EARTH HERITAGE

PAUL CANDLIN

032

23/12/2016

Favourable

Interest features – Quaternary geomorphology – esker and related fan deposits. Favourable Variety of birds – As a notified feature on this site, this is dubious. It’s not given a big mention in the citation and the criteria sheet says the selection criteria are not proven. The baseline is recorded as 83 but over a nine year period from 1968 – 1976, eleven years before notification. It says the ‘this data is now unreliable but the qualifying level of 70 breeding species is probably met by the revised SSSI’. It’s not clear whether breeding was shown to be probable or just possible. In which case we could either disregard it as a SSSI feature of interest or perhaps we could use the minimum target (i.e. 70 species) as target. No formal survey has been carried out for this assessment but Mel Brown and Tim Coleshaw report 50+ species breed on the reserve in any one year. Their count appears to be based on probable breeding (i.e. they’ve seen chicks or they’ve seen feeding or repeated display behaviour) rather than possible. Fluctuations in populations are allowed and the number of breeding birds has to fall by 25% (to 52) before the feature is deemed to be in unfavourable condition. With 50+ birds probably breeding on site I would suggest the feature is recorded as favourable with the proviso that further investigations are made into i) the size of the original baseline; ii) whether the feature ever met the SSSI selection criteria and whether it is retained as a feature of interest; iii) a more definite number is put onto the current size of breeding assemblage; iv) advice is sought from the national birds specialists, Allan Drewitt/Stella Bayliss. I’ve sent an email query. FavourableManagement suggestions – Could the woodland be managed differently, without compromising the geomorphological feature, so that it contributes more for the variety of birds target (and/or other wildlife)?

