Environmental Baseline Data

Our Dry Weather Plan

South East Water’s 2021 draft drought plan

Appendix I: Environmental Baseline Data

March 2021

South East Water Rocfort Road Snodland Kent

ME6 5AH

Drought Plan | March 2021

Contents

This appendix contains the environmental baseline reports for the two river drought permit sites – the Rivers Ouse and Cuckmere, and also the Halling groundwater site. The detailed site surveys, location searches and search maps for these sites, and that form the baseline for the rest of the groundwater permit sites are contained within a separate folder of supporting documentation which is available on request from South East Water.

1. River Cuckmere Environmental Baseline 2020

2. Enhanced aquatic environmental baseline for the Grey Pit/Halling source

3. River Ouse Environmental Baseline 2020

River Cuckmere

Drought Plan: Environmental Baseline Draft

J00640/ Version 1.0

Client: South East Water

January 2021

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Report prepared for: South East Water

Main contributors: Matt Johns BSc MSc CEnv MCIEEM FGS MIFM, Director Liz Johns BSc MSc CEnv MCIEEM MRSB, Director Jacob Scoble BSc GradCIWEM, Geospatial Analyst

Reviewed by: Liz Johns BSc MSc CEnv MCIEEM MRSB, Director

Issued by:

Matt Johns BSc MSc CEnv MCIEEM FGS MIFM, Director

Suites 1 & 2, The Old Brewery, Newtown, Bradford on Avon, Wiltshire, BA15 1NF T: 01225 723652 | E: [email protected] | W: www.johnsassociates.co.uk

DOCUMENT REVISIONS

Version Details Date 1.0 Draft baseline issued for client comment 25 January 2021

Third party disclaimer

Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Johns Associates at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. Johns Associates excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

Purpose of the Report To compile desk and field based information to inform an environmental baseline to be used by South East Water in support of potential future drought permit/orders and drought monitoring. Surveys Undertaken OS mapping Google Earth imagary Ecological desk study Open source data on geology, soils, relevant environmental designations Catchment Explorer data River Habitat Survey River Corridor Survey Fish Macro-invertebrates Protected Notable Species Structures Water quality

Further Surveys Spring freshwater macroinvertebrate surveys and river corridor / protected species surveys Required Data Valid Until 2024 (next SEW Drought Plan Cycle date)

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The Purpose of this Report ...... 1 1.2 About South East Water ...... 2 1.3 The Current Operating Licence ...... 2 1.4 The Structure of this Report ...... 3 2 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 5 2.1 Scope ...... 5 2.2 General Environmental Setting ...... 5 2.3 Water RESOURCES, Hydrology and Rainfall ...... 6 2.4 Water Quality ...... 6 2.4.1 Desk Study ...... 6 2.4.2 Field Survey ...... 6 2.5 Ecology and Habitats ...... 6 2.5.3 Desk Study ...... 6 2.5.4 Field Survey ...... 7 2.5.5 Fish Survey Above Arlington Intake 2017 ...... 7 2.6 Structures ...... 8 2.6.6 Desk Study ...... 8 2.6.7 Field Survey ...... 8 2.7 Recreational Features ...... 8 2.7.8 Desk Study ...... 8 3 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 9 3.1 General Environmental Setting ...... 9 3.1.1 Overview ...... 9 3.1.2 Topography ...... 9 3.1.3 Geology ...... 10 3.1.4 Soils ...... 10 3.1.5 Designated Land and Water ...... 11 3.1.6 Drainage Network ...... 16 3.1.7 Landuse ...... 16 3.1.8 Recreation ...... 17 3.1.9 Visual and Cultural Designations ...... 18 3.1.10 Habitat Designations ...... 20 3.2 Water Resources, Hydrology and Rainfall ...... 20 3.3 Water Quality ...... 21 3.3.11 Historic Environment Agency Data ...... 21 3.3.12 Historic Water Framework Directive Data ...... 22 3.3.13 Current EA Water Framework Directive Water Quality Data ...... 27 3.3.14 2020 Water Quality Field Measurements ...... 36 3.3.15 2020 Macroinvertebrate Data ...... 37 3.4 Ecology and Habitats ...... 40 3.4.16 Desk Study (2012 data) – to be updated with 2021 data from the SBRC ...... 40 3.4.17 Field Survey ...... 45 3.5 Structures ...... 48 3.5.18 Desk Study ...... 48 3.5.19 Field Survey ...... 49

4 DROUGHT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 51

APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

This document sets out a detailed review of the environmental baseline associated with the River Cuckmere, East Sussex.

It presents a summary (as of January 2021) of available documentation, data and consultation on this topic, compiled to support potential future Drought Permit or Drought Order applications, together with other catchment or channel management tasks.

A total of three sites in the lower Cuckmere catchment were previously approved by South East Water (SEW) and the EA for baseline consideration in earlier iterations of draft Drought Permit documents; this has now been increased to four to include the impounded reach above the Arlington intake that is also part of the Arlington reservoir Site of Special Scientific Interest. The sites were selected as they are located close to historic Environment Agency (EA) biological and chemical monitoring points, as well as being considered to be in sensitive locations because of the presence of significant structures and/or obstructions to flow and fish passage (for example, weirs, sluices and also Arlington Reservoir and the Arlington potable water abstraction). The report brings key aspects of the baseline dataset up to date.

This additional data will also be critical in informing an understanding of how the river functions during times of drought and will inform SEW’s future management of drought on the Ouse (and potentially other water sources) as well as informing future statutory Drought Plans and ongoing baseline monitoring.

Survey sites associated with this monitoring study will be adopted for future drought monitoring. The Study Area is shown on Figure 1.1. Individual survey reaches and locations are shown in Appendix A.

Figure 1.1: Cuckmere Drought Environmental Baseline Study Area

1.2 ABOUT SOUTH EAST WATER

South East Water is one of eleven regulated ‘water only’ supply companies in England and Wales. The Company was created by the merger of the former South East Water Company and Mid Kent Water, in October 2006. The Company now covers an area of 5,657km2 of Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Berkshire and Hampshire, supplying water services to around two million people in nearly 900,000 properties. This Supply Area is shown in Figure 1.2. Resource Zone 2 (in green) is the area of concern for this environmental baseline.

Figure 1.2: South East Waters Supply Area

1.3 THE CURRENT OPERATING LICENCE

South East Water (SEW) currently holds a licence to abstract water from the River Cuckmere in Sussex for public water supply. Licence number 10/41/152004 permits the abstraction of water from the River Cuckmere at Arlington Weir, in the vicinity of Arlington Water Treatment Works (shown in Figure 1.3), at approximately National Grid Reference (NGR) TQ 538 069, to feed Arlington Reservoir. The purpose of the abstraction is to put water directly into the public supply, after being treated at Arlington Water Treatment Works (WTW). In summary, the licence allows:

§ annual total abstraction of 7464 ML;

§ daily average abstraction of 20.45 ML; and

§ daily peak abstraction of 68.20 ML.

This is a single direct abstraction from the River Cuckmere to Arlington Reservoir. No abstraction can occur between 1st October & 31st March if river flow is less than 9.1Ml/day. Full treatment of the water takes places at Arlington Water Treatment Works (WTW) (i.e. aeration, coagulation, rapid gravity sand filters, ozone, GAC etc). Arlington Water Treatment Works is fed directly (pumped) from the reservoir.

South East Water monitor their abstraction at Arlington using a computerised system that allows the operation of the abstraction pumps to ensure that licensed conditions are not breached.

Figure 1.3: Ardingly, Arlington and Barcombe Supply System

1.4 THE STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT

The remainder of this report sets out an environmental baseline that will be used to inform an assessment of potential/likely effects from a potential future Drought Permit/Drought Order. It provides information on:

• Scope of work undertaken to inform the baseline and methods used;

• Environmental baseline covering:

o General Environmental Setting;

o Water Quality;

o Ecology and Habitats; and

o Structures.

• Drought monitoring requirements.

Appendix A: Survey Location Details

Appendix B: Groundsure Report

Appendix C: Ecological Desk Study Report

Appendix D: River Habitat Survey Results

Appendix E: River Corridor Survey Results

Appendix F: Structures Within Survey Reaches

Appendix G: Photo Gazeteer

2 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 SCOPE

It is recognised that the correct scoping of potential drought impacts is of key importance including the range and extent of potential direct, indirect, secondary, interactive and cumulative effects arising due to a potential Drought Permit or Drought Order. It is important that the emphasis of drought impact assessment work, together with an appropriate supporting environmental baseline, should be on the potential 'main' or 'significant' environmental effects as many of the effects may be of little or no environmental significance and will need only very brief discussion to indicate that their possible relevance has been considered.

A rigorous approach has therefore been applied to ensure a consistent quality standard at the scoping stage aimed at ensuring the following with respect to the environmental baseline:

• Accurate identification of the zone of influence i.e. the spatial area that could be subject to environmental change as a result of potential drought conditions;

• Robust characterisation of the environmental baseline to encompass all sensitive or valued receptors that could be affected (ensuring exclusion of those receptors that are unlikely to be subject to significant effects from detailed consideration);

• Tight focus on those environmental effects that are likely to be significant with a corresponding tightly-defined focus on site-specific mitigation measures and post-drought restoration aimed at reducing these impacts; and

• A bespoke and specific monitoring package that is able to verify and react to actual levels of environmental change and effects occurring on the ground, and which is designed to provide accurate information pre- and post-drought on the ecological condition, health of the river (including physical and chemical parameters) and other associated aspects such as water quality, landscape character, cultural heritage interest and recreational activities. The scope of the baseline assessment to-date has been derived from the following:

• Analysis and review of desktop data and field survey data by a team of environmental experts, including environmental managers, hydrologists, geomorphologists, landscape architects and ecologists; and

• Detailed and on-going consultation with a range of stakeholders who have a good knowledge of the river and its catchment as well as the SEW operations, including the Environment Agency, a range of officers at South East Water and Sussex Wildlife Trust.

2.2 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

• Ordnance survey; • Google Earth Pro; • British Geological Survey; • Soilscapes; • Catchment Explorer; • Groundsure report (see Appendix B); • Archived Environment Agency Catchment Management Plan; • Other Opensource data.

2.3 WATER RESOURCES, HYDROLOGY AND RAINFALL

Information relating to water resources and abstractions, hydrology and rainfall will be provided by South East Water in additional documentation required to support potential Drought Permits/Orders.

2.4 WATER QUALITY

2.4.1 Desk Study

Environment Agency water quality data has been sourced and reviewed, drawing on the historic General Quality Assessment information and more recent Water Framework Data (from Catchment Explorer).

2.4.2 Field Survey Field measurements of water quality in 2020 were obtained by Johns Associates using a Hanna HI-9829-13042 Advanced Portable Multiparameter Probe (recording temperature, atmospheric pressure, pH, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, salinity, turbidity, oxidation reduction potential and dissolved oxygen). In addition, visual and olfactory inspections for signs of pollution (e.g. sewage, litter, algal blooms) were carried out by Johns Associates in 2020.

Macro-invertebrate samples (one from each of the three sample sites) were obtained in Autumn 2020 and Spring 2021 (to be completed) using a standard 3-minute kick sample and one-minute sweep sample. Samples were preserved in a 70% Industrial Methylated Spirit (IMS) and water solution before being identified to species level, with a range of water quality and flow indices being calculated.

2.5 ECOLOGY AND HABITATS

2.5.3 Desk Study

Desk study data to inform the ecological and habitat baseline was obtained from a number of sources:

• Historic information held by South East Water;

• Google Earth Pro imaging;

• Purchase of data from the Sussex Biodiversity Records Centre (see Appendix C);

• Opensource data and GIS mapping;

• General internet search.

2.5.4 Field Survey Ecological and habitat field surveys were carried out within a representative 500m reach at each for the four survey sites:

• River Habitat Survey (RHS) – this is a method1 designed to characterise and assess (in broad terms, the physical structure of freshwater streams and rivers. RHS is carried out along a standard 500m length of river channel and observations are made at ten equally spaced spot checks along the channel, whilst information on valley forms and land-use in the river corridor provides additional context. See Appendix D.

• River Corridor Survey (RCS) – is a standard ecological mapping survey2 for river corridors and focuses on a survey reach of 500m and the river channel, its banks and land close by (aquatic, marginal, bank and adjacent land zone) (to be further updated in spring 2021). See Appendix E.

• Search for signs or evidence of protected or notable species focusing on otter, water vole and kingfisher, as well as recording invasive no-native species of plant.

Freshwater macro-invertebrate samples were also collected (see Section 2.4.3).

2.5.5 Fish Survey Above Arlington Intake 2017 A fish survey was conducted on behalf of South East Water above the Arlington Intake by Johns Associates between the 12th and 14th September 2017. To provide the best chance of fully characterising the fish community several survey methods were employed to cover the range of habitats present.

A Point Abundance Sampling by Electric fishing method (PASE hereafter) was used to survey the 520 m stretch between the weir and the footbridge as well as an additional 270 m stretch upstream of the footbridge to provide some coverage of a more natural part of the channel in this area. PASE allows rapid coverage of a study area in a quantitative manner based on the area sampled at each point. The use of multiple points also allows the assessment of the efficacy of the technique in capturing the range of species present through examination of a species accumulation curve. This method was the least invasive of those to be employed and was therefore used first to provide an initial characterisation of the species present.

A three-run catch depletion survey was carried out on three sections of the river below the footbridge. This is also a quantitative approach, ideally using reductions in sequential catches to provide an estimate of the population size and densities of fish present in each stretch. However, given the depth of the channel and water clarity at the time of the survey, the efficiency of the method had the potential to be affected by fish being able to avoid capture in open water. Measures were taken to try to ensure the best chance of success, specifically by limiting the volume of water to be fished in each run (see section 3.2).

Finally, five seine nets were hauled at intervals along the stretch below the footbridge, to attempt to catch any larger fish specimens or species not yet encountered.

Water clarity (using a Secchi disk), water temperature, weather and general notes on habitat were also recorded. All equipment was checked, cleaned and dried prior to and at the end of the survey. All small items of equipment including electric fishing kit, buckets and hand nets were disinfected using Virkon® Aquatic before being allowed to dry. The larger seine and stop nets were checked and cleaned thoroughly before drying both prior to and after the survey.

1 Environment Agency. 2003. River Habitat Survey in Britain and Ireland. Field Survey Guidance Manual. 2 National Rivers Authority. 1992. River Corridor Surveys. Conservation Technical Handbook 1.

2.6 STRUCTURES

2.6.6 Desk Study A register and plan showing key structures within the River Cuckmere study area that could affect fish passage and water flow during a period of drought were produced. These were based on Ordnance Survey maps and Google Earth pro aerial imaging.

2.6.7 Field Survey Structures associated with the four survey reaches were inspected. Likely influences on fish passage and flow were evaluated, and key dimensions recorded. See Appendix F.

2.7 RECREATIONAL FEATURES

2.7.8 Desk Study A register and plan showing key recreational features within the River Cuckmere study area were produced. These were based on Ordnance Survey maps.

3 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

3.1 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1.1 Overview

The Cuckmere has a catchment of 134.7 km2, described by the National River Flow Archive website (http://www.nwl.ac.uk) as “a rural catchment developed on mixed geology (Hastings Beds predominate)”. The catchment land use is principally arable or grassland, with significant areas of woodland. Geologically, the catchment is predominantly moderate-low permeability, which results in a flashy flow regime within the Cuckmere.

The lower section of the Cuckmere meanders over a narrow floodplain between the South Downs before joining the sea at the Cuckmere Haven. Sections of the river (particularly downstream of Shermans Bridge) have been straightened and embanked. The tidal limit of the river is artificially formed by Milton Lock.

The head of water retained behind Milton Lock is essential for maintaining;

§ flow over the fish pass; and

§ flow through a feeder siphon which feeds a series of ditches leading to the West Dean Brooks (which forms the start of the Seaford to Beachy Head SSSI).

Abstraction from the Cuckmere at Arlington Water Treatment Works is the largest abstraction on the river. There are several minor agricultural abstractions in the upper part of the Cuckmere, the most significant being an agricultural abstraction between Michelham Priory and Arlington (TQ 55610 09220) which is licensed at a maximum abstraction of 1.19 Ml/d. Abstraction at Arlington is licensed at a maximum of 68.2 Ml/d, and as a result has the potential to have a large impact on the flow of the Cuckmere downstream of the abstraction point.

Upstream of Arlington Weir, the channel has been extensively modified. The channel has been re-sectioned and partially reinforced with concrete banks and set back embankments. The land either side is unimproved grassland which is grazed under a stewardship scheme by both sheep and cattle.

A weir structure across the River Cuckmere forms a significant impoundment which acts to hold water behind it. The weir incorporates a fish pass, which allows water to flow through it on all river flow scenarios. Sea trout are known to utilise the fish pass. The fish pass was modified in September 2011 when an eel pass was constructed to aid elver passage.

The channel immediately downstream of the abstraction weir has been artificially widened, and the section closest to the weir has been reinforced. Downstream of the pool at the foot of the weir there are significant vegetated sediment deposits, and between these deposits the channel is narrow and fast flowing. During flash events the sediment deposits and lower banks are covered with water.

Downstream of the road bridge at TQ 537 068 the river assumes a more natural channel.

Appendix G provides a photographic gazetter illustrating the general character and features from the four study sites.

3.1.2 Topography The Cuckmere catchment (shown in Figure 3.1) is undulating and narrow compared to its length, with many of the headwater streams occupying deep valleys. The inland topography varies by some 180 metres with the downland escarpment to the south providing a further relief feature up to 230m. The river is considered to have a relatively steep long-profile as a result.

Figure 3.1: Topographic map showing catchment boundaries

3.1.3 Geology In its course to the sea, the Cuckmere cuts through almost a complete section of Wealden geology from Ashdown Sandstone through Weald Clay to Chalk. Hastings beds covers the majority of the area with Ashdown Sands predominating and accounting for almost half of the outcrop. In contrast the middle reaches of the catchment are associated with Weald Clay, with smaller tracts of Upper and Lower Greensand, Gault Clay and Chalk making up the remainder.

3.1.4 Soils There are six soil types represented within the study area (see Figure 3.2):

• Freely draining slightly acid loamy soils;

• Slowly permeable seasonally wet slightly acid but base-rich loamy and clayey soils;

• Loamy and clayey floodplain soils with naturally high groundwater;

• Freely draining lime-rich loamy soils;

• Shallow lime-rich soils over chalk or limestone; and

• Loamy and clayey soils of coastal flats with naturally high groundwater.

Figure 3.2: Soil or sediment within the study area

3.1.5 Designated Land and Water

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

There are four SSSIs within the study area. These are described in turn below and are illustrated in Figure 3.3.

• Arlington Reservoir SSSI: Arlington Reservoir SSSI covers an area of 99.4 hectares and has a central NGR TQ 535 075. First notified in 1985, it is an important ornithological site. In recent years the numbers of wintering wigeon have exceeded 1% of the total UK population, with over 2,000 individuals recorded. In addition, over 170 species of birds on passage have been recorded and the number of wintering birds regularly exceeds 10,000 individuals. Other wintering birds include shoveler, tufted duck, teal, whitefronted geese and pintail. Some of the most notable passage birds are black throated diver, great northern diver and hen harrier. The reservoir is of recent origin and the fringing vegetation is not yet fully developed. Alder Alnus glutinosa and willow Salix sp. fringe parts of the open water and are backed by dense scrub of hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, guelder rose

Viburnum opulus, blackthorn Prunus spinosa and gorse Ulex europaeus. The more open areas support neutral grassland in which the grasses cocksfoot Dactylis glomerata, Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus and creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera are dominant together with a range of herbs including false fox sedge Carex otrubae, horseshoe vetch Hippocrepis comosa, fleabane Pulicaria dysenterica and common spotted orchid Dactylorhiza fuchsii. Fertile, grazed, grassland east of the reservoir are valuable additional feeding grounds for birds. Although the River Cuckmere, which runs through the site, is partly canalised, there are some areas of tall fen and emergent vegetation. Common reed Phragmites australis is dominant in places but elsewhere more diverse fen communities include branched burreed Sparganium erectum, marsh bedstraw Galium palustre, orange balsam Impatiens capensis, water mint Mentha aquatica and marsh woundwort Stachys palustris. Arrowhead Sagittaria sagittifolia is a notable plant found in more open water. The exposed shingle lying above the reservoir’s high water mark is gradually being colonised by such plants as scentless mayweed Tripleurospermum maritimum, curled dock Rumex crispus and persicaria Polygonum persicaria.

• Milton Gate Marsh SSSI: Covering an area of 18.6 hectares and with a central grid reference TQ 541 058, Milton Gate Marsh SSSI consists of two wetland depressions forming a valley fen on alluvial soils created by the River Cuckmere and one of its tributaries. Agriculturally unimproved and marshy grasslands dominated by rushes and sedges make up much of these depressions, but there are also areas of reed bed, sallow carr and open water. This mosaic of habitats supports a rich assemblage of invertebrates including one proposed Red Data Book species, and numerous nationally rare and scarce species. The site is also of local importance for the breeding bird community it supports. The tall fen vegetation present in part of the central marshy area is dominated by reed Phragmites australis, with mixed tall herbs, and merges into sallow scrub at the eastern end of the site. Two small ponds, subject to summer drying, are present and the running water of the Cuckmere supports a well- developed marginal flora dominated by reeds and reed sweet-grass Glyceria maxima. Included within the central area are some patches of drier neutral grassland dominated by cock's-foot grass and Yorkshire fog, adding to the site's range of habitat types. Between the central wet area and the railway line lie heavily grazed fields of neutral semi-improved grassland dominated by crested dog's-tail Cynosurus cristatus, sheep's fescue Festuca ovina and cock's-foot; their interest is that they form an integral part of the hydrological system supporting the more diverse communities elsewhere in the site. The varied vegetation of the site supports a rich assemblage of invertebrate species with a high degree of habitat fidelity towards rich marshland. The rare hoverfly Cheilosia chrysocoma and seventeen nationally scarce species have been found here. The site supports a number of breeding birds of local importance to Sussex, including reed warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus, sedge warbler A. schoenobaenus, and water rail Rallus aquaticus. Another very rare wetland bird has bred sporadically in recent years.

• Wilmington Downs SSSI: A small area of this SSSI just falls into the study area. Located at central grid reference TQ 545 035 and covering an area of 208.2hectares, Wilmington Downs SSSI is dominated by the nationally uncommon chalk grassland habitat on the steep escarpment of the South Downs. In addition to a representative chalk flora the site holds two nationally rare invertebrates and several notable ones. The grassland is of the sheep’s fescue grass Festuca ovina – upright-brome grass Bromus erectus type and has developed over thin rendzina soils. In un-grazed areas, scrub has developed, and woodland is present in places on deeper soils at the foot of the escarpment. A range of slope aspects occur and south facing slopes are particularly valuable for invertebrates. Two invertebrate species are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981: the wart biter grass-hopper Decticus verrucivorus and the snail Monacha cartusiana. The site is one of the best East Sussex localities for both lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) and orthoptera (grasshoppers and crickets). The site contains a significant number of lichens and mosses including several unusual species and the country’s only known location of one rare moss. The scrub is often pure gorse but more mixed belts are present with wayfaring tree Viburnum lantana, hawthorn and blackthorn. In places scrubby woodlands have developed

over the mixed scrub with ash Fraxinus excelsior and sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus being dominant. More mature woodland with beech Fagus sylvatica and ash is present at the base of the escarpment. The uncommon shrub fly honeysuckle Lonicera xylosteum has been recorded from this woodland since 1901 but it is likely that it was introduced and is not of natural origin. The site supports 25 species of butterfly including three uncommon species: silver spotted skipper, grayling and Adonis blue. This is the only East Sussex locality of the moth Udea flavalis. In addition to the wart biter grasshopper another uncommon orthopteran also occurs, the long-winged cone head Conocephalus discolor.

• Seaford to Beachy Head SSSI: Covering an area of 1,102 hectares and with a central grid reference TQ 540 970, part of Seaford to Beachy Head SSSI falls into the southern-most part of the study area. Seaford to Beachy Head SSSI is an outstanding site of national importance for its biological and geological features. The diverse range of habitats includes herb-rich chalk grassland, chalk heath (a unique, rare habitat on chalk soils), maritime grassland, foreshore and chalk cliffs, river meanders, and Greensand reef. Together, these habitats support a number of nationally rare, nationally scarce and nationally significant plants, invertebrates and birds. The cliffs and chalk platform beneath the Greensand reef, and the chalk escarpment at Cow Gap are identified in the Geological Conservation Review as outstanding for their geological and geomorphological interest.

Figure 3.3: Nationally designated sites of nature conservation importance

Ramsar Sites

There are no Ramsar Sites within the study area.

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)

There are no SACs within the study area.

Special Protection Areas (SPA)

There are no SPAs within the study area.

National Nature Reserves (NNR)

Lullington Heath NNR is located just outside the study area to the south east. There are no NNRs within the study area.

Local Nature Reserves (LNR)

There is one LNR located within the study area:

• Arlington Reservoir LNR: Wetland, deciduous woodland and grassland habitats. Good for autumn and spring migrating birds with over 173 species recorded. Barn owl, osprey, kingfisher, various bat species, dormice, water vole, smooth and palmate newts and 37 recorded butterfly species. The site can hold up to 10,000 over-wintering widgeon.

Designated Ancient Woodland

Ancient woodlands are classified as areas which have been wooded continuously since at least 1600 AD. This includes semi-natural woodland and plantations on ancient woodland sites. 'Wooded continuously' does not mean there is or has previously been continuous tree cover across the whole site, and not all trees within the woodland have to be old.

There are a total of 5 ancient woodlands within the study area. These are displayed on the Environmental designations map on page 53 of Appendix B and in Figure 3.5. The closest is Ludlay coppice, located approximately 1167m north west of Arlington Reservoir.

