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.