NEUTRAL GRASSLAND - Lowland

PAUL CANDLIN

033

19/06/2014

Favourable

Interest features – Interest features – Assemblages of breeding birds - Lowland open waters and their margins As per the variety of breeding birds feature, this feature on this site is dubious. The criteria sheet says the selection criteria are not proven. The baseline is recorded as 36.5 but over a nine year period from 1968 – 1976, eleven years before notification. It says the ‘this data is now unreliable but the BCI will be metby the revised SSSI if the open water margins are on the generous side’. It’s not clear whether breeding was shown to be probable or just possible. In which case we could either disregard it as a SSSI feature of interest or perhaps we could use the minimum target (i.e. 70 species) as target. The baseline score at notification was 36.5. Fluctuations in populations are allowed and the number of breeding birds has to fall by 25% (to 25) before the feature is deemed to in unfavourable condition.No formal survey has been carried out but a score of 29 was reached using information from Mel Brown and Tim Coleshaw. Clarification is required on whether their information was based on probable or possible breeding and whether it was based purely on the 2014 breeding year. At the moment I think it was based on more or less probable breeding and just the one year – 2014 in the case of Mel Brown’s information. Either way although a decline from the baseline is suggested the figure falls within the 25% fluctuation allowed before unfavourable condition is record. Some parts of the breeding assemblage do appear to have declined over the longer term whilst others have increased. For example, redshank, curlew and snipe have either disappeared altogether or are breeding at much reduced numbers; whilst it seems likely that Cetti’s warbler is breeding already or will start to do so in the near future. Therefore I would suggest the feature is recorded as favourable with the proviso that further investigations are made into i) the size of the original baseline; ii) whether the figures supplied by Mel and Tim are from one year or more and whether they represent probable or possible breeding; iii) whether a more formal survey is needed and worthwhile; iv) whether the decline in breeding numbers is not permanent; v) advice is sought from the national birds specialists, Allan Drewitt/Stella Bayliss; vi) whether the feature ever met the SSSI selection criteria and whether it is retained as a feature of interest.FavourableAssemblages of breeding birds - Lowland damp grasslands There was no baseline score recorded at notification, so the minimum score (of 16) needed to meet the SSSI criteria selection is used. Fluctuations in populations are allowed and the number of breeding birds has to fall by 25% (to 12) before the feature is deemed to in unfavourable condition. No formal survey has been carried out but a score of 16 was reached using information from Mel Brown and 23 using information from Tim Coleshaw. Clarification is required on whether their information was based on probable or possible breeding and whether it was based purely on the 2014 breeding year. At the moment I think it was based on more or less probable breeding and just the one year – 2014 in the case of Mel Brown’s information. However, I would suggest the feature is recorded as favourable with the proviso that further investigations are made into i) the size of the original baseline; ii) whether the figures supplied by Mel and Tim are from one year or more and whether they represent probable or possible breeding; iii) whether a more formal survey is needed and worthwhile; iv) advice is sought from the national birds specialists, Allan Drewitt/Stella Bayliss. FavourableVariety of breeding bird species As comments for unit 32 - FavourableM23 - Juncus effusus / acutiflorus - Galium palustre rush pasture The wet grassland vegetation in this unit fails on the ratio of ‘good’ rushes : ‘bad’ rushes – i.e. to be favourable condition there is supposed to be a greater cover of ‘good’ rushes, such as Juncus articulatus, J. subnodulous and J. acutiflorus, than ‘bad’ rushes, such Juncus effusus, J. inflexus and J. conglomeratus. the high cover of species indicative of agricultural improvement – 16% cover of Holcus lanatus and a 4% cover of Ranunculus repens. The frequency of positive indicator species – Of those on the list in the FCTs the vegetation contains two frequent (Galium palustre & Lotus pedunculatus) and one occasional (Filipendula ulmaria).  However, all these failures might be just artefacts of the targets than a reflection of the habitat’s real condition:The sward structure looks good to me and like the textbook drawings from NE’s Technical information Notes - The photographs below show a sward structure that is comprised of an intimate mosaic of short areas of turf between small open stands of tall and not-so-tall rushes. In this situation I can’t see how it matters that a high proportion of the rushes are soft rush rather than sharp-flowered rush. I wonder whether a high cover of soft-rush becomes more relevant in thicker less managed swards, where it grows as dense tussocks that shade out desirable forbs and makes foraging difficult for ground-nesting birds. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and breeding lapwings have increased in number since the present sward structure was produced after the introduction of a regime of regular rush-cutting, cattle grazing and raised water levels. The target is that species indicative of agricultural improvement such as Ranunculus repens and Holcus lanatus should collectively have a cover of less than 20% and individually a cover of less than 10%. This target is failed so narrowly that it could easily be put down to my observer error. The list of indicators has been taken from the generic list published in the Common Standard Monitoring guidance and has not been tailored to this unit. The vegetation in this unit contains a number of desirable species that could legitimately be added to the list of positive indicator species – specifically Potentilla erecta, Ranunculus flammula and Carex panicea which all have an occasional frequency and if included on this list of target species mean the vegetation hits this vegetation composition target. In conclusion, the condition of the vegetation might be favourable. However, with the condition close to borderline, it is likely that negative changes in management (e.g. a stop to rush-cutting or cattle-grazing or falling water levels) could lead quickly to a change to unfavourable condition. FavourableManagement suggestionsRaising water levels with dams and sluices seems to have contributed something (maybe a lot) to the positive change in condition on this unit (along with rush-cutting and cattle-grazing). Filling in the ditches would be more permanent, and allow natural processes and a more resilient hydrology to develop; and would likely lead to a greater diversity of plant communities and habitat (with areas of fen as well as wet grassland). If the water supply is not clean it might also lead to the development of eutrophic species-poor habitats; might make rush-cutting and other management techniques more difficult; and might have impacts on adjacent farm land. However, it might be interesting to consider the pros and cons of allowing the development of a more natural hydrological regime.