Biosphere Reserves

There are no biosphere reserves within the study area.

Forest Parks

There are no forest parks within the study area.

Marine Conservation Zones (MCZ)

There are no MCZs within the study area.

Green Belt

There are no areas of designated green belt within the study area.

Proposed Ramsar Sites

There are no proposed Ramsar sites within the study area.

Possible Special Areas of Conservation (pSAC)

There are no pSACs within the study area.

Potential Special Protection Areas (pSPA)

There are no pSPAs within the study area.

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones

There are no nitrate vulnerable zones within the study area.

SSSI Impact Risk Zones

SSSI Impact Zones were developed to allow a rapid initial assessment of the potential risks to SSSIs posed by development proposals. They define zones around each SSSI which reflect the particular sensitivities of the features for which it is notified and indicate the types of development proposal which could potentially have adverse impacts. Features are displayed on the SSSI Impact Zones and Units map on page 58 of Appendix B.

Areas within the study area fall within SSSI impact risk zones as follows:

• On-Site (Arlington Reservoir) – Types of developments requiring consultation include: All applications – all planning applications.

SSSI Units

There are 7 SSSI units within 2km of Arlington Reservoir:

• Unit A of Arlington Reservoir SSSI - Located on Site at Arlington Reservoir and comprising standing open water and canals broad habitat type. This unit is currently in Favourable condition.

• Unit B of Arlington Reservoir SSSI - Located on Site at Arlington Reservoir and comprising standing open water and canals broad habitat type. This unit is currently in Favourable condition.

• Unit D of Milton Gate Marsh SSSI (Northern Area) – This unit comprises fen, marsh and swamp – lowland broad habitat types and is currently in Unfavourable – Recovering condition.

• Unit 14 of Milton Gate Marsh SSSI (Western Area inc. River) – This unit comprises fen, marsh and swamp – lowland broad habitat types and is currently in Favourable condition.

• Unit 15 of Milton Gate Marsh SSSI (Upper Middle Area) - This unit comprises fen, marsh and swamp – lowland broad habitat types and is currently in Unfavourable – Recovering condition.

• Unit 18 of Milton Gate Marsh SSSI (Southwestern Area inc. River) - This unit comprises fen, marsh and swamp – lowland broad habitat types and is currently in Unfavourable – Recovering condition.

• Unit 19 of Milton Gate Marsh SSSI (Lower Middle Areas) - This unit comprises fen, marsh and swamp – lowland broad habitat types and is currently in Unfavourable – Declining condition.

3.1.6 Drainage Network The key drainage network feeding into the main Chuckmere channel and the study area is shown on Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4 Key Drainage Features.

3.1.7 Landuse Only a small proportion of the catchment area is associated with urban development with woodland accounting for almost 20%and agricultural land dominating the rest.

3.1.8 Recreation Key recreational features associated with the study area and adjacent land can be seen in Figure 3.5. Those within the study area are listed in Table 3.1.

Figure 3.5 Recreational Assets

Table 3.1 Recreational Assets in the Study Area

3.1.9 Visual and Cultural Designations The built environment designations are shown on Figure 3.6 and described (where relevant) in this section.

Figure 3.6: Built environment

World Heritage Sites

There are no World Heritage Sites within the study area.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

There are no AONBs within the study area.

National Parks

There are no National Parks within the study area.

Listed Buildings

There are seven Grade I Listed Buildings within the study area, with numerous Grade II and Grade II* Listed Buildings also present (see Figure 3.4).

Conservation Areas

There are four Conservation Areas within the study area (see Figure 3.4), typically associated with small villages/ hamlets.

Scheduled Monuments

There are six Scheduled Monuments within the study area (see Figure 3.4).

Registered Parks and Gardens

There is one Registered Parks and Garden site within the study area.

Agricultural Designations

Agricultural Land Classification Classification of the quality of agricultural land taking into consideration multiple factors including climate, physical geography and soil properties. It should be noted that the categories for the grading of agricultural land are not consistent across England, Wales and Scotland. Features are displayed on the Agricultural designations map on page 65 of Appendix B.

Land close to Arlington Reservoir is classified as Grade 3 which is described as “Good to moderate quality agricultural land.” It comprises land with moderate limitations which affect the choice of crops, timing and types of cultivation, harvesting or the level of yield. Where more demanding crops are grown, yields are generally lower or more variable than on land in Grades 1 and 2.

Grade 4 agricultural land is also present within the study area, which is described as “Poor quality agricultural land.” This is land with severe limitations, which significantly restrict the range of crops and/ or level of yields. It is mainly suited to grass with occasional arable crops (e.g. cereals and forage crops) the yields of which are variable. In moist climates, yields of grass may be moderate to high but there may be difficulties in utilization. The grade also includes very droughty arable land.

3.1.10 Habitat Designations

Priority Habitat

Habitats of principal importance as named under Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) Section 41.

Features are displayed on the Habitat designations map on page 68 of Appendix B and on Figure 3.7.

There are seven Priority Habitats within the study area: deciduous woodland; good quality semi-improved grassland; traditional orchard; lowland fens; rivers and streams; coastal and floodplain grazing marsh and lowland calcareous grassland.

Figure 3.7: Scarce habitat

3.2 WATER RESOURCES, HYDROLOGY AND RAINFALL

This will be provided by South East Water in a potential future Drought Permit/Order.

3.3 WATER QUALITY

3.3.11 Historic Environment Agency Data Historic data on biological and chemical water quality (including General Quality Assessment (GQA), macro-invertebrate monitoring data and biotic indices, provided by the EA and reported in previous drought environmental baselines were reviewed. Relevant aspects are summarised below.

The Environment Agency had one sampling point on the River Cuckmere at Arlington Reservoir, and two further points upstream (approximately 2km and 4km away) and one sampling point approximately 4km downstream.

At Arlington Reservoir, the River Cuckmere had been consistently categorised as having a water chemistry General Quality Assessment (GQA) of B (good). The levels of nitrate in the river had been recorded as level 3 (moderately low) since 1988-1990 and the levels of phosphate had been level 5 (very high) for the same period. The biological water quality was measured in 2000 and 2004 and in both years the GQA was A (very good).

The same results as those at Arlington Reservoir had been recorded at the sampling site 2km upstream of the reservoir. The sampling site 4km downstream had the same nitrate, phosphate and biological levels but the water chemical GQA varies between B and C (fairly good).

In order to establish the nature of any impact of the Arlington intake upon water quality (using these data), raw water quality data from the upstream site (Michelham Priory) and the downstream site (Shermans Bridge) were compared. Results for 2005 are displayed in Figure 3.8.

Water quality appeared to be independent to the flow or level data displayed in Figure 3.8. The abstraction at Arlington Intake appeared to have no significant impact on water quality downstream at Sherman Bridge. There was no deterioration in quality downstream for BOD, suspended solids or ammonia, and the small fluctuations in water quality displayed were consistent with those expected of a good healthy river. However, dissolved oxygen saturation levels were lower downstream of the abstraction at Sherman Bridge, with the lowest concentrations occurring during the summer. The low concentrations observed in July 2005 were more likely to be attributed to a combination of natural phenomena such as the warmer weather, low flow and possible algal activity, as concentrations are also lower upstream at Michelham Priory. During the 2005 winter months, when temperatures were lower, the dissolved oxygen concentration at Shermans Bridge remained high enough to maintain excellent quality status.

Figure 3.8 Map of WFD monitoring point on River Cuckmere at Arlington in 2005

Reference: Environment Agency (August 2011)

3.3.12 Historic Water Framework Directive Data The River Cuckmere is located within the Cuckmere and Pevensey Levels catchment. In 2006 there were 25 water bodies in this catchment. Nine were rivers and 16 were heavily modified/artificial water bodies. Only 3 of the 9 non-heavily modified river water bodies were currently considered to be in good condition.

The chemical quality is illustrated in Figures 3.9.

Figure 3.9: River Cuckmere at Arlington historic WFD chemical quality

Reference: Environment Agency (August 2011)

In order to establish the nature of any impact of the Arlington intake upon water quality, raw water quality data from the upstream site (Michelham Priory), Arlington Intake and the downstream site (Sherman Bridge) were compared. Results for 2005-2011 are displayed in Figures 3.9 to 3.12.

The figures show that for un-ionised ammonia, BOD and suspended solids no major differences are visible between sites during low flow periods. Therefore, the abstraction at Arlington appeared to have no significant impact on water quality at the downstream site of Shermans Bridge. Dissolved oxygen levels were generally lower at the downstream Sherman Bridge with sags more pronounced during the summer period. The low concentrations observed were more likely to be attributed to a combination of natural phenomena such as the warmer weather, low flow and possible algal activity, as concentrations are also lower upstream at Michelham Priory. During the winter months, when temperatures were lower, the dissolved oxygen concentration at Shermans Bridge always remained high enough to maintain excellent quality status.

Figure 3.9: Un-ionised ammonia results for the River Cuckmere 2005-2011

Figure 3.10: BOD results for the River Cuckmere 2005-2011

Figure 3.11: Dissolved Oxygen results for the River Cuckmere 2005-2011

Figure 3.12: Suspended solids results for the River Cuckmere 2005-2011

The Environment Agency provided biological data for three sampling points on the River Cuckmere; Arlington Intake, Michelham Priory (approximately 2km upstream of the intake) and Shermans Bridge (approximately 4km downstream of the intake).

Until GQA ceased to be recorded in 2004 at Arlington Intake and Michelham Priory (4km upstream of Arlington) on the River Cuckmere both sites were consistently categorised as having water chemistry GQA of B (good). Shermans Bridge (3km downstream of Arlington) water chemical GQA varied between B and C (fairly good).

Table 3.2 sets out EA water quality results (for 2009). These show that sites above and at the abstraction point had the same water quality while Milton Lock below the abstraction point is a grade below. This appeared to be as a result of a reduction in dissolved oxygen.

Table 3.2: 2009 Water quality scores for the Cuckmere

Section of River. Chemistry Biology Nitrates Phosphates

Chemistry and biology - A to F Wick stream B A 3 5 (very good to bad), confluence to Nitrates and Knock hatch phosphates - 1 to 6 (very low stream levels to very high levels) Arlington Intake B A 3 5

to Wick stream confluence

Arlington Intake C A 3 5 to Milton Lock

Table 3.3: Biological GQA scores for the River Cuckmere 1995-2006

1995 1996/7 1998/9 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Site Name

Sherman A A A A A B Bridge

Arlington A A A A A intake

Michelham A A A A A A A priory

Horselungs A A A A B A Bridge

Sheepwash A A A A Bridge

The macro invertebrate information for 2005-2011 revealed that the River Cuckmere (at Michelham Priory, Arlington Intake and Sherman bridge) supported a diverse macro invertebrate assemblage. This includes a number of relatively pollution-sensitive taxa, including mayflies such as Ephemeridae and Leptophlebiidae (BMWP = 10), stoneflies such as Taeniopterygidae (BMWP = 10), Nemouridae (BMWP = 7) and caddis flies, including Goeridae, Lepidostomatidae, Leptoceridae (BMWP = 10), Limnephilidae, Rhyacophillidae and Polycentropodidae (BMWP = 7). The following families

were only found at Michelham priory upstream of the abstraction point the caddis flies Goeridae, Lepidostomatidae, Rhyacophillidae and the stone fly Nemouridae.

Figure 3.13: BMWP scores for the River Cuckmere 2005-2011

An analysis of family LIFE O:E index scores and flow data provided by the EA for Michelham Priory, Arlington and Sherman Bridge indicates that scores for all sites are good being above 0.96 (See Figure 3.14).

Mean scores for Michelham Priory were slightly higher at 1.1 as opposed to 1.0 at Shermans Bridge but for the most part there was no great difference in the sites and therefore no significant effect on macro invertebrate community structure as a result of long term changes in flow. This is characteristic of rivers with impermeable catchments, where the invertebrate communities are subjected to recurring short-term hydrological events.

Figure 3.14: Family LIFE O: E ratios for the River Cuckmere 2005-2011

The mean ASPT score for all the River Cuckmere sites was 5.0 between 2005 and 2011. The mean score for Michelham priory was 5.4 and for Sherman Bridge mean score was 4.8. This showed that the downstream site had slightly poorer diversity of species than the Michelham priory site possibly because of slightly poorer water quality (see Figure3.15).

Figure 3.15: ASPT scores for the River Cuckmere 2005-2011

3.3.13 Current EA Water Framework Directive Water Quality Data Current information on the condition of the Cuckmere in relation to the Water Framwork Directive and its objectives is set out in this section of the report. It draws on information from the Environment Agency’s Catchment Explorer and presents information for individual relevant reaches within the Cuckmere Study Area.

Key for classification status of WFD element Moderate or less Supports Good Fail Poor Moderate Good High

Figure 3.16 – Key detailing classification status of WFD element

Reaches Upstream of Study Area:

Table 3.4 - Cuckmere from Warbleton to Lower Horsebridge

Water body Cuckmere from Warbleton to Lower Horsebridge ID GB107041012390 Length 17.254km Catchment 2987.001HA Area Type Not designated artifical or heavily modified Overall Moderate (2019) Water Body Ecological Moderate (2019) Potential Chemical Fail (2019) Status

Figure 3.17 – Location of Cuckmere from Warbleton to Lower Horsebridge Reach

Cuckmere from Warbleton to Lower Horsebridge – this reach of the river Cuckmere is located upstream of the survey area. In 2019 it received an overall WFD Classification of Moderate, with Ecological Status classed as Moderate and Chemical Status as Fail. Upstream of this reach is Waldron Ghyll, and downstream is Cuckmere between Arlington and Lower Horsebridge. Some of the reasons shown for not achieving good status are Sewage Discharge affecting Phosphate, Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Combined and Invertebrates, Poor Soil Management affecting Phosphate, and Poor Nutrient Management affecting Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Combined.

Reaches within Survey Area (Upstream to Downstream):

Table 3.5 - Cuckmere between Arlington and Lower Horsebridge

Water body Cuckmere between Arlington and Lower Horsebridge ID GB107041012930 Length 8.431km Catchment 1880.72ha Area Type Not designated artifical or heavily modified Ecological Chemical Poor (2019) Fail (2019) Potential Status Biological quality Priority Fail (2019) elements Poor (2019) substances Macrophytes and Cypermethrin (Priority Phytobenthos Poor (2019) Good (2019) hazardous) Combined Fish Good (2019) Fluoranthene Good (2019) Invertebrates High (2019) Other Pollutants Does not require assessment (2019) Hydromorphological Priority Supports Good (2019) Fail (2019) Supporting Elements hazardous substsances Polybrominated Hydrological Supports diphenyl ethers Fail (2019) Regime Good (PBDE) Physio-chemical Perfluorooctane Moderate (2019) Good (2019) elements sulphonate (PFOS) Ammonia (Phys- High (2019) Benzo(a)pyrene Good (2019) Chem) Dioxins and dioxin- Dissolved oxygen High (2019) Good (2019) like compounds Heptachlor and cis- pH High (2019) Good (2019) Heptachlor epoxide Hexabromocyclodode Phosphate Poor (2019) Good (2019) cane (HBCDD) Temperature High (2019) Hexachlorobenzene Good (2019) Hexachlorobutadiene Good (2019) Specific Pollutants - - Mercury and Its Fail (2019) Compounds Reasons for Invasive non- Diffuse source - Natural - not achieving Diffuse source - Point source - Diffues source - Point source - Sewage native Riparian/in-river Natural good and poor soil Misconnection Poor nutrient discharge (continuous) species - activities (inc conditions - reasons for management s management Other plants bankside erosion) Other deterioration

Phosphate. Macrophytes Macrophytes Macrophytes and Macrophytes and Classifcation Macrophytes and and and Phosphate Phosphate Phytobenthos Phytobenthos Element Phytobenthos Phytobenthos Phytobenthos Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Cuckmere from Whaldron Warbleton to Protected Hurst Haven at Ghyll and Lower Area Hailsham NVZ S520 River Horsebridge NVZ Cuckmere S518 ID S520 S518 UKENRI129 Urban Waste Water Nitrates Directive Nitrates Directive Treatment Directive Directive

Figure 3.18 – Location of Cuckmere between Arlington and Lower Horsebridge reach

Cuckmere between Arlington and Lower Horsebridge – this reach is located at the top of the survey area, it has a length of 8.431km and a catchment area of 1880.72ha, it is not designated artificial or heavily modified. In 2019 it received WFD Classifications of Poor for Overall, Poor for Ecological and Fail for Chemical. For Ecological Potential, a more detailed breakdown shows an overall classification of Poor for Biological Quality Elements, however, this is broken down into Poor for Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Combined, Good for Fish and High for Invertebrates. Hydro-morphological Supporting Elements are classed as Supports Good, whilst Physico-Chemical Quality Elements are given a Moderate Classification, featuring High for Ammonia (Phys-Chem), Dissolved Oxygen, pH and Temperature, with Phosphate receiving a Poor classification. For the Chemical Status of this reach it has an overall classification of Fail, which is further broken down into Good for Priority Substances and a Fail for Priority Hazardous Substances. Other Pollutants were shown as not requiring assessment.

Reasons for not achieving good status included Phosphate being affected by Sewage Discharge, Poor Soil Management and Misconnections. Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Combined are affected by Invasive non-native species, Sewage Discharge, Poor Nutrient Management, Riparian/in-river activities (inc. bankside erosion) and Natural Conditions. There are 3 protected areas in this reach; Hurst Haven at Hailsham NVZ S520 which is part of the Nitrates Directive, Cuckmere from Warbleton to Lower Horsebridge NVZ S518 which is also part of the Nitrates Directive, and Waldron Ghyll and River Cuckmere which is an Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.

The objectives for this reach are shown below in Figure XX and show that Overall Water Body is expected to reach Good Status by 2027, along with Ecological Potential.

Figure 3.19 – Objectives table for Cuckmere between Arlington and Lower Horsebridge

Table 3.6 - Cuckmere from Alfriston to Arlington

Water body Cuckmere from Alfriston to Arlington ID GB107041012330 Length 5.936km Catchment 2608.91ha Area Type Heavily Modified Ecological Moderate (2019) Chemical Fail (2019) Potential Supporting elements Moderate (2019) Status Priority Good (2019) (Surface Water) Mitigation substances Moderate or Cypermethrin (Priority Measures Good (2019) less hazardous) Assessment Biological quality Poor (2019) Fluoranthene Good (2019) elements Macrophytes and Moderate Lead and Its Phytobenthos Good (2019) (2019) Compounds Combined Nickel and Its Fish Poor (2019) Good (2019) Compounds Invertebrates High (2019) Other Pollutants Good (2019) Physico-chemical Aldrin, Dieldrin, Moderate (2019) Good (2019) quality elements Endrin & Isodrin Acid Neutralising High (2019) para - para DDT Good (2019) Capacity Ammonia (Phys- Priority High (2019) Fail (2019) Chem) hazardous substances Polybrominated Moderate Dissolved Oxygen diphenylethers Fail (2019) (2019) (PBDE) Perfluorooctane pH High (2019) Good (2019) sulphonate (PFOS) Moderate Phosphate Benzon(a)pyrene Good (2019) (2019) Cadmium and Its Temperature High (2019) Good (2019) Compounds Specific pollutants Dioxins and dioxin High (2019) Good (2019) like compounds Heptachlor and cis- Manganese High (2019) Good (2019) Heptachlor epoxide Hexabromocy Arsenic High (2019) clododecane Good (2019) (HBCDD) Copper High (2019) Hexachlorobenzene Good (2019) Iron High (2019) Hexachlorobutadine Good (2019) Mecury and Its Zinc High (2019) Fail (2019) Compounds

Reasons for Diffuse not achieving Physical Diffues source - Point source - Sewage Point source - source - poor Physical modification - Barriers - good and modification - Poor nutrient discharge (continuous) Misconnections soil ecological discontinuity reasons for Land drainage management management deterioration

Phosphate. Macrophytes and Classifcation Macrophytes and Phosphate Phosphate Fish Phytobenthos Fish Element Phytobenthos Combined Combined Cuckmere from Protected Waldron Ghyll and Alfriston to SWSGZ4004 Area River Cuckmere Arlington UKGB1070410123 UKENRI129 SWSGZ4004 ID 30 Urban Waster Water Drinking Water Safeguard Directive Treatment Directive Protected Area Zone

Figure 3.20 – Location of Cuckmere from Alfriston to Arlington reach

Cuckmere from Alfriston to Arlington – this reach is toward the middle and lower end of the survey area, it is 5.936km long and has a catchment area of 2608.91ha. It is designated as Heavily Modified. This received 2019 classifications of Moderate for Overall Water Body, and Ecological Status, and Fail for Chemical. The Ecological Status can be further broken down to show a classification of Moderate for Supporting Elements (Surface Water), Biological Quality Elements is Poor; this features classifications of Moderate for Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Combine, Poor for Fish and High for Invertebrates. Physico-Chemical Quality Elements has an overall classification of Moderate, a more detailed breakdown show High given for Acid Neutralising Capacity, Ammonia (Phys-Chem), pH and Temperature, with Dissolved Oxygen and Phosphate being Moderate. Specific Pollutants are shown as High, including Manganese, Arsenic, Copper, Iron and Zinc. Chemical Status has an overall Fail classification, this is further broken down into Good for Priority Substances and Good for Other Pollutants, whilst Priority Hazardous Substances receives a Fail classification, failing on Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDE) and Mercury and Its Compounds.

Reasons for not achieving good status and for deterioration are shown to include; Phosphate affected by Sewage discharge, Misconnections and Poor soil management. Fish affected by Land drainage and Barriers – ecological connectivity, with Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Combined being affected by Sewage discharge and Poor nutrient management. There are 3 protected areas within this reach; Waldron Ghyll and River Cuckmere which is an Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, Cuckmere from Alfriston to Arlington with is a Drinking Water Protected Area, and SWSGZ4004 which is a Safeguard Zone.

The objectives for this reach are shown below in Figure XX and include reaching Good Ecological Status by 2027. Chemical Status is shown as Fail 2015 with the reason No known technical solution is available given for this. The Overall Water Body is shown as Moderate 2015 with the reasons Disproportionate burdens, and no known technical solutions available given.

Figure 3.21 – Objectives for Cuckmere from Alfriston to Arlington

Table 3.7 - Cuckmere

Water body Cuckmere ID GB540704104800 Length n/a Transitional Water Catchment n/a 36.484ha (Surface Area) Area Type Heavily Modified Ecological Moderate (2019) Chemical Fail (2019) Potential Supporting elements Moderate (2019) Status Priority Good (2019) (Surface Water) Mitigation substances Moderate or Cypermethrin (Priority Measures Good (2019) less hazardous) Assessment Biological quality High (2019) elements Fluoranthene Good (2019) Macroalgae High (2019) Hydromorphological Other Pollutants Supports Good (2019) Supporting Elements Does not require assessment

Priority Fail (2019) hazardous Polybrominated substances diphenylethers Fail (2019) (PBDE) Perfluorooctane Good (2019) sulphonate (PFOS) Benzon(a)pyrene Good (2019) Hydrological Supports Dioxins and dioxin Regime Good (2019) Good (2019) like compounds Hexabromocy clododecane Good (2019) (HBCDD) Hexachlorobenzene Good (2019) Hexachlorobutadine Good (2019) Mecury and Its Fail (2019) Compounds Reasons for not achieving Physical modifcation - good and Other - Flood reasons for Protection Use deterioration Classifcation Mitigation Measures Element Assessment

Figure 3.22 – Location of Cuckmere reach

Cuckmere – this reach is at the downstream end of the survey area and covers to length of the Cuckmere that enters the sea. This is a transitional waterbody that is heavily modified, and has a surface area of 36.484ha. In 2019 it received an Overall Water Body classification of Moderate, with Ecological Status being Moderate, and Chemical Status a Fail. The Ecological Status can be further broken down in sub-classifications, these include Supporting Elements (Surface Water) which is Moderate, Biological Quality Elements is shown as High; this includes Macroalgae which is High. Hydro- morphological Supporting Elements are shown as Supports Good, whilst Specific Pollutants were not classified for 2019. The Chemical Status is shown to include Priority Substances with a Good classification and Priority Hazardous Substances as a Fail, with Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDE) and Mercury and Its Compounds both being Fails. Other Pollutants are shown as not requiring assessment.

Reasons for not achieving good status and reasons for deterioration are given as Physical Modification – Flood Protection Use. The objectives for this reach are shown below in Figure XX, and include Overall Water Body and Ecological Status’ reaching Good by 2027. There are no protected areas present within this reach.

Figure 3.23 – Objectives for Cuckmere reach

3.3.14 2020 Water Quality Field Measurements Water quality was measured at Site 1, Site 2 (upstream end also forming the downstream end of Site 2) and Site 3. The results are set out in Table 3.8 below.

Table 3.8. Water quality measurements from the Cuckmere in September 2020.

Survey Date Time Temp.[°C] pH EC[µS/cm] D.O.[%] D.O.[ppm] Turb.FNU Location 1 30/09/2020 10:00:21 13.71 7.22 340 75.4 7.77 4.3 2 30/09/2020 14:20:39 14.52 7.88 200 89.6 9.05 105 3 30/09/2020 16:16:22 13.3 7.71 272 81.1 8.39 16.5

Temperature The measured temperatures across the 3 locations has a range of 1.22°C, with the highest temperature recorded at Location at 14.52°C. The higher temperature at Location 2 is likely a result of the measurement being taken toward the middle of the day when the sun would have been warming the water for a long period of time before it starts to set. pH The pH levels across the 3 sites has a range of 0.66, with Survey Location 1 which is downstream having the lowest pH of 7.22, whilst Location 2 has the highest at 7.88. These are within the range that could be considered as neutral.

