents some

difficulties. Firstly, there is clearly variability within the habitat itself and assessing each parcel of land for all

variations would be excessively time-consuming. Secondly, a problem with all habitat re-creation; at what

point in time has a newly created habitat become the desired habitat?

This study has assessed the habitat just on two key features: breeding waders and ditch condition. In doing so,

it may not be covering the full range of the habitat but should cover the majority. This study has also taken the

view that the habitat should be of suitable quality for at least one species of wader and/or that the ditches, if not

species-diverse, do exhibit conditions conducive to supporting a wide range of species. They should have

suitable water regimes, contain both open water and aquatic vegetation, yet not show signs of excessive nutrient

enrichment.

There clearly is variability in the condition of the land within the schemes. This will reflect the time that the

scheme has been in place and the management that has been applied to it. Overall, this study has concluded

that 60% of the eligible land within agri-environmental schemes could currently be counted towards the HAP

target. This may amount to a total area of 4,687 hectares. It is considered that this figure is a not unsatisfactory

total.

23

5 Recommendations

The initial selection of sites entered into agri-environment schemes needs to be more critically

assessed or at least targeted for the desired result. Selection of potential sites for breeding waders should

be better targeted, taking full account of soil type, topography, proximity of hedge/tree cover and the

capability for controlling water levels. Some of the fields assessed would have needed significant removal

or reduction of scrub to support waders, although this is not always beneficial to wider biodiversity

interests.

There is a need for detailed supporting guidance for the new Environmental Stewardship Scheme. Although the proposed ‘indicators of success’ for the breeding waders options are generally easy to apply,

guidance notes for both advisers and applicants/agreement holders would be highly beneficial. Guidance

should be detailed. For example it should be possible to advise on the extent of surface features to be

introduced for a field of given soil type, in a given area with known hydrology. Inclusion of photographs

of ideal sward and water levels at various times of the year would also be helpful.

Follow-up visits are essential to maintain the quality of the managed land. The majority of sites would

have benefited from additional follow-up advice in order to ‘fine-tune’ management or to identify and sort

out problems as they develop. This also allows new ideas to be disseminated and overall provides ongoing

support and encouragement to the agreement holder.

A repeat survey of habitat quality should be considered after 3-5 years of the new scheme. This

would again contribute to our understanding of the delivery of the Coastal and Floodplain Grazing marsh

HAP and provide further opportunity to identify and resolve problems that may be arising.

24

Appendix A. Record sheet

Please complete in BLACK and BLOCK CAPITALS

PART A BASIC SITE INFORMATION

SITE NAME

Site description

Site Location:

{Grid ref e.g NH 235423}

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Type of scheme ESA

CSS

Objective 1:

Prescription 1:

Objective 2: Prescription 2:

Date of last visit from scheme adviser [eg; DEFRA, FWAG]

MANAGEMENT UNITS

Tier No /

CS Option

Tier / CS Option description Objective

No(s)

Area

(ha)

Start

year

No of

fields

Field IDs

[eg; Parcel No]

Total ha in scheme

Substrate:

Hydrology:

Grazing:

Site features (e.g. pylons/hedges/ditch profiles):

Other features of note:

Breeding waders during April – June 2003 / 4 (farmer info)

Species No. pairs

in 2003

No. pairs

in 2004

Trend

Lapwing

Redshank

Snipe

Total

PART B FIELD ASSESSMENT { complete one sheet for each management unit or field if

constituent fields are too variable}

Agreement No Tier / Field IDs

25

Objective No Objective

Description

Objective No Objective

Description

FARM MANAGEMENT {include previous years}

Grazing Management

Grazing

regime /

periods

Dates Livestock type Nos turnout date Duration

Estimated overall stocking density (LSU/ha/yr)

Other management (hay/topping etc):

Hydrological management regime:

Surface features (% area, type eg footdrains, molehills etc):

% of field within 50 M of tree/hedge line

ISSUES/CONSTRAINTS {e.g predation, water table management}

PART C SITE CONDITION ASSESSMENT {per field} Assess % to nearest 10%

Attribute Target condition1 Assessment Score2

Sward Height3 (%)

Bare

grd

<5 cm 5-15 16-30 >30 cm

Sward

composition4 (%)

Fine

grass Tussocks Sedges Juncus Ruderal

Tall Short

Water table5

Ditch water level 6

Extent and depth

of flooding7 (%)

Extent 1-10 cm 11-20 cm >20 cm

Nail test8 (+/-10%)