NEUTRAL GRASSLAND - Lowland

PAUL CANDLIN

034

19/06/2014

Unfavourable - Recovering

Interest features – Assemblages of breeding birds - Lowland open waters and their margins Comments as for unit 33.FavourableAssemblages of breeding birds - Lowland damp grasslands Comments as for unit 33.FavourableVariety of breeding bird species As comments for unit 32 – FavourableM23 - Juncus effusus / acutiflorus - Galium palustre rush pasture The wet grassland vegetation in this unit fails on the ratio of ‘good’ rushes : ‘bad’ rushes.the high cover of species indicative of agricultural improvement. The frequency of positive indicator species.The low frequency of positive indicator species is real. The unit doesn’t seem to contain enough positive indicator species. However, the sward structure is good despite the high ratio of bad to good rushes. It has improved quickly following the recent introduction of beneficial management (rush-cutting, cattle grazing and raised water levels). Breeding lapwing have begun to use the unit after many years of neglect.UnfavourableManagement suggestionsAs per unit 33.

NEUTRAL GRASSLAND - Lowland

PAUL CANDLIN

035

26/06/2014

Favourable

Interest features – Assemblages of breeding birds - Lowland open waters and their margins Comments as for unit 33.FavourableAssemblages of breeding birds - Lowland damp grasslands Comments as for unit 33.FavourableVariety of breeding bird species As comments for unit 32 – FavourableM23 - Juncus effusus / acutiflorus - Galium palustre rush pasture The unit’s vegetation is not one homogenous block of M23. It is more a mosaic of M22, M25, M23, S5, S7 and drier semi-improved communities (MG6, MG9 and MG10) at the top of the field. The topography and drainage seem variable and might give rise to the vegetation’s heterogeneity. Two artificial looking ridges across the centre of the field and the semi-improved communities on the drier ground suggest the heterogeneity might be the result of artificial agricultural improvements rather than because natural variability.All of the target communities contain the required frequency and diversity of positive indicator species; the required ratio of good to bad rushes; and a low cover of species indicative of agricultural improvement. The tables below list the species recorded in the various vegetation communities and the MATCH outputs showing their similarity coefficients to NVC communities. The annotated aerial photo attempts to show the extent and location of the various communities.The semi-improved areas at the top of the field are relatively species-poor and might need to be considered as site fabric within the FCTs (with an aim towards restoration of a mire community if the field is made wetter or MG5 if it stays as now).FavourableManagement suggestionsThe sward was fairly thick and appeared to be ungrazed at the time of my visit. I think I was told that the field was grazed during the winter. No grazing during the summer must allow everything to flower and set seed very nicely. Are the rushes cut as per unit 33 and 34? If not, consider the merits of introducing that regime to this unit. As per unit 33/34, consider the pros and cons of filling in ditches or raising water levels within this unit. However, the plant communities within this field (specifically the M22) are of higher value than those in units 33/34, which might mean the costs or risks of re-wetting are higher and end up outweighing the benefits. An eco-hydrological characterisation or other hydrological investigation would be needed as part of such an assessment. This is now the largest area of M22 on the SSSI. With unit 50 subject to repeated summer flooding and its M22/M24 more less destroyed as a result, consider introducing the Cirsium dissectum (one of the SSSI’s rarer plant species) that used to be contained within that unit, to the M22 in unit 35.The M25 at the bottom of the unit 35 contains marsh violet – are their historic or recent records for small pearl-bordered fritillary at this site? It’s only two or three miles to Doley Common, where there was a strong colony until recently.