Electrical Conductivity There is a large range of 338 µS/cm in the EC levels, with Location 2 having a lower measurement of 200 µS/cm, this is compared to measurements of 340 µS/cm and 272 µS/cm for Sites 1 and 3 respectively.

Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen concentrations are relatively high (Site 1 at Shermans Bridge has the lowest at 75.4 % saturation reflecting the slower flow associated with this location, Site 2 is the highest at 89.6% reflecting its position downstream of the sluices and fish pass associacted with the Arlington intake which would increase aeration, and Site 3 sits between the two at 82.1 % refecting a perhaps more typical environment, The results show satisfactory concentrations of oxygen that would support the aquatic ecosystem associated with the Cuckmere, despite the relatively dry weather conditions associated prior to and during the sampling period.

Turbidity – There is a range of 100.7FNU for Turbidity across the 3 Sites, with Location 2 having the highest Turbidity at 105FNU, whilst Locations 1 and 3 were 4.3FNU and 16.5FNU respectively. This is considered to reflect the build-up of finer particles (including potentially algae) in the impounded section of the Cuckmere above the Arlington Intake and resuspension associated with flow down the fish pass and sluices.

Odour and Visual No odours characteristic of sewage or organic pollution was detected and no visual efidence of pollution e.g. hydrocarbon sheen, foaming was recorded.

Algal blooms No visual evidence of algal blooms was recorded.

3.3.15 2020 Macroinvertebrate Data Macroinvertebrate data from the September 2020 three-minute kick sample and 1 minute sweep for Site 1 (riffle downstream of a glide and Shermans Bridge), Site 2 (riffle at the upstream end of Site 3 below the Arlington Intake and downstream of site 2) and Site 4 (a riffle located downstream of Michelham Priory) are presented below. This will be updated with replicate samples to be taken in Spring (e.g. May) 2021.

Table 3.9 Macroinvertebrate Data from the River Cuckmere in September 2020

Samples were taken from the Cuckmere River during autumn 2020 at three sites. It is difficult to draw conclusions from just one sampling season as this represents a ‘snapshot’ at a given time of the macroinvertebrate communities inhabiting the sites. However, a total of 61 different species were found across the three samples which suggests a diverse range of macroinvertebrate fauna within the river.

Site 1 was below the tidal limit as signified by a double figure count (69) of the brackish shrimp Gammarus zaddachi. The site supported a total of 38 species with a Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) score of 149 which is indicative of good water quality. There were seven species of molluscs in addition to a diverse range of fly larvae (14 species). Several species were characteristic of slow flowing conditions including the Lake Limpet (Acroloxus lacustris), the larvae of the Blue-tailed Damselfly (Ischnura elegans), a larva of the Emperor Dragonfly (Anax imperator), pondskater (Gerris sp.), lesser water boatman (Sigara dorsalis) and the cased caddisfly Phryganea grandis. Water Beetles included riffle beetles (Limnius volckmari and Oulimnius sp.) and the diving beetles Laccophilus hyalinus and Nebrioporus elegans. The Black Moss Beetle (Hydraena nigrita) was also found. The diversity of the macroinvertebrate community suggests a range of habitats including aquatic vegetation and slow flowing marginal niches.

Site 2 was located downstream of the intake for Arlington Reservoir. The sample from the site was less diverse compared with the other samples. There were 29 species found and the BMWP score was 111. However, the Average Score Per Taxon (ASPT) of 5.29 was similar to the other samples (Site 1 = 5.32, Site 3 = 5.64) and indicative of good water quality. Three Gammarus zaddachi individuals were found in the sample. Gammarus zaddachi can occasional be found extending into freshwater but usually not too far from tidal influence. Molluscs were dominated by the Jenkins’ Spire Shell (Potamopygrus anitpodarum) with 130 recorded. There were also double figure counts of worms (87) and the flatworm Dugesia tigrina (25). This latter species is originally from the Americas and has spread throughout the UK in the last 40 years competing with native flatworms. There was a high count of the riffle beetle Limnius volckmari (174) and the caseless caddisfly Hydropsyche angustipennis (99). However, there were a total of 15 species of fly larvae with several of them characteristic of ‘clean’ water. The sample material suggested a more limited range of habitats as it was dominated by gravelly substrate.

The final site on the Cuckmere (Site 3) was further upstream in the catchment. The site was similar in terms of diversity to Site 1 with a total of 37 species and a BMWP score of 141. The freshwater shrimp Gammarus pulex replaced the brackish shrimp and was found in high numbers (200). The mollusc community was dominated by the River Limpet (Ancylus fluviatilis) with 21 recorded. There were 21 species of fly larvae found including 10 species of caddisfly. There were noteworthy counts of worms (60) and non-biting midges (110). In addition, the total riffle beetle count was 213 comprising three species (Limnius volckmari, Elmis aenea and Oulimnius tuberculatus). A larva of the spongillafly Sisyra nigra was found in the sample (also one in the sample from Site 2). This is an interesting species as the larvae feed on freshwater sponges which must have be present at both sites 2 and 3. In addition, larvae of both the Banded Demoiselle (Calopteryx splendens) and the Beautiful Demoiselle (Calopteryx virgo) were found in the sample which contained a variety of leaves and vegetation from aquatic macrophytes including Water Buttercup (Ranunculus sp.) which supported the larval stage of the caddisfly Brachycentrus subnubilus.

3.4 ECOLOGY AND HABITATS

3.4.16 Desk Study (2012 data) – to be updated with 2021 data from the SBRC Statutorily designated sites associated with the Study Area are described in Section 3.1.5.

Non-Statutorily Designated Sites

The SBRC provided records of nine non-statutory designated sites of nature conservation interest (known as sites of nature conservation importance [SNCI]) within 5km of the intake at Arlington Reservoir, in addition a number of sites not identified as SNCI have also been identified although no detailed information is given:

• An area of grazing marsh adjacent to the River Cuckmere near Alfriston; and

• Two ancient woodland sites.

Details of all these sites these are presented in Table 3.10.

Table 3.10 Non-statutorily Designated Sites of Nature Conservation value.

Site Grid Description Location from reference Arlington Source (km)

Monkyn Pin SNCI TQ551059 A small but diverse area of 1.5 to the southeast (CW21) neutral grassland.

Beatons Wood TQ554080 A small block of ancient semi 2 to the northeast SNCI(CW28) natural woodland.

Bramble grove TQ566093 A small block of ancient semi 4 to the northeast SNCI (CW30) natural woodland with a rich ground flora.

France and short TQ503025 Species rich calcareous 3 to the southeast bottom SNCI & grassland on the scarp above (CW35) TQ503030 Alfriston.

Wilmington TQ546035, Three areas of chalk grassland 4 to the south – Ewe Down, Deep Dean TQ533022 adjacent and separated by Dean and Deep and Ewe Dean & Wilmington Downs SSSI Dean are primarily fragments SNCI TQ537035 covered by (CW46) Wilmington SSSI

Barn Field TQ534047 A meadow the upper half of 2.5 to the south Meadow SNCi which is semi improved the lower (CW48) half damp with a greater variety of plants present.

Michelham Priory TQ558094 Michelham priory is surrounded 3.5 to the north SNCI (CW87) by a moat and the river Cuckmere. Of particular interest is the river and moat that support diverse marginal vegetation and a diverse odonata fauna.

Kingfishers and otters have also been recorded.

Abbots and TQ5607 A large oak and conifer 1 to the east Wilmington Wood plantation supporting the rare & Milton hide spiked rampion. Includes Milton SNCI (CW92) Hide to the north a mosaic of grass, heath, marsh and scrub.

Site Grid Description Location from reference Arlington Source (km)

Ludlay coppice TQ527078 A small area of woodland 1 to the west of SNCI (CW94) opposite to Arlington Reservoir, abstraction point, also a LNR. adjacent to the reservoir

Grazing Marsh TQ552104 A Sussex BAP habitat and an 2.5 at the nearest southwards important resources for point extending from invertebrates and bird species in down river from Alfriston the county. Alfriston

Ancient woodland TQ555809 Ancient woodland supporting 2.5 and 4 north characteristic flora and fauna. TQ540100

Mammals

The SBRC provided records for water voles (Arvicola terrestris) from Arlington Reservoir as recently as 2005 (NGR: TQ529074 and TQ528074) and from the River Cuckmere near Alfriston (2001 NGR: TQ519028) and Michelham Priory (1997 and 1990 NRG: TQ556093 and TQ560094). Recent surveys undertaken by South East Water have demonstrated that this species was misidentified and instead both bank and field voles are known to frequent the area.

Although there are no recent records for Otters (Lutra lutra) they have been recorded at Michelham Priory in the past (SBRC no date given) and the SBRC identified that signs of Otters have been found in all of the Sussex catchments in the last few years. South East Water is not aware of any records for otter in the Cuckmere catchment (although mink are known to frequent the area). Despite this, South East Water has installed an artificial otter holt to encourage the return of this species.

Riparian Birds

The SBRC does not currently hold riparian bird records but Kingfisher have been reported from Michelham Priory and South East Water records concur that it is considered to be resident on the Cuckmere. Key species at Arlington Reservoir include breeding barn owls (Tyto alba), overwintering site for up to 1% of the U.K. population of widgeon (Anas Penelope), juvenile osprey (spring, summer and autumn visitors with up to 3 individuals per day) (Pandion haliaetus), overwintering wildfowl including various exotic species arriving depending on weather conditions e.g. slovian grebe, red necked grebe, red rumped swallow and blue headed wagtail.

Freshwater Macroinvertebrates

Most of the species listed in the Sussex Rare Species Inventory (Sussex Biodiversity Records Centre 2006) that occur within the survey area are invertebrates, with UK BAP beetles being particularly well recorded particularly from Milton Gate Marsh SSSI and the grazing marsh to the south of Alfriston. Five species of odonata listed on the inventory occur in the area, these are white-legged damselfly (Platycnemis pennipes), club-tailed dragonfly (Gomphus vulgatissmus) hairy

dragonfly (Brachyton pratense), black tailed skimmer (Orthetrum cancellatum) and ruddy darter (Sympetrum sanguineum). The ditches at Arlington Reservoir are known to hold a number of these species.

Fish

Historic data on fish associated with the Cuckmere at Arlington is reported by South East Water (River Cuckmere Winder Drought Permit Template, 2017). The Lower Cuckmere (downstream of Arlington) supports a range of cyprinid fish typical of moderate-slow flowing lowland rivers. E. A. survey data from sites upstream and downstream of Arlington Intake record a number of fish species including stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), bullhead (Cottus gobio), chub (Leuciscus cephalus), roach (Rutilus rutilus), bream (Abramis brama), dace (Leuciscus leuciscus), gudgeon (Gobio gobio), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), perch (Perca fluviatilis), eels (Anguilla anguilla), pike (Esox lucius), rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalamus), minnow (Phoxinus phoxinus), stone loach (Noemacheilus barabatulus) and tench (Tinca tinca).

EA survey data (reported in SEW, 2017) contains records of brown trout and sea trout (Salmo trutta) at Michelham Priory upstream of the Arlington Intake, and the EA confirmed that the Cuckmere is known to have an appreciable run of sea trout to the headwaters. South East Water also report that brown trout and smolts are present in the river, and have been observed using the fish pass in the Arlington intake weir (E. Goddard, pers. comm).

The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) website provided a record of brook lamprey upstream of the abstraction point in 2003. E. A. data (reported in SEW, 2017) also show a good population of lamprey is known to be present at sites upstream of Arlington Intake.

There are a number of weirs and locks on the Cuckmere which could restrict the passage of migrating fish. Although all of these structures are fitted with fish passes, the denil fish pass at Milton Lock (TQ526040) is of concern. A visit to the fish pass in January 2004 showed that there was insufficient water flowing through the fish pass to allow migration of fish, although the radial gate had been lowered and migration of larger species such as chub and salmonids would have been possible over the lock gate. During a subsequent visit in June 2006 the lock gate was raised, but the retained head of water was still not sufficient to allow water to flow over the fish pass. In 2005 there were several occasions where the level behind the lock was below that required for functioning of the fish pass (flow requirement of 12 Ml/d); analysis of level data from 2000-2004 showed a similar pattern.

The classification of water bodies is based on criteria provided by the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC which commits the European unions member states to achieve good qualitative and quantative status of all water bodies by 2015. The directive aims for ‘good status’ for all ground and surface waters (rivers, lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters) within the EU. The ecological and chemical status of surface waters are assessed using the following criteria:

• Biological quality (benthic invertebrates);

• Hydromorphological quality (river continuity);

• Physical-chemical quality (nutrient conditions); and

• Chemical quality (environmental quality standards for river basin specific pollutants).

Recent EA data, available through the National Fish Population Database (EA 2017), suggests that a site near Arlington (near the intake) was sampled in 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and most recently in 2006. On each occasion three-run catch depletion surveys over 60 m (2000 only) and 100 m (all other years) sections, were undertaken in September, that is the same time as the surveys in this report. The results of these surveys, which have been converted to density estimates (ind. per 100 m2), are shown in Table 3.11. A total of seven species of fish with one hybrid, were recorded during the surveys, although the maximum of seven species was only recorded on one occasion (2000). Common roach Rutilus rutilus (roach hereafter) and European chub Squalius cephalus (chub hereafter) have generally been numerically

dominant, although similar densities of common dace Leuciscus leuciscus (dace hereafter) and gudgeon Gobio gobio were also estimated in 2004 (Table 1). Common bream Abramis brama (bream hereafter) has only been found in very small numbers if present at all, and appears to have hybridised with roach on occasion. European perch Perca fluviatilis (perch hereafter) and Northern pike Esox lucius (pike hereafter) were also found in relatively small numbers during some of the surveys. Notably, these results suggest there has been a general decrease in fish abundance at the site, dropping from 26.0 ind. per 100 m2 in 2000 to only 1.3 ind. per 100 m2 in 2006 (Table 1). Species diversity also appears to have fallen from seven species in 2000 to just four species in 2006, with bream and dace being absent in 2005 and 2006.

Table 3.11 Summary of Environment Agency three-run catch depletion abundance estimates (ind. per 100 m2) for each species caught during surveys of the Arlington intake site (source: EA 2017). Estimates were derived using Carle and Strub calculations to estimate populations that were then converted to densities (© Environment Agency copyright and/or database right 2016. All rights reserved).

Roach/ Year Pike Roach Bream Chub Dace bream Gudgeon Perch All fish hybrid

2000 0.13 19.87 0.26 3.72 0.13 - 1.67 0.26 26.03

2002 0.88 2.37 0.26 7.80 0.09 - - 0.96 12.36

2003 - 7.98 0.09 0.26 0.09 0.18 - 8.59

2004 - 3.00 0.09 2.36 3.18 - 2.73 0.45 11.82

2005 - 1.73 - 1.36 - - 0.18 0.27 3.55

2006 0.09 0.80 - - - - 0.09 0.18 1.25

The most contemporary EA Solent & South Downs fish monitoring report, reports on five coarse fish population surveys conducted in the Cuckmere catchment in 2015. Four of the sites were classified for the Water Framework Directive (WFD). A site around 2.5 km downstream of Arlington Reservoir (Sessingham Farm) and one some 3 km upstream (Michelham Priory) were surveyed. The highest density of fish from any of the locations surveyed was recorded at Michelham Priory (~40 ind. per 100 m2) primarily comprised of roach, perch and dace. Eleven species were caught in total at this site, in addition to those already mentioned, brown trout, chub, gudgeon, pike, European eel Anguilla anguilla (eel hereafter), bullhead Cottus gobio, minnow Phoxinus phoxinus and brook lamprey Lampetra planeri were also caught (EA 2017). At Sessingham Farm, seven species were encountered: brown trout, chub, roach, common rudd Scardinius erythrophthalmus (rudd hereafter), perch, pike and eel (EA 2017). This report makes no further mention of the specific WFD sites and relevance of the results for the Cuckmere (EA 2015b).

Macrophytes

The River Cuckmere supports a diverse community of aquatic and emergent macrophytes, typical of a southern lowland river. At Michelham Priory (TQ558094) the river is bordered by a rich and diverse marginal vegetation including meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria), yellow flag (Iris pseudocorus), purple loosetrife (lythrum salicaria), water dock (Rumex hydrolapathum) and bog bean (Menyanthes trifoliata). Fringed water lily (Nymphoides pelata) and yellow water lily (Nephar lutea) are also recorded.

The Sussex Rare Species Inventory (Sussex Biodiversity Records Centre 2006) also lists a number of scare wetland plants as occurring within the survey area including golden dock (Rumex maritimus) and marsh-mallow (Althea officinalis).

Other protected and conservation notable species

The Sussex Rare Species Inventory (Sussex Biodiversity Records Centre 2006) list a number of scarce beetle and weevil species that occur within the survey area particularly the banks of the river Cuckmere and grazing marsh to the south of Alfriston.

The SBRC provided a number of records for great crested newt (Tritarus cristatus) a small breeding population of this species is known to be present in the ponds around the reservoir.

A number of other legally protected species have been recorded including slow worm (Anguis fragilis), adder (Vipera berus) and common lizard.

3.4.17 Field Survey River Habitat Survey and River Corridor Survey

See Appendix A for aerial images of the survey reaches and site locations.

See the RHS survey forms in Appendix D for further details.

See the RCS survey forms in Appendix E for further details.

See the photo gazetteer in Appendix G.

Site 1 is located in the vicinity of the A27 road bridge (Sherman Bridge) and covers 500m of the river corridor. The river banks are dominated by earth apart from where a weir and fish pass is located, and at the A27 Sherman Bridge that includes reinforcement from concrete and metal sheet piling. The banks are often vertical in character (sometimes with a vegetated toe) and have likely been subject to re-sectioning at this location, also evidenced by the presence of set- bank embankments. The bed is dominated by a coarse bedload of gravel substrate, with areas of concrete associated with the two structures. It is likely that the lower part of this site is, at times, tidally influenced.

Adjacent land use is associated with improved grassland and tall herb on the left hand bank and arable land and tall herb on the right hand bank. Wider land use is dominated by scrub and shrubs and tilled land with improved grassland, tall herb and sub-urban development. Trees occur occasionally but do provide associated features where they overhang the channel. Fallen trees and woody debris is present.

The weir and fish pass cause an impoundment to flow and water to back up upstream, reducing flow velocity and diversity. It is likely that during the lower flow conditions encountered it would also impede fish passage with a vertical difference of 0.5m between the lower water surface and the narrow (0.5m wide) crest of the weir. Flow is also impounded by the A27 bridge where the structure reduces the bed depth under the bridge through a series of longitudinal concrete steps and blocks present. Downstream of the road bridge, the channel adjusts vertically through a series of riffles.

A varied assemblage of aquatic and riparian plants are associated with this site with a greater diversity found downstream of the road bridge reflecting a greater variety of flow types and substrate. Aquatic macrophytes included arrowhead (Sagitteria sagittifolia), pond weed (Potomogeton spp.), yellow water lily (Nuphar spp.), un-branched bur-reed (Sparganium erectum), and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea).

Site 2 is located downstream of the Arlington Intake, impoundment and fish pass. The upper part of the channel has reinforced banks which are covered by a layer of earth and silt deposits and organic woody material. Substrates at the

upper limit are characterised by gravels. The majority of the site has earth banks with a clay bed. The channel appears to have been re-sectioned throughout the majority of its length with bank profiles characterised by vertical and steep profiles. Flow is dominated by lower velocity types including smooth flow and no perceptible flow, reflecting the dry conditions preceding the survey and low flows encountered in the catchment.

Adjacent land use along the river corridor is dominated by tall herb with scrub and improved grassland. Within the adjacent 50m it includes woodland (especially in the upper sections) and then dominated by scrub and shrubs on the banktop and then into arable and improved grassland. Trees are semi-continuous providing extensive lengths with shade, overhanging boughs and exposed roots. Fallen trees and woody debris is also present.

The shading of the channel and slow flow conditions appear to limit aquatic channel macrophytes with yellow water lilies noted at the top of the reach and good stands of both reed canary grass and common reed (Phragmites australis) fringing the channel in the lower part of the reach where flow velocity is reduced.

Site 3 is located upstream of the Arlington Intake and impoundment. It is a re-sectioned, reinforced and over-deepened channel. It is concrete in structure with trapezoidal cross-section with a flat bed. It forms the toe of the dam slope for Arlington Reservoir. The adjacent land is part of the Arlington reservoir Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The bedload is dominated by fine sediments (silt typically). Set back embankments are present on the left hand bank with land rising up the grassed sloping dam wall on the right hand bank.

No in-channel vegetation was noted, with rough pasture characterising the bank tops and land use within 50m being dominated by rough pasture with scrub and shrubs, improved grassland, sub-urban development and tall herb also present. Trees were isolated and in occasional clumps, being dominated by willow and alder where present. Flow was dominated by smooth flow and no perceptible flow being significantly influenced by both the impoundment but also the dry conditions and low flows encountered during the survey.

Site 4 is located downstream of Michelham Priory and a road bridge. The bank materials are dominated by earth with bed materials including gravel at the top of the channel and clay. Access to the channel was limited and the bed was not visible, but the channel form and flow type would including a fine sediment bed e.g. clay for the majority of the reach. The channel has been re-sectioned and re-aligned throughout most of its reach, with a vertical profile being dominant, sometimes with a toe and with evidence of livestock poaching in some locations. Land use associated with the bank top is characterised by improved grassland with land within 50m being dominated by improved grassland with tall herbs and scrub/shrubs also present. Trees occur in occasional clumps and provide associated features where present including shading of the channel and overhanging boughs, with exposed roots. Fallen trees and woody debris is also present.

Flow is dominated by smooth and no perceptible flow reflecting the dry weather and low flow encountered during the survey, but potentially a residual upstream influence from the Arlington impoundment during lower flow conditions. A riffle is present in the upper reach with rippled flow, but typically lower energy conditions are dominant.

Vegetation was present throughout the survey reach being dominated by lower plants as well as emergent broad leaved herps and emergence finer leaved plants such as reed canary grass. Yellow water lily was present at the top of the site. Trees were dominated by willow and alder where present and scrub characterised by blackthorn, hawthorn, bramble and maturing field maple.

Protected and notable species

No direct evidence of otter or water vole were observed at any of the survey reaches. Site 1 includes features suitable for water vole. Otter is highly likely to be present in the catchment. Kingfisher was noted flying along the channel at Site 2. Please refer to the separate sections associated with notable invertebrates and fish species.

Invasive and Non-Native Species

Himalayan balsam was recorded as being present at Site’s 1 and 2.

Fish Survey Above Arlington Intake (2017)

The fish community of the section of the River Cuckmere above the Arlington Intake (based on the survey results of 2017) appears to be comprised of at least nine species of fish: eel, pike, roach, rudd, bream, chub, dace, gudgeon and perch. Additional information from an angler suggested common carp and tench are also present in the stretch. The community was dominated by a range of age classes of roach according to the PASE and seine net surveys, with the catch depletion suggesting they were marginally less abundant than the young of year (YOY) chub. The PASE survey also put chub in the top two species in terms of abundance, though the seine net survey revealed bream to be the second most abundant species. Dace were the third most abundant species according to both the PASE and catch depletion surveys, whilst gudgeon superseded them according to the seine net results. The remaining fractions of the fish community were comprised of lower numbers of perch, rudd, pike and eel.

Most of the species showed strong recruitment, though there is obvious potential for overwinter mortality to reduce the numbers of 0+ fish. With the stretch clearly being susceptible to strong flows in the winter, there is significant potential for YOY fish to be washed away when the river is in spate. There are also clearly larger, rarer fish likely to be present in the stretch, though they were not encountered in the survey and angler catch data may provide an indication of the specimen fish present. Notably, a range of age classes of eels were present, from this year’s fish to pre-spawning females which would likely attempt to migrate this year.

Fish densities varied considerably between methods and sample locations. The PASE survey yielded an overall fish abundance estimate for the stretch below the footbridge of 16.8 ind. per 100 m2, the catch depletion produced an overall estimate of 13.3 ind. per 100 m2 and the seine net 211.8 ind. per 100 m2 (reduced to 26.4 ind. per 100 m2 with the omission of the first haul). These values are largely consistent with those derived from the EA data for this section which range between 26.03 ind. per 100 m2 (2000) and 1.25 ind. per 100 m2 (2006), but are below the highest estimates recorded at the nearby Michelham Priory site (~40 ind. per 100 m2). Whilst the overall abundance of fish has improved since the last EA survey in 2006, fish densities do not appear to be particularly high.

The EA surveys in 2006, only yielded four species of fish at the same time of year, in order of abundance these were: roach, perch, gudgeon and pike. However, the data since 2000 suggested seven species could be present, with the addition of pike, chub and dace. This survey has identified an improvement in species richness from what was an apparently declining situation in 2006, from four species to nine. In addition to the species reported in all the EA surveys of the stretch, rudd and eels have also now been recorded here. The presence of a variety of age classes of eels was a particularly positive result of the survey and supports the introduction of the eel ladder by SEW in 2011. Although this stretch of the river is heavily modified, impounded and the habitat present is clearly not ideal; the survey results suggest it appears to support a diverse fish assemblage characteristic of this reach of the river.

Freshwater macro-invertebrates

Please refer to the information presented in 3.3.14 for further details.

3.5 STRUCTURES

3.5.18 Desk Study A review of Ordnance Survey mapping and aerial imagery from Google Earth Pro has identified a number of structures associated with the River Cuckmere in the Study Reach. Table 3.12 is a register of identifiable structures/influences on flow. The location of these can be seen in Figure 3.24.

Figure 3.24 Structures

Table 3.12 Structures Along the River Cuckmere in the Study Area

3.5.19 Field Survey Structures were present at Site 1 (A27 road bridge and the separate weir/fish pass) and Site 3 (Arlington Intake, weir and fish pass). Please refer to Appendix F for further details.