Ditches – Mean no

aquatic plant

species per 50m9 Plant species present

{check list ?}

Submerged Floating Emergent

Ditches – extent of

features (%)10

Open water Aquatic vegetation (all) Lemna Algae

26

Length of ditch

surveyed (m)

Overall assessment

No. lwg fields

visited

Unfavourable declining

Unfavourable recovering

Favourable recovering

Favourable maintained

Comments on assessment:

Suggestions for improving management:

Number of breeding waders observed

during site visit

Species

Lapwing Redshank Snipe TOTAL

No. pairs

No. individuals

Notes for completing assessment * DEFRA already hold contact data on computer but not necessarily RSPB 1 Based on site objectives and ranges specified in HLS prescriptions. 2 Insert (OK), X (unsatisfactory) or ? (unsure). 3 Record by field or tier or overall site, minimum 10 measurements per field. 4 Record % of fine grasses, tussocks (any grass/Juncus), Juncus alone, and ruderal

(thistle/dock/nettle/ragwort) by ESA/CSS Tier and either by field or overall. 5 Record measurements (for field edge & centre) by ESA/CSS Tier/field or overall 6 Estimate of average depth below field level overall or by ESA/CSS Tier/field if

applicable. 7 Estimate % surface flooding extent either overall or per ESA/CSS Tier/field. Estimate

% within each depth category. 8 Estimate % by field or overall where a 6-inch nail can be pushed into the ground

easily, minimum of 10 measurements. 9 Note species where possible. 10 Note % cover overall for survey area or by ditch.

RSPB Office use only

Processing dates / signature

Received

Checked

Returned for query

Accepted

Data entered

27

Appendix B. HLS GR8 - Maintenance of wet grassland for breeding waders Aims and objectives. The aim of this option is to continue the management of existing seasonally wet grassland that already has suitable conditions and supports breeding waders. The existing water management regime will be continued or modified to provide conditions that will continue to attract lowland breeding waders. The maintenance of wet grassland will conserve the mosaic of pastoral landscapes. The option can also contribute to protecting archaeology. Indicators of success

10. In-field scrub cover should be zero/less than 5% and scrub cover over the ditches should be zero/less than 10%.

11. On fields smaller than 10ha, boundary hedges should be less than 2 metres high.

12. 10% to 80% of the field should have wet soil (such that a 6-inch nail can be pushed into the ground with ease) between 1 April and 30 June.

13. 5% to 25% of the field should have standing water between 1 Mar and 31 May (in hollows, scrapes, ditch edges, foot drains etc.).

14. The cover of tussocks of grass, rush or sedge (year-round) should be between 5 and 40%. (A tussock is a single plant or a clump of plants at least 15cm wide, that is more than 5cm taller than the surrounding vegetation.)

15. Between 5 and 75% of the field should have standing water, to a maximum depth of 25cm, between 1 November and 28 February (in so far as weather conditions permit).

16. The internal ditch area should consist of 10-75% open water (with or without submerged or floating aquatic plants) and 10-75% emergent plants such as reed or reedmace.

17. The target wader species (xxxxx) should be present between 1 March and 30 June, with their behaviour in May/June indicating the presence of young (for lapwing and oystercatcher efforts should be made to see fledged young, but without causing disturbance).

18. Where the site is an SSSI, the habitats meet, or are recovering towards, the favourable condition targets; in particular the diversity and/or abundance of characteristic species in guidance from EN.

Management prescriptions to be applied.

1. Ploughing, sub-surface cultivation and reseeding are not permitted.

2. Do not modify the existing drainage (e.g. by pipe, open ditch, sub-soiling or mole ploughing) unless agreed otherwise with your Defra adviser.

3. Do not top, roll or harrow between 1 October and 30 June; do not treat more than 30% of the total grassland area in any one year, and always leave a minimum of 5% tussocks/longer grass.

4. Manage the sward by grazing and/or cutting to achieve a sward height of between 5cm and 15cm in November.

5. Supplementary feeding is confined to the feeding of hay/straw/forage roots/concentrates/mineral blocks in fields xxyy. Feeders and troughs should not be used, feeding sites should be

28

moved regularly and always avoid historic features. Creep feeding of young stock is permitted.

6. Well-rotted farmyard manure may be applied at max rate of 12.5 tonnes /ha/year, but not between 1 April and 30 June (or within 6m of a watercourse). Lime may also be added subject to a soil test showing the need but not between 1 April and 30 June.