NEUTRAL GRASSLAND - Lowland

PAUL CANDLIN

036

02/07/2014

Unfavourable - Recovering

Interest features – Assemblages of breeding birds - Lowland open waters and their margins Comments as for unit 33.FavourableAssemblages of breeding birds - Lowland damp grasslands Comments as for unit 33.FavourableVariety of breeding bird species As comments for unit 32 – FavourableM23 - Juncus effusus / acutiflorus - Galium palustre rush pasture The wet grassland vegetation in this unit fails on the The frequency of positive indicator species. According to my estimates one positive indicator (Lotus pedunculatus) is frequent and five are occasional (Filipendula ulmaria, Ranunculus flammula, Centaurea nigra, Equisetum palustre, Carex disticha). The target is two frequent and three occasional, so it is very close to being favourable. The ratio (25%:25%) of good rush to bad rushes was a marginal pass as was the cover of species indicative of agricultural improvement (18% overall with 10% cover of Holcus lanatus and 5% cover of ranunculus repens). The sward structure was heterogenous. Near to the access points it was grazed fairly hard and open. Further away rushes were dominant and very thick, particularly at the western end of the unit. The presence of Carex disticha and Equisetum palustre suggest that parts of the vegetation has affinities to M22. I didn’t find any Juncus subnodulosus but it wouldn’t surprise me if a closer look found it or some vegetation with similarities to M22.UnfavourableManagement suggestionsAway from gates and other access points the sward was very thick and appeared to have been left ungrazed for a few years (cf. unit 35 which appears to get grazed in the winter). There are probably some positives to such neglect, but it’s probably not helping the unit to hit its published targets. Are the rushes cut as per unit 33 and 34? If not, consider the merits of introducing that regime to this unit. As per unit 33/34, consider the pros and cons of filling in ditches or raising water levels within this unit. An eco-hydrological characterisation or other hydrological investigation would be needed as part of such an assessment. A proper vegetation survey to locate and map areas of M22 or other base-rich vegetation would also be needed. The meander cut-off within the unit is an interesting thing. As part of the eco-hydrological characterisation consider how best to manage it - e.g. whether to re-connect it to the outflow or keep it separate (e.g. if it has acquired special invertebrate communities).

STANDING OPEN WATER AND CANALS

PAUL CANDLIN

037

13/08/2013

Unfavourable - No change

FRESHWATER - FISH STOCKING,FRESHWATER - SILTATION,FRESHWATER POLLUTION - WATER POLLUTION - AGRICULTURE/RUN OFF,FRESHWATER POLLUTION - WATER POLLUTION - DISCHARGE,

FEN, MARSH AND SWAMP - Lowland

PAUL CANDLIN

038

23/12/2016

Favourable

Hydroseral succession accelerated by artificially high rates of sedimentation in the mere?Eutrophication – The signs of eutrophication Urtica, Phalaris and Glyceria maxima seem more frequent within the wet woodland that succeeds the reedswamp (though I would have thought that the open water will be a source of nutrients).Some wetland breeding bird populations have suffered big losses or collapses in the wider landscape and region (e.g. waders) and this threatens the viability of the breeding bird assemblages on Aqualate (even if management and condition on the reserve are good). Non-natives – as hydroseral succession occurs and the reedswamp of unit 38 succeeds to wet woodland, it becomes more vulnerable to invasion from the non-natives in unit 42 (e.g. Rhododendron, red currant and Himalayan balsam).

STANDING OPEN WATER AND CANALS

PAUL CANDLIN

039

23/12/2016

Favourable

Variety of birds – As a notified feature on this site, this is dubious. It’s not given a big mention in the citation and the criteria sheet says the selection criteria are not proven. The baseline is recorded as 83 but over a nine year period from 1968 – 1976, eleven years before notification. It says the ‘this data is now unreliable but the qualifying level of 70 breeding species is probably met by the revised SSSI’. It’s not clear whether breeding was shown to be probable or just possible. In which case we could either disregard it as a SSSI feature of interest or perhaps we could use the minimum target (i.e. 70 species) as target. No formal survey has been carried out for this assessment but Mel Brown and Tim Coleshaw report 50+ species breed on the reserve in any one year. Their count appears to be based on probable breeding (i.e. they’ve seen chicks or they’ve seen feeding or repeated display behaviour) rather than possible. Fluctuations in populations are allowed and the number of breeding birds has to fall by 25% (to 52) before the feature is deemed to be in unfavourable condition. With 50+ birds probably breeding on site I would suggest the feature is recorded as favourable with the proviso that further investigations are made into i) the size of the original baseline; ii) whether the feature ever met the SSSI selection criteria and whether it is retained as a feature of interest; iii) a more definite number is put onto the current size of breeding assemblage; iv) advice is sought from the national birds specialists, Allan Drewitt/Stella Bayliss. I’ve sent an email query. Favourable