Recreation

A review of Ordnance Survey mapping has identified a wide range of recreational features or assets associated with the Study Area. These can be seen in Table 3.13 and Figure 3.25.

Figure 3.25 Recreational Assets

4 DROUGHT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

This section of the baseline report sets out proposed drought morning requriements, taking into account the information gathered and reported in this environmental baseline document. Potential weekly riverine site monitoring to be based on the following activities/metrics: • Mobilisation • Wetted width and height from water surface to bankfull level at the locations reported in here with further sites if required to allow calculation of change in water depth. • Depth of water above the uppermost obstruction, and distance between the lower-most obstruction and the water surface (if present) to demonstrate any changes in the functionality of the structure and the potential for continued fish passage; • Flow profile of a representative cross section of the site (if safely accessible); • Evidence of a reduction / increased vulnerability of key habitat features (e.g. sub-aerial exposure of key fish spawning/macroinvertebrate/macrophyte habitat);

• Fixed point photograph using key images included in this baseline;

• Water quality from a hand-held probe (dissolved oxygen, electrical conductivity, pH, temperature, total dissolved solids, salinity and turbidity), as well as observation (odour and visual condition [e.g. colour, foam etc]). In addition ammonia will be tested for. This is because with reduced flows the dilution from sewage effluent will be less and levels of ammonia will rise. Ammonia is toxic to aquatic life at relatively low levels and is a good method for assessing how much sewage effluent is in the water.

• Sewage effluent data will be requested from Southern Water and this dataset will be maintained live during a drough. This, together with ammonia monitoring, will allow the monitoring of the potential effect of sewage effluent in the low flow conditions experienced in drought. The suite of monitoring sites will encapsulate the various outfalls down through the catchment and a cumulative assessment of changes in ammonia, DO etc.

• Algae – field chlorophyll measurement, plus visual records (e.g. percentage cover); • Qualitative assessment from observation of fish mortality, poaching and predation; efficiency of fish ladders, evidence of stranded fish, algal and macrophyte growth together with any general observations of areas requiring further scrutiny. • Daily inspection (Monday to Friday) of all structures listed in this baseline and at Arlington Reservoir/Impoundment/Intake to confirm whether distressed fish are present and whether mitigation is required.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX G

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE FOR GROUNDWATER SOURCES 2016

Enhanced Aquatic Environmental Baseline for the Grey Pit/Halling Source

DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Prepared for South East Water December 2016

Report for Sam Pottier Environment Manager South East Water

Main Contributors Tamsin Chisnall BSc GradIEMA Tom Styles BSc MSc CSci CEnv C.WEM MCIWEM PIEMA

Issued by

Tom Styles BSc MSc CSci CEnv C.WEM MCIWEM PIEMA

Approved by

Matthew Johns BSc MSc CEnv FGS MCIEEM MIFM

Johns Associates Limited Limpley Mill Lower Stoke Bath BA2 7FJ

Tel: +44 (0) 1225 723652 Fax: +44 (0) 1225 723874 www.johnsassociates.co.uk

Third Party Disclaimer

Document Revisions No. Details Date 1 Draft for client review Dec 2016

Contents

1. Background 4 1.1.1 Introduction 4 1.1.2 Halling Chalk Number 8 and the Grey Pit 4 1.1.3 Local land use 5 1.1.4 Limitations of this work 18 1.1.5 About this document 19

2. Methodology 20 2.1.1 Scope of Work 20 2.1.2 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey 20 2.1.3 Water Vole Survey 20 2.1.4 Otter Survey 20 2.1.5 Freshwater Macro-invertebrate Survey 20 2.1.6 Crayfish Survey 20 2.1.7 Fisheries: Visual Observation at Night 20 2.1.8 Fisheries: Seine Netting 21 2.1.9 Fisheries: Fyke Netting 21 2.1.10 Bathymetry and Fish Locator Survey 21 2.1.11 Water Quality Profiles 21

3. Results 23 3.1.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey 23

4. Conclusions 24

5. Recommendations 25

Appendix A Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey map and notes

1. Background

1.1.1 Introduction As a result of prolonged periods of very low rainfall including two consecutive and abnormally dry winters in 2011 and 2012, water resources (both surface and ground) within the SEW supply area (and across large parts of eastern and southern England) were under severe drought conditions. South East Water is currently implementing a wide range of measures to best manage the impacts of the recent and potential future droughts. Part of this planning includes the assessment of a number of decommissioned abstraction sites with a view to potentially reinstating them as a source of potable water (subject to the necessary licences being re-issued by the Environment Agency), during drought permit operation. The project is a required input to the South East Water Corporate Drought Plan to be submitted to Defra in 2017. In a drought period, the Plan identifies the potential to re- commission a number of boreholes to increase capacity in potable water supply. The Drought Plan was produced based on desk based and field based assessments but it also set out the requirements for further site investigations to provide a more detailed understanding of aspects of the environmental context of the drought abstraction proposals. The scope of the baseline work covered in this proposal includes:

• Ecology; • Fisheries; • Water quality; • Flow; • Physical features. A separate report (Johns Associates, 2016. Enhanced Aquatic Environmental Baseline Associated with SEW Corporate Drought Plan Potential Groundwater Sources) has been produced. This covers the Balcombe groundwater abstraction site. Halling Chalk Number 8 Borehole is addressed in this document.

1.1.2 Halling Chalk Number 8 and the Grey Pit The Halling source (NGR 5698 1644) currently comprises two operational boreholes (No 4 and No 7) and adits abstracting from the Upper Chalk horizons, and one borehole from the lower Greensand Formation (No 6). The source has current licences, which allow 2.2 Ml/d average from the Chalk and 3.0 Ml/d from the Greensand, with 4.0 Ml/d peak for both the aquifers. Immediately adjacent the site to the north is a very large flooded quarry (the Grey Pit), which is now no longer worked. In 2005 SEW drilled and tested the No 8 borehole on the edge of the site and proved that there was a connection between the lake water 5

and the chalk water at this location (i.e. the abstraction from borehole No 8 effectively is from the quarry lake). Currently the Grey Pit overflows during most of the year as the historic abstraction by the previous pit operator (Cemex) is no longer used and the Site is now owned by Redrow Homes. It now overflows from the eastern corner into part of the adjacent Medway marshes, but this overflow stops during the summer months.

It is proposed that South East Water will use the Halling No. 8 source to provide additional water resources, particularly in times of drought.

1.1.3 Local land use Local land use is characterised by undulating areas of woodland, the small settlement of Halling, together with features associated with industrial activity. These include the flooded quarry, an area shown as works to the north east of the lake, former chalk pits and a sewage works. A number of smaller dwellings and farms are present in the local area. To the east is an area of the Medway marshes together with tidal channels.

Figure 1.1: Location of the Grey Pit and Land Use Features Within 1km of the Proposed Source

Historic Ecological Data

A detailed review of historic ecological data held by the Kent Biodiversity Records Centre was obtained and reviewed to identify the designated statutory and non- statutory sites of nature conservation interest within 2km1 of the abstraction site, as well as records for legally protected and conservation notable species and habitats.

A site visit was undertaken to review key habitats in the local area.

Statutory Designated Sites

European/International

The desk study identified the following internationally designated sites of nature conservation importance within 5km of the site:

• Peters Pit Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is approximately 2.5km to the southeast of the site.

Peter’s Pit is an old chalk quarry with large ponds situated amongst grassland, scrub and woodland. The ponds have widely fluctuating water levels and large great crested newt Triturus cristatus populations have been recorded breeding here. The site is considered to be one of the best areas in the UK for this legally protected species.

• North Downs Woodlands SAC, which is approximately 2.9km to the southwest of the site.

This site consists of a number of different habitat types, Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests, Taxus baccata woodland, and semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies; for which the area is considered to either support a significant presence, or be one of the best areas in the United Kingdom. National/Regional The desk study identified three statutorily designated sites within 2 km of the site:

• Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment SSSI, which runs approximately 11km southwest to northeast, being approximately 500m northwest of the site at its closest point.

This site consists of an extensive area of the North Downs west of the ‘Medway Gap’. The site is representative of Chalk grassland in west Kent and beech woodland on the chalk. The mosaic of habitats present, including grassland, scrub and various types of woodland support outstanding assemblages of plants and invertebrates, including chalk milkwort Polygala calcarea, clustered bellflower Campanula glomerata, horseshoe vetch Hippocrepis comosa, stinking iris Iris foetidissima and several species of orchid including the scarce

1 5km for internationally designated sites. 7

musk orchid Herminium monorchis, lady orchid Orchis purpurea and man orchid Aceras anthropophorum.

It is the only known location in Britain for the moth Hypercallia citrinalis and several other very scarce moths, beetles and grasshoppers, such as Psylla viburni, also occur. The woodland birds are also of great interest as all three species of woodpecker breed here as do nuthatch and other hole-nesting species. Hawfinch is present at a higher density than in most other parts of Kent.

• Holborough to Burham Marshes SSSI, which is approximately 1.7km to the southeast of the site.

This site lies along the flood plain of the River Medway, which at this point is still tidal. A variety of habitats are present including extensive reedbeds, open water, fen, grassland, scrub and woodland. The many different habitats support a wide variety of breeding birds and the site is also important for wintering wildfowl and waders.

A number of scarce wetland plants occur, including sea club-rush Scirpus maritimus, soft hornwort Ceratophyllum submersum, opposite- leaved pondweed Groenlandia densa and greater bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris; and it is also a locality of a rare moth, a rare beetle, and 3 rare bee species, including the marsh-mallow moth and rove beetle Stenus calcaratus and the blue carpenter bee Ceratina cyanea.

! Houlder & Monarch Hill Pits SSSI, which is approximately 1.1km to the south west of the site.

This site has been designated due to the sediments found there that provide lithostratigraphic and biostratigraphic evidence for environmental changes during the Late Devensian period.

Non-Statutory Designated Sites The detailed desk study identified six non-statutory nature conservation sites within a 2 km radius of the Site. These are given in Table 1.1 below.

Table 1.1: Non-Statutory Nature Conservation Sites located within 2km of the Site Site Name Habitat Designation Grid Approx. Reference distance from Site

Holborough Grassland, ponds, KWT Reserve TQ 707 2km south Marshes wetland and 626 woodland. Forms part of the 8

Site Name Habitat Designation Grid Approx. Reference distance from Site

Holborough to Burham Marshes SSSI

River Medway Freshwater and Local Wildlife Site TQ 710 1.25km and Marshes coastal habitats of 647 east (TM03) importance to many wetland birds

Arable Field, Chalk grassland Local Wildlife Site TQ 683 1.6km Lad’s Farm bordered by 637 southwest (TM35) woodland and arable fields

Bores Hole Part of a network of RIGS Site TQ 705 1.75km (ME1) Chalk RIGS sites 661 northeast within the Medway Valley. Contains a key interval of the Middle Chalk

Halling Chalk Part of a network of RIGS Site TQ 698 700m north Pit (ME4) Chalk RIGS sites 651 within the Medway Valley. Contains a key interval of the Plenus Marls

South Hill and Part of a network of RIGS Site TQ 686 1.35km Houlder Chalk RIGS sites 637 southwest Quarries within the Medway (ME10) Valley

Habitats There are a number of different UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) habitat types recorded within 2km of the site, these include: ! Ancient woodland; ! Ghyll (gill) woodland: Ghylls are ancient steep-sided, wooded valleys created by streams cutting gullies into existing slopes. They provide a humid microclimate with a low frost incidence and therefore are strongholds for rare flora and fauna. Ghyll woodland, a type of wet woodland is a UKBAP habitat. ! Traditional orchards: This is a UK BAP habitat; 9

! Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh: This is a UK BAP habitat;

! Lowland heath: This is a UK BAP habitat;

! Lowland meadow: This is a UK BAP habitat;

! Reed beds: This is a UK BAP habitat;

! Open water: Several types of open water habitat are UK BAP habitats, including ponds, which are known to exist on or near the site.

Much of the land that surrounds the site is managed under the Entry or Higher Level Stewardship schemes.

Figure 1.2: Habitat Context Within 2km of the Grey Pit

Records of Legally Protected, Notable and BAP Species Records of legally protected, notable and BAP species occurring within a 2km radius of the proposed Halling abstraction from the last 20 years are shown in Table 1.2 overleaf. Other records, (e.g. of badger Meles meles and brown hare Lepus europaeus) also exist from within the search area. However, these have not been included in Table 1.2 as the most recent records supplied are more than 20 years old. However, these species may still be present within this area. 10

Table 1.2: Records of Legally Protected, Notable and BAP Species within 2km of the Site

Latin Name Common Name Protected Status Location

3 5

6 4

7 2 WCA KRDB UK BAP UK Red List AmberList Local BAP Local HabsRegs

Birds

Numerous records, most recently from 2009, the closest Alauda arvensis Skylark √ √ being approx. 1.3km southeast of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2010, the closest Alcedo atthis Kingfisher √ √ being approx. 1.3km east of the site

Several records, most recently Anas clypeata Shoveler √ from 2006, the closest being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2010, the closest Anas crecca Teal √ being approx. 1.3km east of the site

Several records, most recently Anas querquedula Garganey √ √ from 2005, the closest being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2010, the closest Anas strepera Gadwall √ being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Several records, most recently Anser albifrons subsp. White-fronted from 2008, the closest being √ √ albifrons Goose approx. 1.8km southeast of the site

Single record from 2008, Pink-footed Anser brachyrhynchus √ approx. 1.8km southeast of the Goose site

Anser fabalis Bean Goose √ Numerous records, most recently from 2004, the closest

2 WCA: Listed on Schedule 1, 5 or 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended)

3 Habs Regs: Listed on Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2011

4 UK BAP: Priority Species listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

5 Local BAP: Denotes if the species is listed in the Kent BAP Species List.

6 Included within the Red or Amber list of Birds of Conservation Concern - see Eaton MA, Brown AF, Noble DG, Musgrove AJ, Hearn R, Aebischer NJ, Gibbons DW, Evans A and Gregory RD (2009) Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102, pp296–341.

7 Kent Red Data Book (KRDB): Listed on the KRDB Species Inventory. 11

Latin Name Common Name Protected Status Location

3 5

6 4

7 2 WCA KRDB UK BAP UK Red List AmberList Local BAP Local HabsRegs being approx. 1.8km southeast of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2010, the closest Aythya ferina Pochard √ being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Several records, most recently Aythya marila Scaup √ √ from 2002, the closest being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Several records, most recently Branta bernicla Brent Goose √ from 2006, the closest being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Several records, most recently Bucephala clangula Goldeneye √8 √ from 2010, the closest being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2008, the closest Calidris alpina Dunlin √ being approx. 1.3km east of the site

Caprimulgus Several records, most recently Nightjar √ √ europaeus from 2002

Several records, most recently from 2009, the closest being Carduelis cabaret Lesser Redpoll √ √ approx. 800m southwest of the site

Twenty four records, most recently from 2007, the closest Carduelis cannabina Linnet √ √ being approx. 1km east of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2010, the closest Cettia cetti Cetti’s Warbler √ being approx. 1.3km east of the site

Numerous records, most Little Ringed recently from 2010, the closest Charadrius dubius √ √ Plover being approx. 1.3km east of the site

Two records, most recently from Chlidonias niger Black Tern √ √ 1998, the closest being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Several records, most recently Circus aeruginosus Marsh Harrier √ √ from 2009, the closest being approx. 1.5km east of the site

8 WCA in off season only. 12

Latin Name Common Name Protected Status Location

3 5

6 4

7 2 WCA KRDB UK BAP UK Red List AmberList Local BAP Local HabsRegs

Several records, most recently Circus cyaneus Hen Harrier √ √ from 2009, the closest being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Several records, most recently Coccothraustes from 2001, the closest being Hawfinch √ √ coccothraustes approx. 800m southwest of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 1998, the closest Cuculus canorus Cuckoo √ √ being approx. 800m southwest of the site

Two records, most recently from Cygnus columbianus Bewick’s Swan √ √ √ 2001, the closest being approx. bewickii 1.8km southeast of the site

Several records, most recently Lesser Spotted from 1999, the closest being Dendrocopos minor √ √ Woodpecker approx. 800m southwest of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2008, the closest Egretta garzetta Little Egret √ being approx. 1.8km southeast of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2009, the closest Emberiza calandra Corn Bunting √ √ being approx. 1km east of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2007, the closest Emberiza citrinella Yellowhammer √ √ being approx. 1km east of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 1996, the closest Emberiza schoeniclus Reed Bunting √ √ being approx. 1km east of the site

Several records, most recently Falco columbarius Merlin √ √ from 2009, the closest being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2010, the closest Falco peregrinus Peregrine √ being approx. 1.3km east of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2010, the closest Falco subbuteo Hobby √ being approx. 1.3km east of the site 13

Latin Name Common Name Protected Status Location

3 5

6 4

7 2 WCA KRDB UK BAP UK Red List AmberList Local BAP Local HabsRegs

Several records, most recently Falco tinnunculus Kestrel √ from 2009, the closest being approx. 1.3km east of the site

Several records, most recently Fringilla montifringilla Brambling √ from 2008, the closest being approx. 1.3km east of the site

Several records, most recently fr Red-throated om Gavia stellata √ √ Diver 2006, the closest being approx 1.8km southeast of the site

Numerous records, most Red-backed recently from 2009, the closest Lanius collurio √ √ √ Shrike being approx. 1.3km east of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2008, the closest Larus argentatus Herring Gull √ √ being approx. 1km east of the site

Numerous records, most Mediterranean recently from 2010, the closest Larus melanocephalus √ √ Gull being approx. 1.3km east of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2008, the closest Larus minutus Little Gull √ √ being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Several records, most recently Black-tailed Limosa limosa √ √ √ from 2008, the closest being Godwit approx. 1.5km east of the site

Grasshopper Several records, most recently Locustella naevia √ √ Warbler from 2004

Two records, most recently from Common Loxia curvirostra √ 2010, the closest being approx. Crossbill 1km east of the site

Two records from 2002, the Lullula arborea Woodlark √ √ √ closest being approx. 1.2km west of the site

Single record from 2009, Melanitta nigra Common Scoter √ √ √ approx. 1.5km east of the site

Single record from 2001, Milvus milvus Red Kite √ √ approx. 1.6km north of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2010, the closest Motacilla cinerea Grey Wagtail √ being approx. 1.5km east of the site 14

Latin Name Common Name Protected Status Location

3 5

6 4

7 2 WCA KRDB UK BAP UK Red List AmberList Local BAP Local HabsRegs

Twenty four records, most recently from 2006, the closest Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail √ √ being approx. 1km east of the site

Several records, most recently Spotted Muscicapa striata √ √ √ from 2008, the closest being Flycatcher approx. 1.5km east of the site

Several records, most recently Numenius arquata Curlew √ √ from 2008, the closest being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Several records, most recently Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel √ √ from 2008, the closest being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Two records, most recently from Pandion haliaetus Osprey √ √ 2004, the closest being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Several records, most recently Panurus biarmicus Bearded Tit √ √ from 2008, the closest being approx. 1.3km east of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2010, the closest Parus palustris Marsh Tit √ √ being approx. 800m southwest of the site

Several records, most recently Passer domesticus House Sparrow √ √ from 2007

Several records, most recently Passer montanus Tree Sparrow √ √ from 2001, the closest being approx. 1.3km east of the site

Several records, most recently Perdix perdix Grey Partridge √ √ √ from 2008, the closest being approx. 1km east of the site

Several records, most recently Philomachus pugnax Ruff √ √ from 1994, the closest being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Several records, most recently Phoenicurus ochruros Black Redstart √ √ √ from 2004, the closest being approx. 1km east of the site

Twenty four records, most recently from 2009, the closest Phylloscopus sibilatrix Wood Warbler √ √ being approx. 1km east of the site

Several records, most recently Pluvialis apricaria Golden Plover √ from 2009, the closest being approx. 1.5km east of the site 15

Latin Name Common Name Protected Status Location

3 5

6 4

7 2 WCA KRDB UK BAP UK Red List AmberList Local BAP Local HabsRegs

Numerous records, most recently from 2007, the closest Pluvialis squatarola Grey Plover √ being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Single record from 2006, Podiceps auritus Slavonian Grebe √ √ approx. 1.8km southeast of the site

Several records, most recently Pyrrhula pyrrhula Bullfinch √ √ √ from 2008, the closest being approx. 1km east of the site

Several records, most recently Recurvirostra avosetta Avocet √ √ from 2009, the closest being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Several records, most recently Regulus ignicapilla Firecrest √ √ √ from 2008, the closest being approx. 1km east of the site

Single record from 2008, Sternula albifrons Little Tern √ √ approx. 1.5km east of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2007, the closest Streptopelia turtur Turtle Dove √ √ being approx. 1km east of the site

Several records, most recently Sturnus vulgaris Starling √ √ from 2008

Numerous records, most recently from 1998, the closest Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper √ √ being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2007, the closest Tringa nebularia Greenshank √ being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2010, the closest Tringa ochropus Green Sandpiper √ √ being approx. 1.3km east of the site

Twenty five records, most recently from 2008, the closest Turdus iliacus Redwing √ √ being approx. 1km east of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2009, the closest Turdus philomelos Song Thrush √ √ √ being approx. 1km east of the site

Turdus pilaris Fieldfare √ √ Twenty four records, most 16

Latin Name Common Name Protected Status Location

3 5

6 4

7 2 WCA KRDB UK BAP UK Red List AmberList Local BAP Local HabsRegs recently from 2009, the closest being approx. 1km east of the site

Two records, most recently from Turdus torquatus Ring Ouzel √ √ 2010, the closest being approx. 1.3km east of the site

Several records, most recently from 2006, the closest being Tyto alba Barn Owl √ √ approx. 1.9km southeast of the site

Several records, most recently Vanellus vanellus Lapwing √ √ from 2010, the closest being approx. 1.5km east of the site

Invertebrates Several records, most recently Bombus from 2011, the closest being Carder Bee sp. " (Thoracombus) humilis approx. 1.9km southeast of the site Several records, most recently Hydraecia osseola Marsh Mallow " from 2002, the closest being subsp. hucherardi Moth approx. 1.4km east of the site

Single record from 1998, Lucanus cervus Stag Beetle " " approx. 300m east of the site

Mammals - Bats9

6 records, most recently from Eptesicus serotinus Serotine " " " 2010, the closest being from 1.2km southeast of the site

70 records of active and hibernating bats, most recently Myotis daubentonii Daubenton’s " " from 2012, the closest being approx. 2km south of the site

10 records of active and hibernating bats, most recently Myotis mystacinus Whiskered " " from 2008, the closest being approx. 325m southeast of the site

62 records of active and hibernating bats, most recently Myotis nattereri Natterer’s " " from 2012, the closest being approx. 2.3km south of the site

11 records of active and Nyctalus leisleri Leisler’s " " hibernating bats, most recently from 2009, the closest being approx. 2.7km northeast of the

9 Note that the search radius for bat species is 5km, rather than 2km for other taxonomic groups. 17

Latin Name Common Name Protected Status Location

3 5

6 4

7 2 WCA KRDB UK BAP UK Red List AmberList Local BAP Local HabsRegs site

9 records of active bats, most recently from 2010, the closest Nyctalus noctula Noctule " " " " being approx. 2.15km south of the site

Nathusius’ Single record from 2003, from Pipistrellus nathusii " " pipistrelle approx. 4.2km south of the site

46 records, mainly of active Common bats, most recently from 2011, Pipistrellus pipistrellus " " " pipistrelle the closest being approx. 25km southeast of the site

11 records of active and Soprano hibernating bats, most recently Pipistrellus pygmaeus " " " " pipistrelle from 2011, the closest being approx. 2.3km south of the site

29 records of active and hibernating bats, most recently Brown Long- Plecotus auritus " " " " from 2012, the closest being eared approx. 3km northeast of the site

Mammals - Other

Numerous records, most recently from 2001, the closest Arvicola terrestris Water vole " " " " being approx. 500m south of the site

Numerous records, most recently from 2000, the closest Erinaceus europaeus Hedgehog " being approx. 500m east of the site

Single record from 1998, Lutra lutra Otter " " " " approx. 1.5km south of the site

Several records, most recently Muscardinus Dormouse " " " " " from 2007, the closest being avellanarius approx. 1.9km west of the site

Reptiles & Amphibians

Several records, most recently Anguis fragilis Slow worm " " from 2006, the closest being approx. 1.7km south of the site

Several records, most recently Bufo bufo Common toad " " from 2002, the closest being approx. 1.8km south of the site

Several records, most recently Rana temporaria Common frog " from 2008, the closest being approx. 750m east of the site 18

Latin Name Common Name Protected Status Location

3 5

6 4

7 2 WCA KRDB UK BAP UK Red List AmberList Local BAP Local HabsRegs

Several records, most recently from 2002, the closest being Natrix natrix Grass snake " " approx. 1.3km southwest of the site

Single record from 2002, Great crested Triturus cristatus " " " " " approx. 1.85km southeast of the newt site

Several records, most recently from 2002, the closest being Lissotriton vulgaris Smooth Newt " " approx. 1.9km southeast of the site

Single record from 2002, Lissotriton helveticus Palmate Newt " " approx. 1.9km southeast of the site

Single record from 2003, Vipera berus Adder " " " approx. 1.5km northwest of the site

Several records, most recently from 2006, the closest being approx. 1.7km south of the site Zootoca vivipara Common lizard " "

Plants

Single record from 2005, Erigeron borealis Alpine Fleabane " approx. 850m northeast of the site

Numerous records, most Hyacinthoides non- recently from 2003, the closest Bluebell " scripta being approx. 975m south of the site

Several records, most recently Marsh Sow- Sonchus palustris " from 2011, the closest being thistle approx. 1.4km south of the site

Several records, most recently Cut-Leaved from 2011, the closest being Teucrium botrys " Germander approx. 700m northwest of the site

1.1.4 Limitations of this work The surveys focused on the area of open water, but also extended to the littoral margin (identified as a clear change in colour/strand line on marginal scrub). The surveys were limited to the methods set out in Section 2, which are consider to provide a robust overview of ecological conditions in the Grey Pit and are based on those accepted by 19

Defra as being necessary to support this aspect of the SEW Drought Plan. Further investigations could be undertaken to provide a wider scope of assessment (e.g. invertebrates, reptiles, birds, bats, botany) as well as a greater level of detail.