7. Do not work on in-field ditches between 1 April and 31 August (this does not apply to main ditches currently maintained by the IDB).

8. Do not de-silt any one field ditch more frequently than once every five years (or any one ditch more frequently than once every three years if only one side is de-silted). De-silting should remove silt only and not cut into the bank profile unless you have agreed otherwise with your Defra adviser.

9. Do not cut the vegetation on any one field ditch more frequently than once every two years (or any one ditch more frequently than once every year if only one side is cut). All cuttings that could damage the sward must be removed.

10. Do not graze between 30 November and the 28 February, unless you have agreed a stocking and supplementary feeding strategy with your Defra adviser.

11. Control undesirable species such as (creeping thistle, spear thistle, curled dock, broad-leaved dock, common ragwort, common nettle, xxxx) so that by year 2 their cover is less than 5% of the area.

12. Field operations and stocking must not damage the soil structure or cause heavy poaching, but small areas of bare ground on up to 5% of the field are acceptable. Take particular care when the land is waterlogged.

13. Produce, agree with your Defra adviser and adhere to a water management plan.

14. Do not cut hay or silage before the 30 June and always leave at least 10% uncut (this need not be the same 10% each year).

15. Do not exceed a stocking density of 0.75 LU/ha between 1 April and 31 May across each field/the following fields XXXXX.

16. Ditch edges must be grazed.

17. Do not allow birds to be disturbed between 1 October and 28 February by walkers (except on public rights of way or open access land) or by other recreational or non-essential activities unless you have agreed a strategy with your Defra adviser.

18. Do not allow birds to be disturbed between 1 March and 30 June by walkers (except on public rights of way or open access land) or by other recreational or non-essential activities unless you have agreed a strategy with your Defra adviser.

29

Appendix C. Breeding wader habitat survey criteria

FACTOR [ cms or

% extent unless

otherwise stated]

GENERIC

{for

breeding

waders}

SPECIES specific

LAPWING REDSHANK SNIPE

Nesting Period mid-March to June April to mid-June April to July

Nesting habitat Bare ground or short

vegetation. Spring-

tilled arable land or

short grass with a

low stocking rate ,

tussocky vegetation

Wet grassland on

upland and lowland

farms on salt marshes.

Varied height sward of

grass and rush

tussocks.

Tussocky vegetation

10 -30 cms tall. Even

small wet field

corners can be used

Feeding habitat Ideally wet

grassland. Feed on

earthworms,

leatherjackets, insect

larvae. Arable nesting

birds often walk their

chicks onto grazed

pasture to feed.

Mosaic of above with

short damp grassland

for feeding. Insects at

edges of pools and

ditches. Found on wet

grassland that holds

shallow surface water

or damp soil until June.

Young chicks

generally fed on

earthworms collected

by parents in vicinity

of nest.

Sward Height

between 1/04 and

31/05

MIN 3 Mean

height in

May &

June

MIN 3 MIN 3 MIN 20

MAX 15 MAX 15 MAX 30 MAX 50

% of grassland area

with standing

water between 1/04

and 31/05

MIN 5

MAX 50

Depth of standing

water between 1/04

and 31/05

MIN

Not set

MAX 20

% of grassland area

with sward >

10cms

MIN 25

MAX 75

% of grasslandarea

with sward <

10cms

MIN 25

MAX 75

30

FACTOR GENERIC LAPWING REDSHANK SNIPE

% of tussocks all

year round

MIN 10 MIN 5 MIN 5 MIN 15

MAX 50 MAX 30 MAX 30 MAX 30

Sward should

contain one or

more of Sphagnum

spp, Caltha palustris,

Deschampsia

caespitosa

+

Other % extent of

one or more of :

muck, molehills,

poached ground,

grass tussocks

MIN 25

31

References Benstead P, Drake M, Jose P, Mountford O, Newbold C and Treweek J. (1997) The Wet Grassland

Guide, Managing floodplains and coastal wet grasslands for wildlife. The RSPB, Sandy. Wilson et al., (in press) Changes in the numbers of breeding waders on lowland wet grasslands in England and Wales between 1982 and 2002. Bird Stud

Wilson A M, Vickery J A, Brown A, Langston R H W, Smallshire D, Wotton S and Vanhinsbergh

D.

(2005) Changes in the numbers of breeding waders on lowland wet grasslands in England and Wales

between 1982 and 2002. Bird Study 52, 55-69.