STANDING OPEN WATER AND CANALS

PAUL CANDLIN

040

23/12/2016

Favourable

Variety of birds – As a notified feature on this site, this is dubious. It’s not given a big mention in the citation and the criteria sheet says the selection criteria are not proven. The baseline is recorded as 83 but over a nine year period from 1968 – 1976, eleven years before notification. It says the ‘this data is now unreliable but the qualifying level of 70 breeding species is probably met by the revised SSSI’. It’s not clear whether breeding was shown to be probable or just possible. In which case we could either disregard it as a SSSI feature of interest or perhaps we could use the minimum target (i.e. 70 species) as target. No formal survey has been carried out for this assessment but Mel Brown and Tim Coleshaw report 50+ species breed on the reserve in any one year. Their count appears to be based on probable breeding (i.e. they’ve seen chicks or they’ve seen feeding or repeated display behaviour) rather than possible. Fluctuations in populations are allowed and the number of breeding birds has to fall by 25% (to 52) before the feature is deemed to be in unfavourable condition. With 50+ birds probably breeding on site I would suggest the feature is recorded as favourable with the proviso that further investigations are made into i) the size of the original baseline; ii) whether the feature ever met the SSSI selection criteria and whether it is retained as a feature of interest; iii) a more definite number is put onto the current size of breeding assemblage; iv) advice is sought from the national birds specialists, Allan Drewitt/Stella Bayliss. I’ve sent an email query. Favourable

STANDING OPEN WATER AND CANALS

PAUL CANDLIN

041

23/12/2016

Favourable

Variety of birds – As a notified feature on this site, this is dubious. It’s not given a big mention in the citation and the criteria sheet says the selection criteria are not proven. The baseline is recorded as 83 but over a nine year period from 1968 – 1976, eleven years before notification. It says the ‘this data is now unreliable but the qualifying level of 70 breeding species is probably met by the revised SSSI’. It’s not clear whether breeding was shown to be probable or just possible. In which case we could either disregard it as a SSSI feature of interest or perhaps we could use the minimum target (i.e. 70 species) as target. No formal survey has been carried out for this assessment but Mel Brown and Tim Coleshaw report 50+ species breed on the reserve in any one year. Their count appears to be based on probable breeding (i.e. they’ve seen chicks or they’ve seen feeding or repeated display behaviour) rather than possible. Fluctuations in populations are allowed and the number of breeding birds has to fall by 25% (to 52) before the feature is deemed to be in unfavourable condition. With 50+ birds probably breeding on site I would suggest the feature is recorded as favourable with the proviso that further investigations are made into i) the size of the original baseline; ii) whether the feature ever met the SSSI selection criteria and whether it is retained as a feature of interest; iii) a more definite number is put onto the current size of breeding assemblage; iv) advice is sought from the national birds specialists, Allan Drewitt/Stella Bayliss. I’ve sent an email query. Favourable