1.1.5 About this document The purpose of this document is to provide an enhanced environmental baseline for the Grey Pit in support of the SEW Company Drought Plan. The remainder of this document sets out:

• The methods used to complete the assessment (Section 2); • The results of the assessment (Section 3); • Conclusions drawn (Section 4); and • Recommendations for further investigations (Section 5).

2. Methodology

2.1.1 Scope of Work The following scope of work has been taken from that set out in the SEW Company Drought Plan (Appendix N. Draft Halling No8 DP) and forms the basis for the work described in this current report.

2.1.2 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

To be completed

2.1.3 Water Vole Survey

To be completed

2.1.4 Otter Survey

To be completed

2.1.5 Freshwater Macro-invertebrate Survey

To be completed

2.1.6 Crayfish Survey

To be completed

2.1.7 Fisheries: Visual Observation at Night

To be completed

2.1.8 Fisheries: Seine Netting

To be completed

2.1.9 Fisheries: Fyke Netting

To be completed

2.1.10 Bathymetry and Fish Locator Survey

To be completed

2.1.11 Water Quality Profiles

To be completed 22

3. Results

3.1.1 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

To be completed

4. Conclusions

DISCUSSION TO FOLLOW IN SUBSEQUENT DRAFT ON COMPLETION OF SAMPLING

5. Recommendations

RECOMMENDATIONS TO FOLLOW IN SUBSEQUENT DRAFT ON COMPLETION OF SAMPLING 26

APPENDIX A: 28

River Ouse

Drought Plan: Environmental Baseline Draft

J00629/Version 1.0

Client: South East Water

Date: January 2021

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Report prepared for: South East Water

Main contributors: Matt Johns BSc MSc CEnv MCIEEM FGS MIFM, Director Liz Johns BSc MSc CEnv MCIEEM MRSB, Director Jacob Scoble BSc GradCIWEM, Geospatial Analyst

Reviewed by: Liz Johns BSc MSc CEnv MCIEEM MRSB, Director

Matt Johns BSc MSc CEnv MCIEEM FGS MIFM, Director

Suites 1 & 2, The Old Brewery, Newtown, Bradford on Avon, Wiltshire, BA15 1NF T: 01225 723652 | E: [email protected] | W: www.johnsassociates.co.uk

DOCUMENT REVISIONS

Version Details Date 1.0 Draft baseline issued for client comment 29th January 2021

Third party disclaimer

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

Purpose of the Report To compile desk and field-based information to inform an environmental baseline to be used by South East Water in support of potential future drought permit/orders and drought monitoring. Surveys Undertaken OS mapping Google Earth imagery Ecological desk study Open-source data on geology, soils, relevant environmental designations Catchment Explorer data River Habitat Survey River Corridor Survey Fish Macro-invertebrates Protected Notable Species Structures Water quality

Further Surveys Spring freshwater macroinvertebrate surveys, sea trout redd surveys, Ardingly Reservoir Required Survey Data Valid Until 2024 (next SEW Drought Plan Cycle date)

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The Purpose of this Report ...... 1 1.2 About South East Water ...... 4 1.3 The Current Operating Licence ...... 4 1.4 The Structure of this Report ...... 6 2 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 8 2.1 Introduction ...... 8 2.2 Drought Baseline Monitoring Sites ...... 8 2.3 General Environmental Setting ...... 11 2.4 Water Resources, Hydrology and Rainfall ...... 11 2.5 Water Quality ...... 12 2.5.1 Desk Study ...... 12 2.5.2 Field Survey ...... 12 2.6 Ecology and Habitats ...... 12 2.6.1 Desk Study ...... 12 2.6.2 Field Survey ...... 12 2.7 Structures ...... 13 2.7.1 Desk Study ...... 13 2.7.2 Field Survey ...... 13 2.8 Recreational Features ...... 13 2.8.3 Desk Study ...... 13 2.9 Sea Trout Redd Survey ...... 13 2.10 Ardingly Reservoir Survey ...... 14 2.10.1 Limitations ...... 14 3 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 15 3.1 Overview ...... 15 3.2 Topography ...... 17 3.3 Geology ...... 17 3.4 Soils ...... 17 3.5 Designated Land and Water ...... 18 3.5.1 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) ...... 18 3.5.2 Ramsar Sites ...... 21 3.5.3 Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) ...... 21 3.5.4 Special Protection Areas (SPA) ...... 21 3.5.5 National Nature Reserves (NNR) ...... 21 3.5.6 Local Nature Reserves (LNR) ...... 21 3.5.7 Designated Ancient Woodland ...... 22 3.5.8 Biosphere Reserves ...... 22 3.5.9 Forest Parks ...... 22 3.5.10 Marine Conservation Zones (MCZ) ...... 22 3.5.11 Green Belt ...... 23 3.5.12 Proposed Ramsar Sites ...... 23 3.5.13 Possible Special Areas of Conservation (pSAC) ...... 23 3.5.14 Potential Special Protection Areas (pSPA) ...... 23 3.5.15 Nitrate Vulnerable Zones ...... 23 3.5.16 SSSI Impact Risk Zones ...... 23

3.5.17 SSSI Units ...... 23 3.5.18 Drainage Network ...... 24 3.5.19 Recreation ...... 24 3.6 Visual and Cultural Designations ...... 25 3.6.1 World Heritage Sites ...... 26 3.6.2 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) ...... 26 3.6.3 National Parks ...... 27 3.6.4 Listed Buildings ...... 27 3.6.5 Conservation Areas ...... 27 3.6.6 Scheduled Monuments ...... 27 3.6.7 Registered Parks and Gardens ...... 27 3.6.8 Agricultural Designations ...... 27 3.7 Habitat Designations ...... 28 3.7.1 Priority Habitat ...... 28 3.8 Water Resources, Hydrology and Rainfall ...... 29 4 WATER QUALITY 30 4.1 Historic Environment Agency Data ...... 30 4.1.1 Overview ...... 30 4.2 Current EA Water Framework Directive Water Quality Data ...... 32 4.3 2020 Water Quality Field Measurements ...... 47 4.4 Odour and Visual ...... 55 4.5 Algal Blooms ...... 56 4.6 2020 Macroinvertebrate Data ...... 56 4.6.2 Macroinvertebrates Upper Catchment ...... 56 4.6.3 Macroinvertebrates Sheffield Park Bridge to Sutton Hall Weir ...... 57 4.6.4 Macroinvertebrates Lower Catchment ...... 58 5 ECOLOGY AND HABITATS 59 5.1 Desk Study (Previous Data) – to be updated with 2021 data from the SBRC ...... 59 5.1.1 Statutory sites ...... 59 5.1.2 Non-statutory sites ...... 60 5.1.3 Protected and Notable Species – To be updated in 2021 with formal records centre data ...... 62 5.2 Field Survey ...... 62 5.2.4 SITE 1: ARDINGLY RESERVOIR ...... 63 5.2.5 SITE 2: SHELL BROOK ...... 63 5.2.6 SITE THREE: SHELL BROOK WTW ABSTRACTION ...... 64 5.2.7 SITE 4: RIVER OUSE DOWNSTREAM OF SHELL BROOK CONFLUENCE ...... 64 5.2.8 SITE 5: LOWER RYLANDS BRIDGE ...... 64 5.2.9 SITE 8: MAIN OUSE AND FORMER CANAL ...... 65 5.2.10 SITE 9: RIVER OUSE UPSTREAM OF FRESHFIELD BRIDGE ...... 65 5.2.11 SITE 11: SHEFFIELD PARK BRIDGE ...... 65 5.2.12 SITE 12: FLETCHING MILL ...... 66 5.2.13 SITE 13: GOLD BRIDGE ...... 66 5.2.14 SITE 14: SHARPSBRIDGE ...... 66 5.2.15 SITE 15: SUTTON HALL WEIR ...... 66 5.2.16 SITE 16 ANCHOR GATES WEIR ...... 66 5.2.17 SITE 17 & 18 UPSTREAM OF SEW BARCOMBE MILLS ABSTRACTION ...... 67 5.2.18 SITE 19: OUSE BELOW SEW BARCOMBE MILLS ABSTRACTION ...... 67 5.2.19 SITE 20: ANDREWS STREAM ...... 67 5.2.20 SITE 21: FISHLADDER STREAM ...... 67

5.2.21 SITE 22: MAIN CHANNEL ...... 67 5.2.22 SITE 23: HOUSE STREAM ...... 67 5.2.23 SITE 24: BARCOMBE MILL POOL ...... 67 5.2.24 SITE 25: TIDAL OUSE DOWNSTREAM OF BARCOMBE MILLS COMPLEX ...... 67 5.2.25 SITE 26 TIDAL OUSE: COWLEAZE CONFLUENCE ...... 68 5.2.26 SITE 27: TIDAL OUSE: HAMSEY WEIR ...... 68 5.2.27 Protected and notable species ...... 68 5.2.28 Invasive and Non-Native Species ...... 68 5.2.29 Aquatic macrophytes ...... 68 5.2.30 Freshwater macro-invertebrates ...... 69 6 STRUCTURES 70 6.1 Desk Study ...... 70 6.2 Field Survey ...... 72 7 RECREATION 74 8 SEA TROUT REDD SURVEY 75 9 ARDINGLY RESERVOIR SURVEY 76 10 DROUGHT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 77

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

This document sets out a detailed review of the environmental baseline associated with the River Ouse, East Sussex.

A total of 26 sites in the Ouse catchment were previously approved by South East Water (SEW) and the EA for baseline consideration in earlier iterations of draft Drought Permit documents. The sites were selected as they are located close to historic Environment Agency (EA) biological and chemical monitoring points, as well as being considered to be in sensitive locations because of the presence of significant structures and/or obstructions to flow and fish passage (for example, weirs, sluices and also Ardingly Reservoir and potable water abstraction at Ardingly and Barcombe). The report brings key aspects of the baseline dataset up to date.

Survey sites associated with this monitoring study will be adopted for future drought monitoring. The Study Area is shown on Figure 1.1. Figure 1.2 shows the drought baseline/monitoring sites alongside historic EA biological monitoring sites (BMWP) that have been used to inform the original site selection in 2012.

Individual survey reaches and locations are shown in Appendix A.

Figure 1.1: Ouse Drought Environmental Baseline Study Area

Figure 1.2: The Sussex Ouse catchment and SEW Drought Permit Baseline/ Monitoring Sites. Historic EA biological monitoring sites (BMWP) are also shown.

1.2 ABOUT SOUTH EAST WATER

South East Water is one of eleven regulated ‘water only’ supply companies in England and Wales. The Company was created by the merger of the former South East Water Company and Mid Kent Water, in October 2006. The Company now covers an area of 5,657km2 of Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Berkshire and Hampshire, supplying water services to around two million people in nearly 900,000 properties. This Supply Area is shown in Figure 1.3. Resource Zone 2 (in green) is the area of concern for this environmental baseline.

Figure 1.3: South East Waters Supply Area

1.3 THE CURRENT OPERATING LICENCE

South East Water (SEW) currently holds a combined licence to abstract water from the River Ouse in Sussex for public water supply. Licence number 21/128 permits the abstraction of water from the lower River Ouse at Barcombe Mills (shown in Figure 2), at approximately National Grid Reference (NGR) TQ 43733, 14912. This licence permits abstraction of river water above a Mean Residual Flow (MRF) at Barcombe of 20Ml/d: the volume permitted depends on the natural flow in the river (see Table 1). The purpose of the abstraction is to put water directly into the public supply as well as being stored within Barcombe Reservoir.

Table 1.1 Barcombe Intake Licence Conditions

Maximum quantity of water to be abstracted Natural flow: Conditions Quantity authorised daily If natural flow <20,000m3 per day Nil If natural flow >20,000m3 but <40,000 m3 per The amount by which the natural flow exceeds day 20,000 m3 per day If natural flow >40,000m3 but <196,000 m3 20,000 m3 per day +45% of the amount by per day which the natural flow exceeds 40,000 m3 per day, up to a maximum of 90,000 m3 per day If natural flow >196,000m3 per day 90,000 m3 per day Of augmentation releases: Quantity authorised daily The entire quantity of the augmentation release made in the preceding 24 hours (up to a combined total of <90,000 m3 per day)

Licence number 21/128 also permits the abstraction of water from the upper River Ouse in the vicinity of Ardingly to feed Ardingly Reservoir (shown on Figure 1.4). The scope of the licence is described below.

• Ouse abstraction to feed Ardingly, TQ3328 2828. If Upper Ouse flow >12.7 < 102.7 MLD, then SEW can abstract no more than 50% of the flow above this figure. Abstraction restricted between Nov - April inclusive, daily max 45 MLD. The abstraction pumps are run at every possible opportunity. • Ardingly abstraction, TQ 335 286. Peak daily abstraction 5.50 ML. Gravity feed to Shellbrook treatment works, full treatment. The works can be shut down as and when required, the demand is then taken up by additional abstraction at Barcombe. • Ardingly discharge - compensation water to the Shell Brook, TQ 3334 2876. Minimum release of 4 MLD. Additional water (‘augmentation releases’) is released to the Shell Brook to allow sufficient abstraction at Barcombe during high demand & low river flow periods. Releases normally start from mid/late April The purpose of this abstraction is to put water directly into the public supply as well as being stored within Ardingly Reservoir. Indirectly, this abstraction also provides a flow augmentation that can be abstracted at Barcombe Mill. The purpose of Ardingly reservoir is therefore for both provision of public water supply and for river augmentation. The operation of the licence ensures that flows in the river Ouse are higher than would be provided in natural flow conditions (i.e. without the reservoir in place). South East Water monitors and controls their abstractions at Barcombe and Ardingly using a computerised system that allows the operation of the abstraction pumps. This system controls variable speed pumps and ensures that licensed conditions are not broken. The system monitors the natural river flow, augmentation releases from Ardingly, and weir flow at Barcombe Mills, then calculates what can be abstracted to ensure that licensed conditions are maintained. In addition to this South East Water has implemented an operational protocol that does not allow the river flow at the weirs to fall below the MRF (i.e. 20Ml/d at Barcombe and 4Ml/d at Shell Brook). The software runs 24 hours per day, and gives a predicted rate of abstraction at any given time during any 24 hour period, and by the use of variable speed pumps it ensures the maximum use of water resources available under licensed conditions.

Figure 1.4: Ardingly, Arlington and Barcombe Supply System

1.4 THE STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT

• Scope of work undertaken to inform the baseline and methods used;

• Environmental baseline covering:

o General Environmental Setting;

o Water Quality;

o Ecology and Habitats; and

o Structures.

• Drought monitoring requirements.

Appendix A: Survey Location Details

Appendix B: Groundsure Report

Appendix C: Ecological Desk Study Report

Appendix D: River Habitat Survey Results

Appendix E: River Corridor Survey Results

Appendix F: Structures Within Survey Reaches

Appendix G: Photo Gazetteer

Appendix H: Sea Trout Redd Survey

Appendix I: Ardingly Reservoir Study

Appendix J: Flow Modelling

Appendix K: Macroinvertebrate data

2 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 2.1 INTRODUCTION

A rigorous approach has therefore been applied to ensure a consistent quality standard at the scoping stage aimed at ensuring the following with respect to the environmental baseline:

• Accurate identification of the zone of influence i.e. the spatial area that could be subject to environmental change as a result of potential drought conditions;

• Tight focus on those environmental effects that are likely to be significant with a corresponding tightly defined focus on site-specific mitigation measures and post-drought restoration aimed at reducing these impacts; and

The scope of the baseline assessment to-date has been derived from the following:

2.2 DROUGHT BASELINE MONITORING SITES

A series of 26 have been adopted by South East Water for monitoring the drought baseline on the River Ouse since 2012. These have continued to be used in 2020 (numbered sites), with a further 4 sites (lettered sites) added in elsewhere on the Ouse and key tributaries.

Table 2.1 lists these sites, which can be seen on Figure 2.1.

Table 2.1 Drought Baseline Monitoring Sites

Site No. Waterbody Description Location NGR

1 Ardingly Reservoir Ardingly Reservoir 533436, 128791

2 Shell Brook Shell Brook immediately d/s of Ardingly Reservoir 533481, 128621

3 Ouse Abstraction point for Ardingly on the R Ouse 533251, 128298

4 Ouse Confluence of the Shell Brook and the Ouse 533316, 128215

5 Ouse Downstream of Lower Ryelands Bridge 534076, 127197

6 Ouse Upstream and Downstream of East Mascalls d/s 536548, 125429 Bridge u/s 536468, 125481

7 Ouse Confluence of Cockhaise Brook and Ouse 537762, 124678 to upstream to d/s of main Ouse channel split 537087, 124850

8 Ouse Location where channels split u/s of Freshfield 538155, 124646 Bridge (d/s of STW), not on the main River Ouse

9 Ouse u/s Freshfield Bridge 538495, 124471

11 Ouse Sheffield Park Station, d/s of bridge 540569, 123627

12 Ouse Fletching Mill, d/s left hand channel bridge 542451, 122892

13 Ouse Gold Bridge 542888, 121370

14 Ouse Sharpsbridge, immediately u/s of bridge 543946, 120734

15 Ouse Isfield, u/s of White Bridge to Sutton Hall weir 544438, 117386 to 544096, 118674

16 Ouse Anchor Inn Weir, downstream and upstream 544180, 115946

17 Ouse Confluence of the Bevern Stream with the Main 543815, 115212 Ouse

18 Ouse Upstream of the SEW abstraction point at 543717, 114903 Barcombe Reservoir

Site No. Waterbody Description Location NGR

19 Ouse Barcombe Mills (u/s of the Andrews Stream 543474, 114818 confluence)

20 Andrews Stream Andrews Stream (including either side of the e.g. 543684, upper weir/fish pass and the downstream reach 114673

21 Fishladder Stream Fishladder Stream e.g 543431, 114795

22 Main Stream Main Stream e.g. 543371, 114815

23 House Stream House Stream e.g. 543328, 114875

24 Ouse Barcombe Mill Pool e.g. 543328, 114875

25 Ouse Main channel, d/s of confluence of all Barcombe 543117, 114839 Mill distributor channels & Pikes Bridge

26 Ouse Cowlease confluence 542352, 113541

27 Ouse u/s of Hamsey Weir 543432, 112576

A Uck Either side of Isfield Bridge 544821, 118023

B Cockhaise Brook Either side of road bridge 543154, 118121

C Ouse Either side of Lindfield Bridge 535219, 126283

D Ouse Either side of Upper Rylands Bridge 532425, 127992

Figure 2.1: 2020 Ouse Drought Monitoring Sites

2.3 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The general environmental setting and characteristics (e.g. geology, soils, topography, land use, transport, settlements, protected sites and recreation) for the wider Cuckmere catchment associated with the study area (typically the lower catchment) have been sourced from a desk study that draws on a range of information including: • Ordnance survey • Google Earth Pro • British Geological Survey • Soilscapes • Catchment Explorer • Groundsure report (see Appendix B) • Archived Environment Agency Catchment Management Plan • Other Opensource data. 2.4 WATER RESOURCES, HYDROLOGY AND RAINFALL

Information relating to water resources and abstractions, hydrology and rainfall will be provided by South East Water in additional documentation required to support potential Drought Permits/Orders.

2.5 WATER QUALITY

2.5.1 Desk Study Environment Agency water quality data has been sourced and reviewed, drawing on the historic General Quality Assessment information and more recent Water Framework Data (from Catchment Explorer).

2.5.2 Field Survey Field measurements of water quality in 2020 were obtained by Johns Associates using a Hanna HI-9829-13042 Advanced Portable Multiparameter Probe (recording temperature, atmospheric pressure, pH, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, salinity, turbidity, oxidation reduction potential and dissolved oxygen). In addition, visual and olfactory inspections for signs of pollution (e.g. sewage, litter, algal blooms) were carried out by Johns Associates in 2020.

Johns Associates undertook aquatic macroinvertebrate surveys at sixteen sites (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 25, 26 and 27) most of which have previously sampled by the Environment Agency and which form part of the agreed 26 drought monitoring sites, upstream of the tidal limit at Barcombe Mills. Surveys were carried out in autumn 2020 and repeated in spring 2021 (to be completed). Sites 25, 26 and 27 within the tidally influenced Ouse between Hamsey Weir and Barcombe Mills were sampled. Standard biotic scores such as BMWP, ASPT and LIFE were calculated following identification of the macroinvertebrates to species level.

Macro-invertebrate samples (one from each of the 16 sample sites) were obtained in Autumn 2020 and Spring 2021 (to be completed) using a standard 3-minute kick sample and one-minute sweep sample. Samples were preserved in a 70% Industrial Methylated Spirit (IMS) and water solution before being identified to species level, with a range of water quality and flow indices being calculated.

2.6 ECOLOGY AND HABITATS

2.6.1 Desk Study Desk study data to inform the ecological and habitat baseline was obtained from a number of sources:

• Historic information held by South East Water

• Google Earth Pro imaging

• Purchase of data from the Sussex Biodiversity Records Centre (see Appendix C)

• Opensource data and GIS mapping

• General internet search

2.6.2 Field Survey Ecological and habitat field surveys were carried out within a representative 500m reach at each for the four survey sites:

1 Environment Agency. 2003. River Habitat Survey in Britain and Ireland. Field Survey Guidance Manual.

and observations are made at ten equally spaced spot checks along the channel, whilst information on valley forms and land-use in the river corridor provides additional context. See Appendix D.

• GeoRHS Survey (GeoRHS) to document natural and accelerated processes operating in the river channel that may influence sediment transport and storage.

• Search for signs or evidence of protected or notable species focusing on otter, water vole and kingfisher, as well as recording invasive no-native species of plant.

Freshwater macro-invertebrate samples were also collected (see Section 2.4.3).

2.7 STRUCTURES

2.7.1 Desk Study A register and plan showing key structures within the River Ouse study area that could affect fish passage and water flow during a period of drought were produced. These were based on Ordnance Survey maps and Google Earth pro aerial imaging.

2.7.2 Field Survey Structures associated with the riverine survey reaches were inspected. Likely influences on fish passage and flow were evaluated, and key dimensions recorded. See Appendix F.

2.8 RECREATIONAL FEATURES

2.8.3 Desk Study

A register and plan showing key recreational features in the River Ouse study area were produced. These were based on Ordnance Survey map data.

2.9 SEA TROUT REDD SURVEY

The aim of the survey was to qualitatively assess the condition of salmonid spawning habitat, particularly in terms of fine sediment deposition/ accumulation, at selected locations along the River Ouse and its tributaries. Surveys were carried out during the winter of 2012/13 and repeated during the winter of 2017/18. The data obtained will form a ‘pre- drought permit’ baseline against which the potential impacts of the implementation of any drought permit/ order can be assessed and monitored.

The survey was carried out at 10 locations within the catchment over a two-day period in January 2013 (09/01/13 - 10/01/13) and was repeated in February 2018 (19/02/18 – 20/02/18). Surveys were completed by OART and Johns Associates Ltd. The 2018 survey was limited by heavy rainfall immediately preceding the survey, which increased turbidity within the river channel at some locations thereby obscuring part of the substrate.

To avoid disturbing or causing mortality to developing eggs or larvae, sea trout spawning habitat availability and condition was assessed visually from the stream bank. The locations of sea trout redds were identified from the

2 National Rivers Authority. 1992. River Corridor Surveys. Conservation Technical Handbook 1.

presence of ‘bright’ disturbed gravels forming the tailspill lying immediately downstream of an excavated gravel depression or ‘pit’.

The position of active or historic redds, scrapes and potential spawning habitat were recorded with a GPS device and photographic records compiled. Redd tailspill length and width were estimated to the nearest 0.5m. Channel depth and width were also estimated to the nearest 0.1m and 0.5m respectively. Other variables recorded during the survey included water visibility and velocity; channel geomorphic unit; substrate composition; evidence of substrate concretion and sedimentation; presence of epilithic and filamentous algae on substrate; aquatic vegetation; surrounding riparian zone type; presence of shade and large woody debris; improvement/ restoration of spawning habitat; sedimentation, concretion or flattening of red gravels; presence of epithilic and filamentous algae on redds; presence of salmonids; and shelter type and distance.

The Sea Trout Redd Survey Report is contained in Appendix H.

2.10 ARDINGLY RESERVOIR SURVEY

2.10.1 Limitations The survey work was limited by a range of difficult conditions including:

• Very steep and/or high banks, with deep water or water of uncertain depth and sediment of uncertain stability.

• Turbid flow conditions often encountered.

• Deep flow conditions preventing crossing the channel.

• Dense vegetation limiting some views.

• Presence of structures on the river limiting safe access.

3 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3.1 OVERVIEW

The River Ouse is the second largest river in Sussex, draining a catchment of approximately 430 km2 to the point where it breaches the chalk escarpment of the South Downs at Lewes. The river rises in the hills of the High Weald in the north and flows across the undulating slopes in the Vale of Sussex. The headwaters are characterised by deeply cut stream channels, and the lowland stretches are wide and relatively slow flowing with a predominantly clay substrate in places. The main river is approximately 62 kilometres long, with an estimated tidal length of 21 km.