BROADLEAVED, MIXED AND YEW WOODLAND - Lowland

PAUL CANDLIN

042

23/12/2016

Unfavourable - Recovering

Wet woodland – W5, W2I’m not sure which areas should be scored against the wet woodland targets. On the one hand the peat map shows the whole unit to be underlain by peat, which suggests the whole lot should be scored against these wetland targets.If that is the case then the wood will fail because most of the woodland is too dry. Scored against wet woodland targets the whole area would fails the i) W2 community extent targets; ii) the W2 ground flora targets (because the ground flora is dominated by brambles and buckler fern that make it more similar to W10 than W2); and iii) the non-native composition targets (because of the high >5% cover of rhododendron in the understorey and high >5% cover of sycamore in the canopy). This would imply that all the ditches that run through and around the unit through the peat should be blocked to raise water levels in the peat. Is that possible or desirable? If it is, the feature and the unit will need to be assessed as unfavourable. If most of the dry woodland in the unit is treated as supporting habitat and the only area to be assessed against wet woodland targets is the strip of land that lies behind the reedbed (unit 38), I think the wet woodland feature could be assessed as favourable: - There is some rhododendron in the understorey, some sycamore in the canopy and Himalayan balsam in the ground flora but none have a cover of more than 5%. Otherwise i) canopy and understorey composition targets are hit – Salix fragilis and Alnus glutinosa have a 50% canopy cover and Salix cinerea has a 40% cover in the understorey (according to my estimates at nine stops); ii) there is plenty of deadwood; and iii) most (>80%) of the area has a ground flora that is referable to W2 (dominated by Phragmites australis with occasional stands of Phalaris, Glyceria and Carex acuitformis). Variety of Birds TargetAs per the 2014 assessment of the site – that is: As a notified feature it’s dubious. It’s not given a big mention in the citation and the criteria sheet says the selection criteria are not proven. The baseline is recorded as 83 but over a nine year period from 1968 – 1976, eleven years before notification. It says the ‘this data is now unreliable but the qualifying level of 70 breeding species is probably met’ by the revised SSSI. It’s not clear whether breeding was shown to be probable or just possible. Allan Drewitt advises that the feature is kept but 70 is used as the target for the number of breeding species. No formal survey has been carried out for this assessment but Mel Brown and Tim Coleshaw report 50+ species breed on the reserve in any one year. Fluctuations in populations are allowed and the number of breeding birds has to fall by 25% (to 52) before the feature is deemed to be in unfavourable condition. With 50+ birds probably breeding on site I would suggest the feature is recorded as favourable (and AD agrees).I would suggest that a more formal survey is carried out before 2020.

BROADLEAVED, MIXED AND YEW WOODLAND - Lowland

PAUL CANDLIN

043

14/03/2018

Favourable

For details see site check form on TRIM. Targets hit for wet woodland, Lowland fen, Invertebrate assemblage and Assemblage of breeding birds – variety of birds. Eutrophication - Urtica dioica is frequent or constant across most of the wet woodland units. If this was scored against generic open fen targets (e.g. S4) this frequency of nettles would signal a problem (e.g. drying out or eutrophication) and fail the unit. In wet woodland it does not. Does this make sense? Is the habitat eutrophied or drying out, and if it is, does it have a negative impact on its condition? Drainage - There are lot of open drains across the site. In the wet woodland units that I assessed at Aqualate, some or most of the ditches are partially/fully blocked and might not be functioning. However, I’ve noted that the peat in units 45 and 46 seemed fairly dry and the water table was not at the surface, so perhaps they do have an impact? And even if there is no functionality to the ditches, would there be any harm to blocking them, just to make sure? There might be some conflict between the issues/threats listed above. For example blocking ditches and restoring a more natural hydrological regime might raise water levels and make grazing harder. It might also spread eutrophication if the sources of the ditch water are polluted/enriched.

BROADLEAVED, MIXED AND YEW WOODLAND - Lowland

PAUL CANDLIN

044

14/03/2018

Favourable

For details see site check form on TRIM. Targets hit for wet woodland, invertebrate assemblage and assemblage of breeding birds – variety of birds. Eutrophication - Urtica dioica is frequent or constant across most of the wet woodland units. If this was scored against generic open fen targets (e.g. S4) this frequency of nettles would signal a problem (e.g. drying out or eutrophication) and fail the unit. In wet woodland it does not. Does this make sense? Is the habitat eutrophied or drying out, and if it is, does it have a negative impact on its condition? Drainage - There are lot of open drains across the site. In the wet woodland units that I assessed at Aqualate, some or most of the ditches are partially/fully blocked and might not be functioning. However, I’ve noted that the peat in units 45 and 46 seemed fairly dry and the water table was not at the surface, so perhaps they do have an impact? And even if there is no functionality to the ditches, would there be any harm to blocking them, just to make sure? There might be some conflict between the issues/threats listed above. For example blocking ditches and restoring a more natural hydrological regime might raise water levels and make grazing harder. It might also spread eutrophication if the sources of the ditch water are polluted/enriched.

BROADLEAVED, MIXED AND YEW WOODLAND - Lowland

PAUL CANDLIN

045

14/03/2018

Favourable

For details see site check form on TRIM. Targets hit for wet woodland and Assemblage of breeding birds – variety of birds. Eutrophication - Urtica dioica is frequent or constant across most of the wet woodland units. If this was scored against generic open fen targets (e.g. S4) this frequency of nettles would signal a problem (e.g. drying out or eutrophication) and fail the unit. In wet woodland it does not. Does this make sense? Is the habitat eutrophied or drying out, and if it is, does it have a negative impact on its condition? Drainage - There are lot of open drains across the site. In the wet woodland units that I assessed at Aqualate, some or most of the ditches are partially/fully blocked and might not be functioning. However, I’ve noted that the peat in units 45 and 46 seemed fairly dry and the water table was not at the surface, so perhaps they do have an impact? And even if there is no functionality to the ditches, would there be any harm to blocking them, just to make sure? There might be some conflict between the issues/threats listed above. For example blocking ditches and restoring a more natural hydrological regime might raise water levels and make grazing harder. It might also spread eutrophication if the sources of the ditch water are polluted/enriched.

BROADLEAVED, MIXED AND YEW WOODLAND - Lowland

PAUL CANDLIN

046

14/03/2018

Favourable

For details see site check form on TRIM. Targets hit for wet woodland and assemblage of breeding birds – variety of birds. Eutrophication - Urtica dioica is frequent or constant across most of the wet woodland units. If this was scored against generic open fen targets (e.g. S4) this frequency of nettles would signal a problem (e.g. drying out or eutrophication) and fail the unit. In wet woodland it does not. Does this make sense? Is the habitat eutrophied or drying out, and if it is, does it have a negative impact on its condition? Drainage - There are lot of open drains across the site. In the wet woodland units that I assessed at Aqualate, some or most of the ditches are partially/fully blocked and might not be functioning. However, I’ve noted that the peat in units 45 and 46 seemed fairly dry and the water table was not at the surface, so perhaps they do have an impact? And even if there is no functionality to the ditches, would there be any harm to blocking them, just to make sure? There might be some conflict between the issues/threats listed above. For example blocking ditches and restoring a more natural hydrological regime might raise water levels and make grazing harder. It might also spread eutrophication if the sources of the ditch water are polluted/enriched.

NEUTRAL GRASSLAND - Lowland

PAUL CANDLIN

047

10/03/2015

Unfavourable - Recovering

Interest features – Assemblages of breeding birds - Lowland open waters and their margins Comments as for unit 33.FavourableAssemblages of breeding birds - Lowland damp grasslands Comments as for unit 33.FavourableVariety of breeding bird species As comments for unit 32 – FavourableS4 - Phragmites australis swamp and reed-beds Fails against the Vegetation composition positive indicator target – There is only 60% cover of Phragmites. The 30% cover of Phalaris arundinacea occupies the niche that would be occupied by Phragmites perhaps.Undesirable non-woody species because Urtica dioica is constant. Lockton highlights the presence of fen nettle Urtica galeopsifolia at Aqualate. The nettle in unit 47 might be such but since it’s taxonomic status is uncertain (i.e. it is not recognised by Stace) and it’s probably still an indicator of enrichment I’ve counted it against this target.Invasive non-native targets – Impatiens glandulifera is occasional.UnfavourableManagement recommendationsHigh cover of Phalaris suggests enriched water supply.Continue occasional scrub management and cutting.