Barcombe Mills marks the approximate tidal limit of the Ouse. The Ouse is extensively modified at Barcombe Mills, particularly downstream of SEW’s abstraction intake at Barcombe Reservoir. Downstream of the abstraction the main river splits into a network of five smaller channels called (in this report) the Main Channel, House Stream, Siphon Channel, Fish Ladder Stream and Andrew’s Stream (including a remnant of the Iron River). Flow can be regulated and modified by a complex series of weirs, sluices and fish ladders. The confluence of these channels is situated downstream of Mill Pool and to the east of Barcombe Road Bridge.

The Ouse supports a diverse community of emergent and marginal aquatic macrophytes and the middle and lower reaches are characterised by patches of yellow water-lily (Nuphar lutea) and arrowhead (Sagittaria sagittifloia) and emergent monocotyledons such as branched bur-reed (Spaganium erectum), unbranched bur-reed (Sparganium emersum) and reed sweet-grass (Glyceria maxima). The Ouse also supports a relatively diverse assemblage of aquatic macroinvertebrates, including a number of dragonfly and damselfly species (Odonata spp.), some of which appear particularly abundant in the middle and lower reaches of the river. The river also supports a diverse fishery comprising both cyprinid and salmonid species, including anadromous sea trout (Salmo trutta), and other notable species of nature conservation importance, including bullhead (Cottus gobio) and lamprey (Lampetra sp.).

The channel was formerly navigable beyond the tidal limit which has led to a characteristically over-deepened form. There are conflicting ambitions among stakeholder groups on the Ouse as to whether the remaining structures should be reinstated or removed.

The Ouse is popular along its length for angling and other leisure pursuits.

The River Ouse is located in two county level landscape character areas: the High Weald Upper Ouse Valley and the Downs Lower Ouse Valley.

Figure 3.1: Aerial Image highlighting the main channel of the River Ouse

The High Weald Upper Ouse character area is described as: a gently sloping country of low ridges and wider valleys covered by an intricate pattern of streams and woods. It is characterised by:

• Small, winding, alder-lined rivers and streams.

• Predominantly gently undulating terrain with broad valleys, but more pronounced relief near northern edge.

• Abundant tree cover, with 17.5% woodland and a strong structure of woods, trees, hedges and shaws.

• Some remote, secluded, unspoiled valleys.

• Significant designed landscapes, parks and

• gardens.

• Village groups dominated by churches.

• Numerous large ponds.

• Rock outcrops and incised roadways.

• Farmhouses and large farmsteads.

• Rich variety of traditional local building materials.

The Downs Lower Ouse Valley character area is described as a larger valley of the Downland and is wide, open and flat-floored, cutting right through the Downs to the sea. It is characterised as being:

• Impressively overlooked by Kingston Scarp and Mount Caburn.

• A string of attractive villages on drier ground with their distinctive character and tree/flint-brick/church compositions.

• Strategic countryside gap between Newhaven and Lewes.

• Wide open, flat valley floor.

• Transport corridors in the valley floor including roads, rail and river.

• Steep, open valley slopes rising from the valley floor.

3.2 TOPOGRAPHY

The River Ouse flows through a range of landscape types influenced by geology, soils and land use. As such the topography varies. Headwaters are associated with the sandstones and clays of the high Weald and the upper catchment water courses have cut channels in these rocks forming ghylls. These ancient steep sided wooded valleys are characteristic of this part of the Weald. The steep topography has helped to restrict cultivation and development so they tend to be wooded (ghyll woodlands). Further downstream the gradients become more gentle and the land becomes flatter, with the exception of the influence of the chalk ridge associated with the southern part of the catchment which the Ouse has cut through to reach the English Channel..

3.3 GEOLOGY

The geology of the upper reaches and middle of the Ouse above Lewes is mainly made up of the Wealden Group, including Sandstone and Siltstone (Interbedded), and Mudstone, Siltstone and Sandstone. The lower reaches of the Ouse see the channel cut through the Lower Greensand Group - Sandstone and Mudstone, the Gault Formation and Upper Greensand Formation (Undifferentiated) - Mudstone, Sandstone and Limestone, the Grey Chalk Subgroup and the White Chalk Subgroup.

3.4 SOILS

There are six soil types represented within the study area (see Figure 3.2):

• Slightly acid loamy and clayey soils with impeded drainage

• Slow permeable seasonally wet slightly acid but base-rich loamy and clayey soils

• Loamy and clayey floodplain soils with naturally high groundwater

• Freely draining slightly acid loamy soils

• Freely draining lime-rich loamy soils

• Shallow lime-rich soils over chalk or limestone

Figure 3.2: Soil or sediment within the study area

3.5 DESIGNATED LAND AND WATER

3.5.1 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) There are three SSSIs within the study area. These are described in turn below and are illustrated in Figure 3.3.

• Chailey Common SSSI: Chailey Common SSSI covers an area of 170.9 hectares and has a central NGR TQ 384 211. A variety of heathland plant communities are represented which in turn support diverse invertebrate and bird communities. The mosaic of heath vegetation lies on Ashdown Sands and comprises acidic grassland, marshy grassland, wet and dry heath, and areas of continuous bracken Pteridium aquilinum. Species-rich acidic flushes are periodically associated with the small seasonal streams, and the two ponds have marginal plant communities. Scrub invasion is well established over parts of the common, with succession to woodland complete in places. Continuous bracken stands dominate much of the common but in places give way to wet and dry heathland or acidic grasslands. Dry heath is dominated by heather Calluna vulgaris and bell-heather Erica cinerea with wavy hair-grass Deschampsia flexuosa and purple moor-grass Molinia caerulea. In the areas of wet heath these are augmented by cross-leaved heath Erica tetralix and Sphagnum mosses. This wet heath

contains marsh gentian Gentiana pneumonanthe, an uncommon species in the county, and pale heath violet Viola lacteam which has only three other known localities in East Sussex. Small linear areas of dry acidic grassland occur throughout the site, dominated by sheep's fescue Festuca ovina, common bent Agrostis capillaris and wavy hairgrass, with Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus and sweet vernal-grass Anthoxanthum odoratum in some parts. In poorly drained areas purple moor-grass is dominant. Species-rich acidic flushes also contain Sphagnum species, divided sedge Carex divisa, and rushes Juncus species. Three species uncommon in East Sussex are also found in this habitat: Bog asphodel Narthecium ossifragum, round-leaved sundew Drosera rotundifolia and heath-spotted orchid Dactylorhiza maculata spp. ericetorum. Areas of scrub dominated by gorse Ulex europaeus occur on the open common, alder buckthorn Frangula alnus and blackthorn Prunus spinosa are more important near the periphery. Surrounding woodland consists of silver birch Betula pendula, downy birch Betula pubescens and pedunculate oak Quercus robur with a shrub layer of hazel Corylus avellana, elder Sambucus nigra and hawthorn Crataegus monogyna, and a field layer dominated by bramble Rubus fruticosus. Stream, ditches and pond margins support fool's watercress Apium nodiflorum, hemlock water-dropwort Oenanthe crocata, meadowsweet Filiendula ulmaria, yellow iris Iris pseudacorus and nettle Urtica dioica. Willow Salix species and alder Alnus glutinosa form scrub or woodland in these areas. Supported butterflies include silver-studded blue Plebejus argus, grayling Hipparchia semele, pearl-bordered fritillary Boloria euphrosyne and high brown fritillary Argynnis adippe, small pearl-bordered fritillary Boloria selene and green hairstreak Callophrys rubi. Breeding bird community includes nightjar, stonechat, tree pipit and cuckoo.

• Clayton to Offham Escarpment SSSI: Clayton to Offham Escarpment SSSI covers an area of 429.6 hectares and has a central NGR TQ 335 126. The site is within the South Downs AONB, it lies on the chalk escarpment and dip slope of the South downs. Nationally uncommon chalk grassland habitat dominates the site, whilst woodland and scrub are also better represented here than on other chalk sites in East Sussex. Chalk grassland has developed over thin rendzina soil on steep slopes and is of the upright brome grass Bromus erectus- sheeps fescue grass Festuca ovina type although there is some local variation. Ungrazed areas have developed into scrub and then on to woodland. Escarpment is north facing and so received less sunshine that south facing slopes of Ashcombe Bottom. Ashcombe Bottom is important for breeding birds, and wintering and passage species, as well as invertebrates and small mammals. Orchids are well represented throughout the site. Chalk grassland is rich in flowering plants including glaucous sedge Carex flacca, autumn gentian Gentianella amarella, majoram Origanum vulgare and squinancywort Asperula cynachica. Also present are burn orchid Orchis ustulata, fragrant orchid Gymnadenia conopsea, frog orchid Coeloglossum viride, musk orchid Herminium monorchis, green-winged orchid Orchis morio and bee orchid Ophrys apifera. Areas of rougher grassland dominated by tor grass Brachypodium pinnatum and cocksfoot grass Dactylis glomerata. The scrub is mixed with scattered trees often present. Hawthorn Crataegus mongyna is dominant but wayfaring tree Vibernum lantana, dogwood Cornus sanguinea, blackthorn Prunus spinosa, whitebeam Sorbus aria, hazel Corylus avellana, spindle Euonymus europaeus and gorse Ulex europaeus all occur. The woodland is variable but often rather scrubby with the dominant species including ash Fraxinus excelsior, oak Quercus robur, sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, birch Betula pendula and scattered stands of mature beech Fagus sylvatica. Orchids recorded from beneath woodland at this site include white helleborine Cephalanthera damasonium, bird’s-nest orchid Neottia nidus-avis, fly orchid Ophrys insectifera, early purple orchid Orchis mascula and greater butterfly orchid Platanthera chlorantha. Breeding birds in Ashcombe Bottom include nightingale, all three British woodpeckers, tawny owl and a variety of warblers and tits. Thrushes and finches winter in large numbers and passage birds recorded include buzzard and merlin. Over one hundred and eighty species of moth occur and thirty-three species of butterfly including the white admiral Ladoga camilla. Glow

worms, dormice, harvest mice and adders are some of the other less common animals found in Ashcombe Bottom.

• Offham Marshes SSSI: Offham Marshes SSSI covers an area of 39.09 hectares and has a central NGR TQ 404 117. It was first notified in 1989 and features alluvial grazing marshes that support large amphibian populations which is unusual for this habitat in Sussex. This is due to the close proximity of the breeding sites to the areas of suitable terrestrial habitat (woodland, scrub and fen) on the flood plain and the chalk escarpment. The site also supports several scarce dragonflies (Odonata), beetles (Coleoptera) and flies (Diptera). The main amphibian breeding sites are the ditches which border the fields. Here the freshwater habitats range from open water, with plants such as water violet Hottonia palustris, fan-leaved water crowfoot Ranunculus circinatus and arrowhead Sagittaria sagittifolia, to fen dominated by bur-reed Sparganium erectum, with purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria and yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus. Winter and spring flood pools in a field dominated by hard rush Juncus inflexus are also important amphibian breeding sites. One of the poorly drained fields has a sedge-rich sward, consisting mainly of brown sedge Carex disticha and common sedge Carex nigra with meadowsweet Filipendula ulmaria, spike rush Eleocharis palustris and marsh marigold Caltha palustris. The most important terrestrial habitat for amphibians are areas of fen dominated by dense growths of meadowsweet and stinging nettles Urtica dioica as well as the woodlands and the scrub which line the railway embankment. The woods on the chalk escarpment have, under a canopy of ash Fraxinus excelsior and sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus, damp areas with dense growths of hart’s-tongue fern Phyllitis scolopendrium, whose dead fronds provide ideal terrestrial habitats for amphibians. Similarly fallen timber provides valuable shady refuges for amphibians as well as dead-wood invertebrates. Three amphibian species breed in large numbers in the ditches. These include several thousand common toads Bufo bufo, making this one of the best sites in the county for this species. Their black tadpoles are particularly obvious in the early summer. Less obvious are the smooth newt Triturus vulgaris and the palmate newt T. helveticus. Smaller numbers of common frogs Rana temporaria breed more frequently in the shallow pools that form in the fields. These large amphibian populations provide a food supply for grass snakes Natrix natrix, which breed on the site. The ditches support the scarce hairy dragonfly Brachytron pratense, the variable damselfly Coenagrion pulchellum, and many water beetles, including Britain’s largest species, the rare great silver beetle Hydrophilus piceus. The damp fields support several uncommon flies, whilst the rare hoverfly Ferdinandia ruficornis breeds in the woods.

Figure 3.3: Nationally designated sites of nature conservation importance

3.5.2 Ramsar Sites There are no Ramsar Sites within the study area.

3.5.3 Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) There are no SACs within the study area.

3.5.4 Special Protection Areas (SPA) There are no SPAs within the study area.

3.5.5 National Nature Reserves (NNR) There are no NNRs within the study area.

3.5.6 Local Nature Reserves (LNR) There are three LNRs within the study area:

• Ardingly Reservoir LNR: Wetland, deciduous woodland and grassland habitats. Good for autumn and spring migrating birds with over 173 species recorded. Barn owl, osprey, kingfisher, various bat species, dormice, water vole, smooth and palmate newts and 37 recorded butterfly species. The site can hold up to 10,000 overwintering widgeon.

• Chailey Common LNR: Chailey Common is dominated by heathers, predominantly Ling Heather, but two other native species: Bell and Cross-Leaved Heather can also be found. The heather and gorse provide a habitat for many birds, such as the Stonechat, Yellowhammer and Linnet. The Nightjar is also a regular summer visitor, as is the Hobby. The commons are also home to several of our native reptiles, such as adders and common lizards with many small ponds providing homes for a variety of amphibians.

• Eastern Road Nature Reserve LNR: The site has a mosaic of woodland, scrub, rough grassland and wetland. There is a diverse range of plants, insects and birds. The old and new wetland areas support healthy populations of fogs, newts and aquatic insects such as dragonflies.

3.5.7 Designated Ancient Woodland Ancient woodlands are classified as areas which have been wooded continuously since at least 1600 AD. This includes semi-natural woodland and plantations on ancient woodland sites. 'Wooded continuously’ does not mean there is or has previously been continuous tree cover across the whole site, and not all trees within the woodland have to be old.

There are a total of 121 ancient woodlands within the study area. These are displayed on the Environmental designations map on page 57 of Appendix B and in Figure 3.7.

3.5.8 Biosphere Reserves Biosphere reserves are internationally recognised by UNESCO as sites of excellence to balance conservation and socioeconomic development between nature and people. They are recognised under the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme with the aim of promoting sustainable development founded on the work of the local community.

There is one Biosphere Reserve present within the study area:

• Brighton and Lewes Downs: This was designated in 2014 and covers an area of 29,514 hectares. The Brighton & Lewes Downs Biosphere Reserve is located on the South East coast of England, forming a central unit of the hills of the South Downs National Park. It is centred on the Brighton chalk block that lies between the River Adur in the west and the River Ouse in the east. Chalk downland makes up the principal terrestrial landscape of the area, bounded at each end by the two river valleys. The coastline is dominated by impressive chalk cliffs in the east and urbanized plains in the west, running to the estuary of the River Adur at Shoreham. The area is nationally and internationally renowned for its arts and culture, distinctive settlements, independent mindset and its links to the surrounding iconic English landscape of downland, white chalk cliffs and beaches.

3.5.9 Forest Parks

There are no forest parks within the study area.

3.5.10 Marine Conservation Zones (MCZ) There are no MCSs within the study area.

3.5.11 Green Belt There are no areas of designated green belt within the study area.

3.5.12 Proposed Ramsar Sites There are no proposed Ramsar sites within the study area.

3.5.13 Possible Special Areas of Conservation (pSAC) There are no pSACs within the study area.

3.5.14 Potential Special Protection Areas (pSPA) There are no pSPAs within the study area.

3.5.15 Nitrate Vulnerable Zones There is an area of approximately 8 hectares within the study area that is classed as a nitrate vulnerable zone.

3.5.16 SSSI Impact Risk Zones SSSI Impact Zones were developed to allow a rapid initial assessment of the potential risks to SSSIs posed by development proposals. They define zones around each SSSI which reflect the particular sensitivities of the features for which it is notified and indicate the types of development proposal which could potentially have adverse impacts. Features are displayed on the SSSI Impact Zones and Units map on page 58 of Appendix B.

Areas within the study area fall within SSSI Impact Risk Zones as follows:

• On-Site (Barcombe) – Types of developments requiring consultation include: Infrastructure (airports, helipads and other aviation proposals); Air Pollution (any industrial/ agricultural development that could cause air pollution, including industrial processes, livestock & poultry units with floorspace >500m2, slurry lagoons > 200m2 & manure stores >250t); Combustion (general combustion processes >20MW energy input, including energy from waste incineration, other incineration, landfill gas generation plant, pyrolysis/ gasification, anaerobic digestion, sewage treatment works, other incineration/ combustion); Waste (landfill including inert landfill, non-hazardous landfill, hazardous landfill); Composting (any composting proposal with more than 75,000 tonnes maximum annual operational throughput, including open window composting, in-vessel composting, anaerobic digestion, other waste management); Discharges (any discharge of water or liquid waste of more than 20m3/day to ground (i.e. to seep away) or to surface water, such as a beck or stream – NB this does not include discharges to mains sewer which are unlikely to pose a risk at this location).

3.5.17 SSSI Units SSSIs are divided into management units, which are used to record management and condition details. Units are the smallest areas for which Natural England gives a condition assessment, however, the size of units varies greatly depending on the types of management and the conservation interest.

There is one SSSI Unit within 2km of Barcombe:

• Plashett Wood Unit of Plashett Park Wood SSSI – Located 1406m north east of Barcombe and comprising broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland broad habitat type. This unit is currently in Unfavourable – Recovering condition.

3.5.18 Drainage Network The key drainage network feeding into the main Ouse channel and the study area is shown on Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4: Key Drainage Features

3.5.19 Recreation Key recreational features associated with the study area and adjacent land can be seen in Figure 3.5. Those within the study area are listed in Table 3.1.

Figure 3.5: Recreational Assets

Table 3.1 - Recreational Assets within Study Area

ref Type Name A Scheduled Monument Motte and bailey castle 240m east of Dean's Mill B Golf Club Lindfield Golf Club C Other Preserved Railway D National Trust Sheffield Park Gardens E Scheduled Monument Motte and bailey castle, fishpond and associated earthworks, SW of Isfield Church F Tourist Attraction Boat Hire G Tourist Attraction Wellingham House (Garden) H Parks and Gardens Borde Hill

3.6 VISUAL AND CULTURAL DESIGNATIONS

The built environment designations are shown on Figure 3.6 and described (where relevant) in this section.

Figure 3.6 - Built Environment

3.6.1 World Heritage Sites There are no World Heritage Sites within the study area.

3.6.2 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) There is one AONB present within the study area:

• High Weald AONB: The term ‘Weald’ is given to the area between the North and South Downs which are the outer chalk rims of the ancient Wealden anticline. The sandstones and clays of the exposed centre of the dome, the ‘High Weald’ give rise to a hilly, broken and remote country of ridges and valleys covered by a patchwork of fields, woods and shaws. In contrast, open areas of the AONB include Ashdown Forest and, to the east, the river valleys of the Rother, Brede and Tillingham. The AONB meets the coast at Hastings. The character of the High Weald was established by the 14th century and has survived major historical events and social and technological changes. As a result, the High Weald is considered to be one of the best surviving, coherent medieval landscapes in Northern Europe.

3.6.3 National Parks There is one National Park present within the study area:

• South Downs National Park: The South Downs National Park covers an area of approximately 165,000 hectares of England's most valued lowland landscapes, it has been shaped by the activities of farmers and foresters, large estates and communities, charities and businesses.

3.6.4 Listed Buildings There are three Grade 1 List Buildings within the study area, with numerous Grade II and Grade II* Listed Buildings also present (see Figure 3.6).

3.6.5 Conservation Areas There are three Conservation Areas within the Study area (see Figure 3.6), typically associated with small villages/ hamlets.

3.6.6 Scheduled Monuments There are two Scheduled Monuments within the study area:

• Motte and bailey castle 240m east of Dean's Mill.

• Motte and bailey castle, fishpond and associated earthworks, SW of Isfield Church.

3.6.7 Registered Parks and Gardens

There are two Registered Parks and Gardens within the study area:

• Borde Hill

• Sheffield Park

3.6.8 Agricultural Designations

The majority of the study area is classified as Grade 3 agricultural land, which is described as “Good to moderate quality agricultural land.” It comprises land with moderate limitations which affect the choice of crops, timing and types of cultivation, harvesting or the level of yield. Where more demanding crops are grown, yields are generally lower or more variable than on land in Grades 1 and 2.

Small areas of Grade 2 agricultural land are present in the south of the study area. Grade 2 agricultural land is described as “Very good quality agricultural land.” It is defined as land with minor limitations which affect crop yield, cultivations or harvesting. A wide range of agricultural and horticultural crops can usually be grown. On some land in the grade there may be reduced flexibility due to difficulties with the production of the more demanding crops, such

as winter harvested vegetables and arable root crops. The level of yield is generally high but may be lower or more variable than Grade 1.

Figure 3.7: Agricultural land classification and Ancient Woodlands

3.7 HABITAT DESIGNATIONS

3.7.1 Priority Habitat Habitats of principal importance as named under Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) Section41.

Features are displayed on the Habitat designations map of page 69 of Appendix B and on Figure 3.8.

There are six Priority Habitats within the study area: coastal and floodplain grazing marsh, deciduous woodland, good quality semi-improved grassland, lowland calcareous grassland, lowland heathland and traditional orchard.

Figure 3.8: Scarce habitat

3.8 WATER RESOURCES, HYDROLOGY AND RAINFALL

This will be provided by South East Water in a potential future Drought Permit/Order.

4 WATER QUALITY 4.1 HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT AGENCY DATA

4.1.1 Overview There are at least six significant discharges into the River Ouse catchment, five of which are from Waste Water Treatment Works. The largest of these is from Scaynes Hill WWTW, which accounts for 30% of all discharges to the river.

Figure 4.1: Significant Discharges - Adur and Ouse CAMS Area (Source: EA).

Ouse

Previous studies (EA 20003) demonstrated the relatively good biological water quality of Sussex rivers during the period 1990 to 2000. Improvements in biological water quality during the period 1990 to 1995 are attributable to improved sewerage infrastructure, although following this period sewage treatment works continued to be responsible for a large percentage of the shortfalls in biological water quality (EA 2000). Modifications to the rivers’ physical habitats, such as channel structures and maintenance practices, have also caused a relatively large number of shortfalls in biological water quality (EA 2000).

The EA monitors macrophytes along the River Ouse and Mean Trophic Rank (MTR) and Mean Flow rank scores are available for two sites on the Lower Ouse, 100m downstream of the Anchor Inn and Isfield, no sites on the Upper Ouse have been recorded since 2005. In 2010 scores for these sites were MTR 33.5 MFR 1.13 for the Anchor Inn and MTR 33 and 1.6 MFR for Isfield. Both these sites are just upstream of the Barcombe abstraction. No expected scores are available at this point.

Variations in water quality within Sussex rivers are largely related to climate, with declines in quality during the period 1995 to 1999 being attributed primarily to drought (EA 2000). The ecology of the Ouse was also detrimentally affected

3 Environment Agency, Sussex Area Biology Team (2000). The Biological Quality of Sussex Rivers 1990/2000: A summary of the biological quality trends and shortfalls in quality of Sussex rivers.

by the introduction of an organophosphate pesticide into the middle reaches of the river in 2001, which resulted in considerable fish mortality and localised losses of macro-invertebrates. Likewise, diffuse pollution often enters the river lowering its ecological diversity (EA, 2000).

Despite the above environmental affects, water quality in the Ouse has remained relatively good, with more recent chemical General Quality Assessment (GQA) data (2001-2005) held by the Environment Agency, indicating water quality in the Ouse is typically ‘very good’ or ‘good’: predominantly GQA grades A and B respectively. This is also supported by recent macroinvertebrate monitoring data (EA 2001 to 2005), which indicates the Ouse continues to support a relatively diverse assemblage of macro-invertebrates. This includes a number of relatively pollution- intolerant taxa, including mayflies such as Ephemeridae, Ephemerellidae and Heptageniidae (BMWP score - 10) and caddisflies, including Rhyacophillidae (BMWP score - 7), Polycentropodidae (BMWP score – 7) and Sericostomatidae (BMWP score - 10). The middle and lower reaches of the Ouse, in particular, also support a number of dragonfly and damselfly (Odonata) species, some of which are particularly abundant.

Biotic indices, calculated by the EA for the River Ouse include Average Score Per Taxon (ASPT) values typically between 4 and 6 in 2004, also signifying relatively good water quality. ASPT values, calculated from invertebrate samples collected at Barcombe Mills, were typically between 5 and 5.5 and did not change significantly between 2003 and 2004, indicating that the 2003 drought had little short-term effect on the macroinvertebrate community at this location. A slight increase in the ASPT scores calculated from invertebrate samples collected upstream at Sharpes Bridge during the same period are attributable to an increase in flow due to greater augmentation (Andy Willo, Environment Agency, pers. comm.).

The latest samples assessed under the new Water Framework Directive (WFD) standards were recorded as A on the Ouse at Barcombe. Biological GQA results from 1995-2006 are shown in Table 3.1.

Table 4.2: Biological GQA Scores for the Ouse 1995-2006

1995 1996/7 1998/9 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Site Name

Barcombe Mills A A C B B A

Isfield A A

100m U/s Anchor Weir B A C B

Water quality Up to 2005, when GQA surveys were ceased, the River Ouse chemical water quality at Barcombe Mills downstream of the abstraction had improved from good to very good (A). From 2006 onwards samples have been scored under the WFD classification, Table 3.2 outlines the most recent EA data.

Table 4.3: 2009 Water quality Scores for the Lower Ouse at Barcombe Mills.

Site location Chemistry Biology Nitrates Phosphates

River Ouse A - 2 1 confluence at Barcombe

Key

Chemistry and biology - A to F (very good to bad)

Nitrates and phosphates - 1 to 6 (very low levels to very high levels).