NEUTRAL GRASSLAND - Lowland

PAUL CANDLIN

048

26/06/2014

Favourable

Invertebrate Assemblage Favourable - see Andy Godfey's reportVariety of breeding bird species (70) Comments as for unit 32FavourableM22 - Juncus subnodulosus - Cirsium palustre fen meadowFavourable

NEUTRAL GRASSLAND - Lowland

PAUL CANDLIN

049

26/06/2014

Unfavourable - Recovering

Invertebrate Assemblage Favourable – see Andy Godfrey’s report.Variety of breeding bird species (70) Comments as for unit 32FavourableS4 Phragmites australis swamp or M27 - Filipendula ulmaria - Angelica sylvestris mire Fails on High cover of scrub which is estimated at 30%.High 30% cover of LitterUnfavourableThe high covers of Phalaris arundinacea (30%) and Glyceria maxima (20%) seem problematic to me. They indicate enrichment and they are both competitive species, growing as very species-poor monocultures. I’m not even sure that they support much wildlife. At least monocultures of Phragmites give a home to some warblers and other birds and invertebrates. However, the lowland wetland monitoring guidance says they are not negative indicators within many fen communities including the likely candidates for this unit S4 or M27. The presence of Juncus subnodulosus and Carex disticha (e.g. at SJ76469 20336) amongst an overwhelming mass of Glyceria maxima suggests part of the vegetation might have affinities to S24. Management suggestionsAs indicated by the reasons for failing the condition assessment some more scrub management and some occasional cutting might be beneficial and help produce a more varied vegetation composition and vegetation structure.Investigate the source of the nutrient enrichment suggested by the high cover of Phalaris and Glyceria maxima.

NEUTRAL GRASSLAND - Lowland

PAUL CANDLIN

050

19/01/2015

Unfavourable - Recovering

Interest featuresInvertebrate Assemblage Favourable.Variety of breeding bird species (70) Comments as for unit 32FavourableM23 – Juncus acutiflorus – Galium palustre fen meadow &M22 - Juncus subnodulosus - Cirsium palustre fen meadowFail on Ratio of bad rushes to good rushes. Soft rush cover is 27% whilst the combined cover of Juncus subnodulosus and Juncus acutiflorus is 12%.The low frequency of positive indicator species – two species (Iris pseudacorus and Galium palustre) were frequent and one (Carex disticha) was occasional. UnfavourableThe FCTs need re-writing – most of the M22/M24 and M23 that formerly occupied this block is to be allowed to succeed to tall herb fen – hopefully a mosaic including S24, but more likely one dominated by S4, S24, S5, S6, S7 and M27, similar to the one that developed in unit 49. The land is no long pumped free of water and summer flooding is common. The maintenance of rush-pasture is not possible, except where the ground rises up towards the southern margin of the unit and good stand of M22 remains.Management recommendationsGraze and cut-and-collect where possible if only on the drier margins where the stand of M22 remains.Allow the development of fen.

STANDING OPEN WATER AND CANALS

PAUL CANDLIN

051

23/12/2016

Favourable

Only assessed against the variety of birds feature. 50+ birds reckoned to breed across the SSSI (which is within 25% of the 70 target so deemed to be within natural fluctuations and favourable Dystrophic pools is not mentioned on the citation so it is not a notified feature of interest and can't be used to assess SSSI condition. FCTs needs amending. Any renotification might include it as a feature.

STANDING OPEN WATER AND CANALS

PAUL CANDLIN

052

23/12/2016

Favourable

STANDING OPEN WATER AND CANALS

PAUL CANDLIN

053

23/12/2016

Favourable

BROADLEAVED, MIXED AND YEW WOODLAND - Lowland

PAUL CANDLIN

054

14/03/2018

Favourable

For details see site check form on TRIM. Targets hit for variety of birds. Some wet woodland at the NW end of the unit, which is likely to have the same issues as the adjacent unit (eutrophication and drainage).

BROADLEAVED, MIXED AND YEW WOODLAND - Lowland

PAUL CANDLIN

055

12/08/2009

Unfavourable - Recovering

BROADLEAVED, MIXED AND YEW WOODLAND - Lowland

PAUL CANDLIN

056

05/01/2010

Unfavourable - Recovering

EARTH HERITAGE

PAUL CANDLIN

057

23/12/2016

Favourable

EARTH HERITAGE

PAUL CANDLIN

058

23/12/2016

Favourable