4.2 CURRENT EA WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE WATER QUALITY DATA

Current information on the condition of the Ouse in relation to the Water Framework Directive and its objectives is set out in this section of the report. It draws on information from the Environment Agency's Catchment Data Explorer and presents information for individual relevant reaches with the Ouse Study Area.

Figure 4.2: Key detailing classification status of WFD element

Table 4.4: Ouse from Slaugham to Ardingly Reservoir

Figure 4.3: Location of Ouse from Slaugham to Ardingly Reservoir

Ouse from Slaugham to Ardingly Reservoir – this reach of the river Ouse is from its source and is at the upstream end of the survey area. In 2019 it received an Overall WFD Classification of Moderate, with Ecological Status also classed as Moderate, and Chemical Status as Fail. This reach is 11.145km long and has a catchment area of 3752.96ha, it is not designated artificial or heavily modified.

A more detailed breakdown of the Ecological Potential Classification shows Biological quality elements is classed as Moderate due to sub classifications of; Moderate for Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Combined and Fish, and High for Invertebrates. Hydro-morphological Supporting Elements are classed as Supports Good, whilst Physico-chemical quality elements is Moderate due to High classifications for Ammonia (Phys Chem), Dissolved oxygen, pH and Temperature, with Phosphate being Moderate. Specific pollutants received a High Classification, with Triclosan, Manganese, Chromium (VI), Copper, Iron and Zinc all being High.

The Chemical Status Fail Classification can be broken down into Good for Priority substances which includes Cypermethrin (Priority hazardous), Fluoranthene, Lead and Its Compounds and Nickel and Its Compounds all at a Good Classification. Other Pollutants were shown to not require assessment, whilst Priority hazardous substances received a Fail overall, due to failing on Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE), Perfluoro octane sulphonate (PFOS) and Mercury and Its Compounds.

Reasons for not achieving good status and reasons for deterioration included Fish being affected by Physical modifications such as flood protection, barriers resulting in ecological discontinuity, and reservoir/impoundment that was non flow related. Phosphate was affected by continuous sewage, which also affected Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Combined. There are 4 protected areas associated with this reach; Adur East (Sakeham) and River Arun (u/s Pallingham) which are both part of the Nitrates Directive, Ouse from Slaugham to Ardingly Reservoir, which is a Drinking Water Protected Area, and SWSGZ4008 which is a Safeguard Zone.

The objectives for this reach are shown below in Figure 4.4 and show that Overall Water Body, and Ecological Potential are aiming to reach Good by 2027.

Figure 4.4: Objectives table for Ouse from Slaugham to Ardingly Reservoir

Table 4.5: Ouse Ardingly to confluence with Scrase Brk

Figure 4.5: Location of Ouse Ardingly to confluence with Scrase Brk

Ouse Ardingly to confluence with Scrase Brk – this reach is towards the upstream end of the survey area, it is 7.163km long and has a catchment area of 1205.73ha. It is designated as heavily modified. In 2019 this reach received a Moderate Classification for Overall Water Body, and for Ecological Potential, whilst Chemical Status was a Fail. The Ecological Potential can be broken down into sub-classifications, the first of these – Supporting elements (Surface Water) has a Good Classification due to the Mitigation Measures Assessment being Good. Biological quality elements received an overall Moderate Classification, which features Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Combined and Fish both receiving Moderate, and Invertebrates being High. Physico-chemical quality elements are classed as Moderate, including a High Classification for Ammonia (Phys-Chem), Dissolved oxygen, pH, and Temperature, whilst Phosphate was Moderate.

The Fail Classification for Chemical Status features a Good Classification for Priority substances – this includes Good for Cypermethrin (Priority hazardous) and Fluoranthene. Other Pollutants are shown as not requiring assessment, whilst Priority hazardous substances is a Fail due to Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) and Mercury and Its Compounds both Failing.

Reasons for not achieving good status and reasons for deterioration are shown to include: Fish being affected by Physical modifications – Barriers resulting in ecological discontinuity, and Flood protection. Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Combined as affected by continuous sewage discharge, and poor livestock management. Whilst Phosphate is affected by continuous sewage discharge and poor livestock management. There are no protected areas associated with this reach.

The objectives for this reach are shown below in Figure 4.6 and include reaching Good Overall Water Body, and Ecological Status by 2027 – disproportionate burdens are given as reasons for this.

Figure 4.6: Objectives for Ouse Ardingly to confluence with Scrase Brk

Table 4.6:- Middle Ouse

Figure 4.7: Location of Middle Ouse Reach

Middle Ouse – this reach is towards the middle of the survey area, it is 14.873km long and has a catchment area of 2732.16ha. It is designated as heavily modified. In 2019 this received classifications of Moderate for Overall Water Body and Ecological Status, with Chemical Status being a Fail. The Ecological Status includes a Good Classification for Supporting elements (Surface Water) including Mitigation Measures Assessment. Biological quality elements are shown to be Moderate, with Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Combine and Fish both being Moderate, whilst Invertebrates are High. Physic-chemical quality elements is classed as Moderate overall, with Ammonia (Phy-Chem), Dissolved oxygen, pH and Temperature all being High, whilst Phosphate is Poor.

Chemical Status which has a Fail Classification can be broken down into Priority substances at Good – this includes Cypermethrin (Priority hazardous) and Fluoranthene both at Good. Other Pollutants are shown as not requiring assessment, whilst Priority hazardous substances is a Fail, due to Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE), Perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS) and Mercury and Its Compounds Failing.

Reasons for not achieving good status and reasons for deterioration are shown to be: Macrophytes and Phytonbenthos Combined and Phosphate being affected by continuous sewage discharge, whilst Fish are affected by Barriers causing ecological discontinuity. There are 2 protected areas associated with this reach; River Uck – Ridgewood stream confluence to Ford NVZ S5321 which is part of the Nitrates Directive, and River Ouse which is part of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.

The objectives for this reach are shown below in Figure 4.8, this shows Overall Water Body and Ecological Status as Moderate in 2015, the reasons given for this are disproportionate burdens and no know technical solution being available.

Figure 4.8: Objectives for Middle Ouse

Table 4.7: Ouse between Isfield and Coast

Figure 4.9: Location of Ouse between Isfield and Coast

Ouse between Isfield and Coast – this reach is located towards the downstream end of the survey area, it is 3.846km long and has a catchment area of 257.168ha. It is designated as heavily modified. In 2019 this reach received classifications of Moderate for Overall Water Body, and for Ecological Status, whilst Chemical Status received a Fail. sub-categories of the Ecological status include Supporting elements (Surface Water) with a Good Classification, with Mitigation Measures Assessment being Good. Biological quality elements received a Poor Classification, with Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Combine being Moderate, Fish as Poor, and Invertebrates as High. Physico-chemical quality elements has an overall classification of Moderate, with Acid Neutralising Capacity, Ammonia (Phys-Chem), Dissolved oxygen, pH and Temperate being High, whilst Phosphate is Poor. Specific Pollutants overall has a High Classification, including Chlorothalonil, Pendimethalin, Manganese, Arsenic, Copper, Iron and Zinc.

The Chemical Status has an overall Classification of Fail, this includes Good for Priority substances which are Alachlor, Cypermthrin (Priority hazardous), Dichlorvos (Priority), Aclonifen, Bifenox, Cybutryne (Irgarol), Terbutryn, Fluoranthene, Lead and Its Compounds and Nickel and Its Compounds – these all receive a Good Classification. Other Pollutants also receives a Good Classification, with Aldrin, Dieldrin, Endrin & Isodrin, and para-DDT both being Good. Priority hazardous substances received a Fail Classification, due to receiving Fails for Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE), Perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS) and Mercury and Its Compounds.

Reasons for not achieving good status and reasons for deterioration are shown to include Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Combined being affected by Poor nutrient management, and Continuous sewage discharge. Phosphate is affected by Poor livestock management, and Continuous sewage discharge. Fish are affected by Barriers that result in ecological discontinuity, whilst the Hydrological Regime is affected by Surface water abstraction. There are 3 protected areas associated with this reach – Ouse between Isfield and Coast which is a Drinking Water Protected Area, River Ouse which is part of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, and SWSGZ4008 which is a Safeguard Zone.

The objectives for this reach are shown below in Figure 4.10 and shows Overall Water Body and Ecological Status are shown as Moderate for 2015 with reasons given being disproportionate burdens, and no known technical solutions being available.

Figure 4.10: Objectives for Ouse between Isfield and Coast

Table 4.8: Ouse

Figure 4.11: Location of Ouse Reach

Ouse – this reach represents the final stretch of the Ouse before it flows into the English Channel, it includes the downstream end of the survey area. This is a transitional water body and is heavily modified. It has a surface area of

139.309ha. In 2019 this reach received a Moderate Classification for Overall Water Body and Ecological Status, with Chemical Status being a Fail. The Ecological Status is made up of sub-categories including Supporting Elements (Surface Water) which received a Moderate Classification with Mitigation Measures Assessment being Moderate or Less. Biological quality elements were classed as High, including Macroalgae which was also High. Hydro- morphological Supporting Elements which includes Hydrological Regime were classed as Supports Good, whilst Physico-chemical quality elements had an overall Classification of Moderate, with Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen being Moderate and Dissolved oxygen High.

For the Chemical Status, Priority substances which includes Fluoranthene received a Good Classification, whilst Other Pollutants were shown are not requiring assessment. Priority hazardous substances received a Fail due to failing on Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) and Mercury and Its Compounds.

Reasons for not achieving good status and reasons for deterioration are shown as Mitigation Measures Assessment being affected by flood protection use. There is 1 protected area associated with this reach – River Ouse, which is part of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.

The objectives for this reach are shown below in Figure 4.12 and show Overall Water Body and Ecological Status as Moderate 2015, reasons given for this are unfavourable balance of costs and benefits, and action to get biological element to good would have significant adverse impact on use.

Figure 4.12: Objectives for Ouse Reach

4.3 2020 WATER QUALITY FIELD MEASUREMENTS

The locations of the water quality survey sample points are shown below in Figure 4.13. The key results are summarised in Table 4.9.

Figure 4.13: Sample Point Locations within the Study Area

Figure 4.14: Sample point locations at Barcombe Mills

Table 4.9: Summary of key 2020 water quality results

Survey Date Time Temp. pH D.O. [%] EC Turb. Location [°C] [µS/cm] FNU

E (Ouse) 01/10/2020 12:29:30 12.86 7.65 74.3 290 57.1

1 21/09/2020 10:37:36 16.48 7.3 66.2 192 28.6

2 21/09/2020 10:32:41 16.47 6.9 68.8 193 24.5

3 21/09/2020 13:39:33 15.59 7.58 59.7 373 4.3

4 22/09/2020 16:22:06 16.89 7.82 116.5 198 14.5

5 21/09/2020 17:53:41 16.88 7.89 93 201 25.6

D (Ouse) 01/10/2020 12:04:35 13.78 7.55 75 235 19.6

6 (u/s) 23/09/2020 17:35:59 16.67 7.61 84.3 204 10

6 (d/s) 22/09/2020 14:11:08 16.59 7.9 122.8 199 22.1

C (Cockhaise) 01/10/2020 11:49:00 12.63 7.49 89.9 299 138

7 22/09/2020 10:34:08 15.79 7.79 116.9 205 16.5

8 22/09/2020 11:45:21 15.99 7.88 115 312 59.1

9 22/09/2020 12:44:51 16.26 7.8 118.7 321 14.6

11 24/09/2020 10:51:42 15.01 7.17 101.6 292 18.3

12 24/09/2020 12:37:08 15.06 7.34 78.4 283 13.5

13 24/09/2020 15:02:31 14.88 7.3 81.2 162 14.4

14 24/09/2020 15:56:26 14.93 7.61 63.8 320 15.7

15 25/09/2020 10:48:51 13.69 7.03 84.7 274 11.6

A (Longford) 01/10/2020 10:13:27 13.09 7.27 54.1 0 55

Survey Date Time Temp. pH D.O. [%] EC Turb. Location [°C] [µS/cm] FNU

B (Uck) 01/10/2020 10:54:38 13.99 7.75 94.1 284 24.9

16 25/09/2020 12:26:08 13.96 7.48 76.5 318 10.7

17 23/09/2020 15:49:59 16.38 7.5 88.7 1 306

20 25/09/2020 13:21:23 14.52 7.52 82.6 318 9.6

21 23/09/2020 10:24:50 16.54 7.32 76.6 313 5.6

22 23/09/2020 11:18:53 16.81 7.85 99.5 307 4.5

23 23/09/2020 12:33:59 16.52 7.77 85.9 315 11.5

24 23/09/2020 12:03:54 16.96 7.64 88.9 309 7.1

25 25/09/2020 13:45:48 14.53 7.63 87.5 319 16.5

26 25/09/2020 14:55:12 14.6 7.76 80 316 46.9

27 25/09/2020 15:42:29 14.91 7.65 73.1 298 8.1

Temperature Across the samples taken there is a range of 4.33°C with the highest recorded temperature of 16.96°C at Location 24 and the lowest being 12.63°C at Location C which is Cockhaise Brook. It is worth noting that these measurements were not recorded on the same day (approx. 1 week apart) with both measurements taken toward the middle of the day. Generally, the temperature appears to be slightly higher at the upstream and downstream areas of the study reach, whilst the locations towards the middle show slightly cooler temperatures, however the variations in temperatures are likely a result of the different survey dates/times.

Figure 4.14: 2020 Temperature Measurements

pH The pH is relatively stable for the study reach, with a range of 1.0, the measurements are all between 7 and 8 pH apart from location 2 which dips to 6.9 pH. The upstream measurements show some fluctuation between each point, whereas the downstream half of the study reach slowly increases from Location 15, and then stays relatively level from point 22? Downstream. The pH levels are within the range that could be considered as Neutral.

Figure 4.15: 2020 pH Measurements

Electrical Conductivity The measurements for electrical conductivity have a large range of 373µS/cm, however, two of the recordings at Locations A (Longford Stream) and 17 are likely incorrect readings from the probe as they are 0 and 1µS/cm respectively. Taking these two measurements out the range of the remaining data is 211µS/cm. The upstream half of the study reach once again shows much more fluctuation in the recordings, with a range of 211µS/cm (Locations 1 – 13), whereas the downstream half (Locations 14-27 excluding outliers) has a smaller ranger of 46µS/cm. In particular, Locations 20 - 26 show little variation in the Electrical Conductivity.

Figure 4.16: 2020 Electrical Conductivity Measurements

Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen levels are reasonable across the catchment although there are some locations with depressed levels, likely to be as a result of warm temperatures in locations where there is limited shade from tree cover, lower water depths and flow volumes. Super-saturated levels are also recorded which may be a result of phytoplankton photosynthesis during warm and light daytime periods.

Figure 4.1: 2020 Dissolved Oxygen Measurements

Turbidity Across the majority of sample locations, the turbidity is typically below 50 FNU, with only four locations seeing values above this. There is a range of 301.7FNU, with Location 3 being 4.3FNU, whilst Location 17 has the highest value at 306FNU. The high values recorded at Locations C (Cockhaise Brook) and 17 where the Turbidity levels were 138 and 306FNU respectively, are a likely reflection of adjacent agricultural inputs but more significantly, lower levels of dilution.

Figure 4.18: 2020 Turbidity Measurements

4.4 ODOUR AND VISUAL

Table 4.11 shows that upstream of site 8, no odour was observed, and no foam nor hydrocarbon was seen on the water surface. The effluent release from the Sewage Treatment Works at Scaynes Hill is located directly upstream of sample location 8. Other tributaries of the Ouse receive treated effluent from STWs. The samples taken at sites 8 and 9 were recorded as having a sweet, metallic odour, potential sources include the sewage effluent and agricultural discharges or effluent. Additionally, at site 8, a plume of foam was observed. Downstream at sites 11 and 12 this had dissipated, and no odour nor visible contamination were observed.

Table 4.11: Visual and Olifactory Observations for the Ouse, September/October 2020.

Site Visual Olfactory 2 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 3 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 4 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 5 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 6 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 7 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour

Site Visual Olfactory 8 Foam plume associated Sweet and metallic odour with the STW outfall from Scaynes Hill. No hydrocarbon film 9 No foam or hydrocarbon Sweet and metallic odour 11 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 12 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 13 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 14 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 15 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 16 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 17 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 18 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 19 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 20 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 21 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 22 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 23 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 24 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 25 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour 26 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour. Slight salty odour (tidal) 27 No foam or hydrocarbon No odour. Slight salty odour (tidal)

4.5 ALGAL BLOOMS

Despite the low flows experienced during the survey in September-October 2020, no notable algal blooms were recorded (as evidenced by visible ‘scum’).

4.6 2020 MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA

Please refer to Appendix K for full data tables.

Samples were collected from a total of 16 sites with the overwhelming majority sampled over four seasons which covered a period of eight years, namely, autumn 2012, autumn 2016, spring 2017 and autumn 2020. However, it should be remembered that four samples taken over eight years only represent a ‘snapshot’ at a given time of the macroinvertebrate communities present. Even so, a total of 138 different macroinvertebrate species were identified from the catchment during this period including the rare Least Snipe-fly (Atrichops crassipes) which was seen singular in samples from three sites.

4.6.2 Macroinvertebrates Upper Catchment The results from Shell Brook have been similar over the sampling period with the site characterised by a limited macroinvertebrate fauna dominated by the freshwater shrimp (Gammarus pulex) range 66 to 865. The Biological Working Party Score (BMWP) scores were very consistent and ranged from 71 to 79 with an Average Score Per Taxon

(ASPT) from 4.59 to 5.27, indicative of poor to moderate water quality. Other species of note were the caseless caddisflies Neureclipsis bimaculata, maximum 441, and Hydropsyche angustipennis, maximum 359. The results were not surprising as Shell Brook is the Ardingly Reservoir outflow and Neureclipsis is often found in lake outflow streams. In addition, H. angustipennis typically inhabits outflows of ponds and lakes and is known to tolerate high temperatures, low oxygen concentrations, high organic loads and low water velocities.

The site upstream of the Abstraction Point had a diverse macroinvertebrate community with BMWP scores ranging from 143 to 171 and ASPT from 5.86 to 6.11, indicative of good water quality. The highest BMWP (171) and ASPT (6.11) were recorded in autumn 2020. A total of 40 different species were found in this sample with five species of mollusc and 24 species of fly larvae recorded including several characteristic of ‘very clean’ water. There were high numbers of Gammarus in all samples, range 108 to 252 and the riffle beetles Elmis aenea, Limnius volckmari and Oulimnius tuberculatus peaking at 60, 118 and 72 respectively were also recorded.

The site at the confluence of the River Ouse with Shell Brook varied in terms of BMWP scores, range 112 to 182 with a mean of 145. The lowest BMWP score (112) and ASPT (5.33) were recorded in autumn 2020. The site has a diverse macroinvertebrate fauna with a total of 44 different species recorded during autumn 2016. High numbers of Gammarus (140-434) and riffle beetles (44-196) were typical of the samples. Molluscs were dominated by the Jenkins’ Spire Shell (Potamopygrus antipodarum) peaking at 460 in autumn 2016.

Sites at Upper Ryelands and East Mascalls had similar macroinvertebrate communities with mean BMWPs of 145 and 131 respectively. The Upper Ryelands BMWP score was 144 in autumn 2020 while the East Mascalls score of 100 was markedly below the mean. Both sites had high numbers of Gammarus and riffle beetles. The high of 342 Gammarus from Upper Ryelands was recorded in autumn 2020. A total of 254 Limnius volckmari (riffle beetle) were found in the sample from East Mascall in autumn 2012. Additional beetle species recorded from both sites included larvae of the Whirligig Beetle (Gyrinidae) and adults of the scavenger beetle genus Hydraena. There were also noteworthy counts of the Yellow May Dun Mayfly (Heptagenia sulphurea) range 9-36 and 59 Leuctra fusca (stonefly) were recorded from the Upper Ryelands sample in autumn 2020.

A single larva of the rare Least Water-snipefly (Atrichops crassipes) was found in the autumn 2016 sample from East Mascalls. It is classified as a Red List GB Post 2001 species which is estimated to occur between 15 and fewer hectads (10 km squares) in Great Britain.

Samples from the site at Freshfields Bridge had lower BMWP scores (77-102) and lower macroinvertebrate diversity than those sites already described on the River Ouse excluding Shell Brook. However, BMWP scores of 102 in spring 2017 and autumn 2020 suggest that conditions might be slowly improving. There was a total of 24 species in the most recent sample which was the highest since sampling began. Samples were characterised by high numbers of worms (50-157) with leeches (2-31) also present. Gammarus ranged from 1 to 252 with the highest value in the autumn 2020 sample. There were few high BMWP scoring families present in any of the samples and the mayfly group was dominated by the pollution tolerant species Baetis rhodani (3-48). Interestingly, the only stonefly recorded was Leuctra fusca (4) in the most recent sample. One larva of the rare Least Water-snipefly (Atrichops crassipes) was found in the sample in autumn 2016.

4.6.3 Macroinvertebrates Sheffield Park Bridge to Sutton Hall Weir The BMWP scores at the Sheffield Park Bridge site have gradually dropped from 154 in 2012 to 106 in 2020 with a mean of 125. ASPT also fell from 6.42 to 5.3 during the same period. Gammarus were recorded in each sample (25-600) as was the pollution tolerant mayfly Baetis rhodani (2-42) and the Blue Winged Olive Mayfly (Seratella ignita) which ranged from 1 to 29. The site was dominated by riffle beetles peaking at 289 in autumn 2020. A total of 14 species of caddisflies have been recorded at the site but there were only five species found in the autumn 2020 sample with

Hydropysche siltalai dominating (144). One larva of the rare Least Water-snipefly (Atrichops crassipes) was found in the sample from autumn 2016.

The sites at Fletching Mill and Sharpsbridge had very similar mean BMWP scores of 126 and 127 respectively from 2012 to 2017. However, scores from the latest samples from autumn 2020 differed markedly with 97 recorded at Fletching Mill and 166 at Sharpsbridge. Both sites had similar macroinvertebrate assemblages although there were far higher numbers of riffle beetles at Fletching Mill peaking at 630 in autumn 2016. There was only a total of 22 species in the latest sample compared to 38 at Sharpsbridge. The latter sample included six mollusc and eight caddisfly species. The stonefly Leuctra fusca was also recorded for the first time at the site (3). In addition, there were a high number of the blackfly Simulium erythrocephalum (565).

The site at Sutton Hall Weir is characterised by poorer water quality than those sites upstream. BMWP scores ranged from 82 to 112 with the lowest score posted in 2020. Low scoring groups including worms (2-77), leeches (5-17), molluscs (2-12) and Asellus (3-14) but Gammarus (1-52) and riffle beetles (27-63) were also present. However, there were fewer high scoring families recorded although the case-bearing caddisflies Athripsodes cinereus (3-8) and Lepidostoma hirtum (1-9) were found in each sample.

4.6.4 Macroinvertebrates Lower Catchment

Sites in the lower catchment were characterised by lower diversity than those further upstream with tidal influence creating brackish water conditions which limited species towards the mouth of the river. The exception was the site on Andrew’s Stream near Balcombe Mills which is a tributary of the main River Ouse. BMWP scores ranged from 17 to 137 (mean 49) in the main river compared to 93-144 (mean 120) in Andrew’s Stream.

There was a change in macroinvertebrate communities with distance downstream with an increasing number of molluscs, the brackish shrimp (Gammarus zaddachi) and the Drake Mackerel Mayfly (Ephemera vulgata) recorded. E. vulgata favours large river habitats with muddy bottoms. In addition, many of the species recorded were indicative of slow flowing and standing water habitats. These included molluscs, the freshwater shrimp (Crangonyx pseudogracilis), the Pond Olive Mayfly (Cloeon dipterum), the case-bearing caddisfly Limnephilus flavicornis, damselflies and water boatmen.

Samples from Andrew’s Stream were more diverse but did contain high numbers of the brackish shrimp Gammarus zaddachi (158-550). The mussel Sphaerium corneum (3-98) was also recorded in each sample as were high numbers of riffle beetles (83-220). There were 13 caddisfly species noted with high numbers of the tolerant caseless caddis Hydropsyche angustipennis (40-265). Other species indicative of good quality water included the case-bearing caddis Athripsodes cinereus (4-9), Lepidostoma hirtum (2-3) and Brachycentrus subnubilus (1-3).

5 ECOLOGY AND HABITATS 5.1 DESK STUDY (PREVIOUS DATA) – TO BE UPDATED WITH 2021 DATA FROM THE SBRC

5.1.1 Statutory sites There are three statutorily designated sites within 5km of the abstraction point on the Upper Ouse at Ardingly. These are: • Freshfield lane and Philpots and Hook Quarries Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Both sites are designated for their geological interest and not considered to be hydrologically dependent upon the river; and • Wakehurst and Chiddingly Woods SSSI. This site contains extensive exposures of sandrock of biological and geological importance. The site has the richest sandrock vegetation community in England, supporting a unique flora. It supports an uncommon cranefly and also has a diverse breeding community of woodland birds. Wakehurst and Chiddingly Woods SSSI is located north of Ardingly Reservoir and the riverine abstraction point.

No statutorily designated sites were identified along the middle reaches of the River Ouse, between Scaynes Hill WWTW and the Anchor Inn.

The nearest statutorily designated site is Plashett Park Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is situated over 1km to the east of the survey area at TQ 460 156. Plashett Park Wood is designated for its ancient woodland communities, which support a diverse community of breeding birds and a range of plants and invertebrates that have a nationally restricted distribution. Of particular note are the two predominant stand types of woodland, pedunculate oak-hornbeam with birch and hazel, and hazel-sessile oak, which are nationally uncommon and are rarely found together. In addition, the site supports the plant ‘spiked rampion’, (Phyteuma spicatum), a nationally scare plant that only occurs in Sussex.

Downstream of Barcombe Mills are two further SSSIs; Offham Marshes SSSI (located at TQ 404 118) and Lewes Brooks SSSI (at TQ 41085/ TQ 430 075).

Offham Marshes is predominantly alluvial grazing marsh situated within the natural floodplain of the River Ouse and supports a range of amphibian, reptile and invertebrate species. In particular, large numbers of common toad (Bufo bufo), smooth newt (Triturus vulgaris) and palmate newt (T. helveticus) breed in the ditches, providing a food source for the breeding grass snake (Natrix natrix,), which is also present at the site. The poorly drained fields are vegetated by a sedge-rich sward with dense stands of meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria) and nettle (Urtica dioica). A small area of woodland is also present. Flood banks separate the SSSI from the main river and inflow to the site is predominantly from natural chalk-fed springs located in the Pells (Entec UK Ltd 2004).

Lewes Brooks SSSI comprises a series of ditches, which cut through alluvium on the western bank of the Ouse south of Lewes and north of Southease. The ditches within this site vary in salinity from brackish to freshwater spring-fed. They are cleared out on a rotational basis, creating a mosaic of habitats, which support a diverse range of plant and macroinvertebrate communities, some which are characteristic of the saline conditions e.g. fennel pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus). The waterbodies to the north of Southease support a number of rare flies, water beetles, dragonflies and mussels. This site is part of the natural tidal floodplain of the River Ouse but is protected by flood embankments.

5.1.2 Non-statutory sites

The Sussex Biological Records Centre (SBRC) highlights 7 non-statutorily designated sites and 5 sites recorded as ancient or ghyll woodland located near to the riverine abstraction points4. These are presented in Table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1: Non – statutorily Designated Sites. Site Grid Description Location from River Ouse reference Sites of nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) Ardingly Reservoir TQ 330 295 Ardingly Reservoir and the Loder Just to the north of the Valley Nature Reserve are of SEW abstraction point importance to breeding and passage located on the upper wetland birds. On the reservoir catchment of River Ouse. margins there are areas of herb-rich grassland and scrub. Within the Loder Valley are species rich grassland, ancient and plantation woodland containing several notable species. Bursteye Farm TQ 350 283 A small species rich meadow Approx 1.5km to NE of Meadow, Ardingly surrounded by scrub woodland and river corridor. lying south of disused railway. Abundant ragged robin and Dyers greenweed. This site also supports great grested newt (Triturus cristatus) Costells, Henfield TQ 368 240 A large area of ancient woodland Northern edge of site is and Nashgill wood, composed of three named woods. located adjacent to River Henfield. Uniform, area of overgrown birch Ouse. coppice with oak standards. The wood contains a number of streams and ponds. This site supports dormouse (Muscardinus avellamarius) Barcombe Reservoir TQ 440 150 The main part of the site comprises a Site is located within survey and Andrew’s Stream man-made reservoir with steeply area sloping concrete banks that has little marginal vegetation but which supports a large range of bird species. The site also includes an area of open water, several settle tanks and Andrews Stream (referred to in the SNCI citation as the ‘relief channel’). A number of rare bird species, including osprey, black tern

4 In this report, ‘near to the abstraction points’ consists of 4-5km up stream and down stream on the River Ouse i.e. from Ardingly reservoir to Scaynes Hill; and from Anchor Inn, to the north of Barcombe Reservoir, downstream to Hamsey. For these stretches of river, data were collected on locally-designated sites within a 2km width of the river channel.

Site Grid Description Location from River Ouse reference and little gull have been recorded within the SNCI. Andrews Stream is also believed to support the Red Data Book leaf beetle Donacia sparganii, which feeds on unbranched bur-reed (Sparganium emersum), although no records of this species were provided by SBRC. Marshy Field and TQ 426 132 Comprises a number of fields, drains Lies adjacent to the River Lake by Wellingham and a lake. The lake is used by Ouse, over 1km Farm anglers and supports some marginal downstream of Barcombe vegetation with abundant water lily. Mills The fields are grazed by cattle and support some areas of marshy grassland in the depressions with the higher ground much drier and partly improved. Most of the drains within the site are fenced and contain water with dense aquatic vegetation, although some of the smaller drains are dry. The marsh grassland is used by wading birds. St Peters Old Church TQ 414 121 Comprises relatively unimproved, Situated within ‘the loop’ at species-rich grassland which is Hamsey in an area of managed by a combination of stock higher ground grazing and cutting. A number of birds, including barn owl and kingfisher, have been recorded at the site. Dismantled Railway TQ 414 170 Comprises a 1.5km stretch of old Situated to the northwest Line, Barcombe railway which, due to a complex mix of Barcombe Cross, well of substrate types associated with the over 1km from the River railway, has developed a rich Ouse assemblage of plants. Of particular note are Dyer’s greenweed (Genista tinctoria), zig-zag clover (Trifolium medium), dodder (Cuscata epithymum) and pepper saxifrage (Silaum silaus). The SNCI also supports several stands of dense and scattered scrub. Ancient Woodland Rivers wood TQ 330 282 No details given by SBRC Northern edge of wood adjacent to River Ouse.

Site Grid Description Location from River Ouse reference Ryelands wood TQ 339 278 No details given by SBRC 500m to east of River Ouse. Fountain wood TQ 340 271 No details given by SBRC Northern edge of wood adjacent to River Ouse Ghyll Woodland Bridges wood TQ 352 268 No details given by SBRC Southern edge of wood adjacent to River Ouse Nunnery wood TQ 358 262 No details given by SBRC 500m to east of River Ouse

5.1.3 Protected and Notable Species – To be updated in 2021 with formal records centre data A comprehensive search of the NBN website for records of legally protected and/ or notable species was made for the 10km grid squares TQ32, TQ41 and TQ40 to inform this baseline report. It is possible to search the NBN website for records of legally protected, UK BAP, IUCN, RDB and Nationally Notable species as well as for species included on the Section 41 list of species of principal importance for biodiversity conservation for the 10km grid squares selected. Please note that owing to the number of bird records available for the selected grid squares, only those species of the highest conservation importance (BoCC Red Listed species) are included in Appendix C. Appendix C contains all records of legally protected and/or notable species obtained from the NBN website for grid squares TQ32, TQ41 and TQ40 and from the relevant statutory designated site citations.

5.2 FIELD SURVEY

See Appendix A for site descriptions.

See the RHS survey forms in Appendix D for further details.

See the RCS survey forms in Appendix E for further details.

See the photo gazetteer in Appendix G.

The River Ouse supports a wide variety of river habitats and physical features that provide a varied character along its length from Ardingly to Hamsey and enables it to support such a diverse variety of wildlife.

Johns Associates undertook River Habitat Survey (RHS) at all 25 riverine drought monitoring sites. The survey work was hampered by a range of difficult conditions including:

• Very steep and high banks, with deep water

• Turbid flow conditions often encountered

• Deep flow conditions preventing crossing the channel

• Continuous vegetation limiting some views

• Presence of structures on the river limiting safe access

Notwithstanding this, the information recorded provides the best systematic record of physical habitat at the survey reaches available at the current time and has provided to be invaluable when comparing between different survey periods.

The text and images set out in Appendix A reflect the physical habitat at each of the 25 riverine drought monitoring sites.

Please refer to Appendix I for information relating to Ardingly Reservoir.

5.2.4 SITE 1: ARDINGLY RESERVOIR Ardingly reservoir is an 80-hectare waterbody cause by the impoundment of two tributaries of the River Ouse in the upper Shell Brook catchment in 1978. The two sub-catchments contributing water into the reservoir can be seen as the two ‘arm’ of the reservoir as illustrated by the image below.

The Ardingly Activity Centre provides watersports for the public including wind surfing, canoeing, powerboating and dinghy sailing and the reservoir is a popular fishing venue offering 5 km of freshwater fishing for carp, tench, pike, roach, rudd, eel, gudgeon, European perch and bream.

The reservoir is also a non-statutory site for its nature conservation value. The Ardingly Reservoir and the Loder Valley SNCI are of importance to breeding and passage wetland birds. On the reservoir margins there are areas of herb-rich grassland and scrub. Within the Loder Valley are species rich grassland, ancient and plantation woodland containing several notable species.

The reservoir is also statutorily designated as a Local Nature Reserve. Key habitats associated with the LNR are wetland, reedbed, deciduous woodland, hazel coppice and haymeadow. Good for autumn and spring bird migrations. Great crested grebe and kingfisher nest on site. Biodiversity Action Plan species include barn owl, osprey, various bat species, dormice and glow worms. The Ardingly sandstone outcrops support a rare community of ferns, mosses, liverworts and lichens.

5.2.5 SITE 2: SHELL BROOK Shell Brook is a modified and regulated “1st order” watercourse and a tributary of the main River Ouse. Its upper catchment is captured by Ardingly Reservoir. Flow is regulated by licensed discharges from the reservoir. A minimum compensation release occurs at all times reflecting an environmental minimum. Flows are enhanced through a SEW augmentation release for abstraction downstream at Barcombe Mills. Overflow, when the reservoir is at capacity can also occur.

The stream has two gauging stations and weirs. One (approx. 100m from the top of the channel) is defunct and the second – at the top of the channel top is current. Associated with those features are sections of reinforced/re- sectioned channel. SEW discharges its Shell Brook WTW backwash water into the channel in a similar small outfall. The right-hand bank has been re-sectioned and embanked adjacent to the SEW filter beds with riprap reinforcement. Due to the augmented and elevated flows it is believed that the channel has undergone accelerated vertical and lateral erosion, controlled by more resistant bed sediment and trees. As such the channel exhibits signs of bank and bed scour, backwaters, over deepened areas associated with bends and eroding vertical cliffs. Localised sheet piling has been added as a result of a pipe cross that has contributed to bank erosion. The ephemeral nature of the elevated flows result in a restricted channel flora – largely broadleaved emergent herbs, sedges, rushes and grasses.

5.2.6 SITE THREE: SHELL BROOK WTW ABSTRACTION Site 3 represents the Ouse upstream of the Shell Brook confluence and therefore is unaffected by Ardingly Reservoir’s regulated release of water. The first approximate. 100m is however affected by a SEW abstraction (intermittent) and an EA gauging station/weir at the game pond. This leads to impounding of flow for at least 200m upstream.

The channel is generally consistent in planform – gently sinuous and over-deepened – presumably as a result of the historic navigation, subsequent adjustment and response to a rapidly draining catchment and stream power. Banks are earth and therefore relatively easy to erode. Basal and full bank scour is extensive. The bed is coarse grained, but finer particles may also dominate. Banks are typically vertical or steep sided. Tree cover is semi-continuous, providing shading and bankside stability. Glides dominate the flow type, with occasional variation by bedrock (shallow cascade) and woody/leafy debris jams.

5.2.7 SITE 4: RIVER OUSE DOWNSTREAM OF SHELL BROOK CONFLUENCE The survey reach includes the now combined flow from the upper Ouse (beyond Ardingly Reservoir) and the compensation/ augmentation releases associated with Shell Brook. It is a heavily over-deepened section with steep and high banks, with flow dominated by glides (at the time of survey), although it is considered likely that a series of riffles and runs are present during lower flow periods. Where access was possible the bed was dominated by clay, but again, it is likely that gravels are also present. Evidence of basal and full bank scour is present

No submerged aquatic vegetation was noted, with plants being limited to the channel margins. The whole reach was overshaded by tree canopy.

5.2.8 SITE 5: LOWER RYLANDS BRIDGE Site 5 is the main River Ouse either side of Lower Rylands Bridge. Upstream of the bridge the river follows a gentle planform with typically vegetated and stable banks within grassland. The banks are high e.g. 2.5m and the channel over-deepend e.g. >2m. Evidence of basal and full bank scour is present – from flood flows but not dominant. The channel is lined with semi-continuous tree cover, especially on the right-hand bank.

The bridge presents a minor impoundment to flow – enhancing the dominance of glides upstream. Water flows through a fully reinforced bridge and down a series of armoured steps into a scour pool before flowing through a highly sinuous channel constrained by trees. The lower 250m appears to be more dynamic with extensive full bank and basal scour evident.

SITE 6: EAST MASCALLS BRIDGE

Site 6 is dominated by a relatively uniform channel upstream of the road bridge. Widths and planform are similar throughout with some exceptions. The channel is over-deeped and flow is dominated by an extensive glide. Significant full bank and basal bank scour is present, with some vertical banks being stabilised by vegetation. The sparse surface and smooth deep flow indicate efficient sediment transport during elevated flow conditions. Channel macrophytes appear to be dominated by emergent marginal species. The channel is tree lined and heavily shaded. The road bridge has a minor impounding effect upstream but also controls a drop in bed level, with water cascading down several reinforced steps to an overlengthened pool. The tail end of this pool is a riffle and downstream the channel has a more dynamic character and plan form with a range of physical features more evident, reflecting the controlling influence of the bridge on the upstream section and possible re-sectioning.

SITE 7: RIVER OUSE UPSTREAM OF SCAYNES HILL STW

This is a semi natural reach through ancient broadleaved woodland. Tree canopy covers the channel with extensive exposed roots. The channel has a very straight planform, but it is over-deepened. The bed is dominated by gravel but with clay. Riffles, runs and glides were observed.

There is a side channel running adjacent to the main channel and the Cockhaise runs parallel. Stable cliffs are present throughout the reach with evidence of basal scour. It is a site that supports salmonid redds and there is an accumulating side bar.

5.2.9 SITE 8: MAIN OUSE AND FORMER CANAL Site 8 combines 250m of the main Ouse downstream of Scaynes Hill STW but upstream of a major weir and a historical canal linking reaches of the Ouse. The canal was a regular width and channel cross-section and is obviously over- deepend. Its vertical banks show signs of full bank scour, but in particular basal scour. The channel is now tree lined and shaded. It has a very linear planform with little physical diversity. Aquatic plants are limited to bryophytes, (on the vertical sides) and emergent species. A pipe crosses the channel which causes minor impoundment at moderate flows – water flows under the pipe causing upwelling. A weir is present towards the end (upper) part of the canal. The canal receives water from the main Ouse, controlled by a major weir. The main Ouse upstream of the weir has a gently sinuous planform with dominantly vertical sides – although these are generally stable and vegetated. Flow is dominated by a glide and is augmented by Scaynes Hill STW discharge.

5.2.10 SITE 9: RIVER OUSE UPSTREAM OF FRESHFIELD BRIDGE Site 9 reflects a more semi-natural reach of the river and exhibits a sinuous planform. Upstream of site 9 is a weir that to a certain extent regulates flow under lower flow conditions, with some flow diverted into a side former canal. Land use is agricultural – floodplain grazing by cattle and occasional clumps of trees occur on the bank-top. The high energy flow events in the Ouse are evident from the dominantly vertical bank form, much of which shows signs of scour, with some cantilever erosion. The trees influence the more resistant/ weaker parts of the bank. Some pools are present and two small riffles. Flow is typically dominated by glides. The substrate is typically gravelly, although other particle sizes exist. The lowest part of the site is at Freshfield Bridge, which has resulted in a small amount of re-sectioning/ realignment and reinforcement. The invasive plants Himalayan Balsam and Japanese Knotweed are present. No evidence of otter or water vole was recorded.

5.2.11 SITE 11: SHEFFIELD PARK BRIDGE The channel at Sheffield Park Bridge has a gently sinuous planform through agricultural grassland and adjacent to Sheffield Park Station. The banks are typically vertical or steep sided showing evidence of basal scour throughout with areas of full bank and cantilever erosion with small zones of accumulating sediment, some of which is vegetated. Small areas of slump/poaching exist. In addition, small sidebars are present. Trees line much of the channel, controlling lateral erosion and shading much of the channel. The bed varies from clay to gravel/pebble dominated, notably upstream of the road bridge. The channel appears over-deepened – relating to navigation heritage. Upstream of the bridge, in channel macrophytes include submerged fine leaved plants. Downstream these are not visible. Reeds, sedges etc are present throughout.

A tributary enters the main channel on right hand bank upstream of the road bridge.

The channel is re-sectioned and fully reinforced under the bridge, which does not create any impediment to the flow during low conditions.

5.2.12 SITE 12: FLETCHING MILL The Environment Agency and OART has recently delivered a major piece of river restoration with the removal of an impounding structure at Fletching Mill. This has resulted in the river beginning to respond to lower water levels, elevated velocities and a return to bed load transport. Although the channel remains over-deepened, semi-natural processes are evident, including the presence of a riffle feature. The channel splits, with both arms passing under road bridges before forming a single channel downstream.

5.2.13 SITE 13: GOLD BRIDGE Site 13 is a sinuous planform dominated reach set within improved pasture. Although semi-natural features such as bends etc exist, two major artificial structures influence the reach. The Goldbridge road bridge and down EA gauging station has resulted in re-sectioning and reinforcement with associated impoundment immediately upstream. The banks are typically vertical but generally vegetated and stable. Shallower reaches contain gravel substrate and are often colonised by submerged fine leaved vegetation. Marginal and emergent vegetation is dominated by broadleaved herbs as well as bryophytes on some banks. This reach appears relatively stable with no significant erosion. The channel supports areas of trees with associated channel shading/overhanging boughs.

5.2.14 SITE 14: SHARPSBRIDGE Site 14 is located immediately upstream of Sharpsbridge, a road bridge where the channel splits into two reinforced (bed mesh) brick arches. Flow is dominated by glides with small areas of run/rippled flow. The channel is gently sinuous with significant lengths dominated by stable cliffs, although some basal scour and full bank scour/eroding cliffs are present. Some deep sections >1.5m are present. Bedload is varied and includes gravel, clay and potential bedrock. The channel is tree lined with associated overhanging canopy, and exposed and submerged roots. The trees influence the planform of the channel making it gently sinuous. A small ditch, ‘eel pot’, is present and associated with a buffer strip. Wetland and a small stream also feed into the channel. Himalayan Balsam is present.

5.2.15 SITE 15: SUTTON HALL WEIR The River Ouse upstream of Sutton Hall Weir is gently meandering but is over-deepened, with water impounded because of the weir. Flow is characterised by an extensive glide with the bed dominated by clay and silt. The weir is a large structure with numerous steps directing flow into a large pool. A fish pass is present to one side, together with a sluice and former lock currently under renovation. A large oxbow lake is present in the adjacent floodplain. Downstream of the weir, the characteristic steep and high banks of the river are once again present, together with a deep glide dominated flow.

5.2.16 SITE 16 ANCHOR GATES WEIR The River Ouse upstream of Anchor Gates Weir is gently meandering but is over-deepened, with water impounded because of the weir. Flow is characterised by an extensive glide with the bed dominated by clay and silt. The banks are limited in height, being poached by cattle in some places. The weir is a large structure with a central fish pass and sluices to allow the bypass of water in flood conditions. Downstream of the weir bank height increased once more and towards the lower end of the reach the channel splits in two.

5.2.17 SITE 17 & 18 UPSTREAM OF SEW BARCOMBE MILLS ABSTRACTION This 500m reach combines two sampling sites associated with the main channel upstream of the Barcombe Reservoir abstraction. The channel is gently meandering but wide and over-deepened. Flow is impounded by the downstream Barcombe Mills complex and dominated by a glide. Bedload is characterised by clay.

5.2.18 SITE 19: OUSE BELOW SEW BARCOMBE MILLS ABSTRACTION Site 19 is directly downstream of the Barcombe Reservoir abstraction. The channel is gently meandering but wide and over-eepened. Flow is impounded by the downstream Barcombe Mills complex and dominated by a glide. Bedload is characterised by clay. Cattle poaching is evident on the left-hand bank.

5.2.19 SITE 20: ANDREWS STREAM The Andrews Stream caries a proportion of the flow around the Barcombe Mills complex, although it is also modified and regulated through a series of weirs, deflectors and fish passes. Due to the presence of these structures, over- deepened channel and recent gravel addition and fishery improvements, the planform flow and bedload are varied. The lower reaches are influenced by the high tide, notably during spring tides.

5.2.20 SITE 21: FISHLADDER STREAM This channel, which is a former canal, conveys a proportion of flow through the Barcombe Mills complex and has been significantly modified through re-sectioning and over-deepening. A series of ‘fish ladders’ are present together with a gauging weir. The structures are causing the formation of an extensive vegetated berm and deposition of silt.

5.2.21 SITE 22: MAIN CHANNEL This artificial and reinforced channel conveys a proportion of flow (notably flood flow) through the Barcombe Mills complex.

5.2.22 SITE 23: HOUSE STREAM Site 23 House or Garden Gate Stream is one of a series of ‘feeder’ channel associated with the Barcombe Mills complex. It forms the right-hand most of the channels at Barcombe Mills and flow enters the channel over a weir complex (with sluice) that also has a fish pass. Below a ‘pool’ the channel is re-sectioned and has a relatively straight planform. It is typically vertically sided and overshadowed by an area of broadleaved woodland and adjacent to a large garden. The channel is deep e.g. >2m with a gravel bed (where sampling was possible). The beds are typically stable. The stream flows over a second weir and fish pass, under a road bridge, where the channel is reinforced and over a tidal limit ‘step’ into the Ouse associated with the Mill Pool.

5.2.23 SITE 24: BARCOMBE MILL POOL Site 24 is a large mill pool that receives flow from a number of the Barcombe Mill channels and is tidally influenced.

5.2.24 SITE 25: TIDAL OUSE DOWNSTREAM OF BARCOMBE MILLS COMPLEX Site 25 is a gently meandering tidally influenced reach of the Ouse. It has res-ectioned banks, is dominated by a glide (under low tide freshwater dominated conditions) with a bedload characterised by clay and silt.

5.2.25 SITE 26 TIDAL OUSE: COWLEAZE CONFLUENCE Site 26 is a gently meandering tidally influenced reach of the Ouse. It has vertical banks, is dominated by a glide (under low tide freshwater dominated conditions) with a bedload characterised by clay and silt. It includes the confluence of the Cowleaze, via a tidal flap.

5.2.26 SITE 27: TIDAL OUSE: HAMSEY WEIR This reach is in a tidally influenced part of the river. There is a weir at the downstream end of the reach and the observations were made at low tide. The reach experiences twice-daily variations in water level and high tide/freshwater flow. Typically, the reach is vegetated to the water surface e.g. fringing reeds and emergent plants. Banks are often vertical and vegetated: there is no visible erosion/scour. The channel is meandering.

5.2.27 Protected and notable species No evidence of otter or water vole were observed from any of the survey reaches. Spruce’s bristle moss was not recorded from the river channel at Barcombe Mills.

5.2.28 Invasive and Non-Native Species Variegated yellow archangel was recorded at Site 2.

Himalayan balsam was recorded at a number of sites: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 2426,

Japanese knotweed was recorded at a number of sites: 7, 9, 11, 15,

5.2.29 Aquatic macrophytes The Ouse supports a diverse community of aquatic and emergent macrophytes, typical of a southern lowland river. The Environment Agency has recorded macrophyte data with respect to its MTR surveys along the river.

Johns Associates undertook RCS surveys at all 25 of the adopted riverine drought monitoring sites in 2012 and updated in 2016 and 2020 where relevant. The main difference between 2012 and 2012 being the apparent limited management of woody vegetation along the river channel leading to a noticeable increase int extent of tree and shrub cover, with associated overhanging canopy, limbs and related features. Please refer to Appendix E for a key and copies of these detailed RCS maps.

In the vicinity of the SEW abstraction intake at Barcombe Mills, the river is relatively wide, (approximately 20m), deep and has little perceptible flow. However, this part of the river has low banks, and the flat adjacent meadows are prone to flooding after heavy rainfall. This section of the river is characterised by rafts of common duckweed (Lemma minor), relatively large expanses of submerged Canadian waterweed (Elodea canadensis) and localised patches of unbranched bur-reed (Sparganium emersum), branched bur-reed (Sparganium erectum), reed sweet-grass (Glyceria maxima) and reed canary-grass (Phalarus arundinacea), which are often relatively extensive in the river’s margins.

Tall herbs, including great willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), water figwort (Scophularia auriculata) and hemp agrimony (Eupatorium cannabinum) line the bank tops and bank faces along some sections of the river. However, in places this more diverse assemblage of herbs has been almost completely excluded by Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) and common nettle (Urtica dioica), which are likely to signify past disturbance/modification of the riverbanks.

Trees and scrub border most of the right bank and are scattered along the left bank. The predominant tree species situated close to the riverbank are alder (Alnus glutinosa), ash (Fraxinus execelsior), crack willow (Salix fragilis) and sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus). The adjacent land use is predominantly cattle-grazed improved/semi-improved grassland.

Downstream of Barcombe Mills the River Ouse is relatively wide and is similar to the reach immediately upstream. However, this reach is within the tidal limit and has a slightly faster flow. Yellow water lily (Nuphar lutea), common duckweed, Canadian waterweed and unbranched bur-reed are the dominant plant species within the river channel. Himalayan balsam and common nettle dominate the steep banks, interspersed with occasional marsh woundwort (Stachys palustris). There are fewer trees along this section of the river, crack willow being the most common species. The land use adjacent to this part of the river is predominantly cattle-grazed, improved/poor semi-improved grassland.

In places, House Stream is heavily shaded by mixed woodland, particularly between Garden Gate Sluice and the Alaskan ‘A’ denil fish pass. This channel support small patches of emergent arrowhead (Sagittaria sagittifloia) and scattered yellow water lily. Downstream of the weirs is a shallow pool with areas of exposed gravel. An area on the southern bank of the pool is dominated by Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica).

Fish Ladder Stream is also shaded by trees, including ash, sycamore and cherry laurel (Prunus laurocerasus) and, at the downstream end, by Himalayan balsam. In the mid-reaches of the stream, the shallow water and low flows have allowed emergent vegetation, including arrowhead, branched bur-reed and fool’s watercress (Apium nodiflorum) to choke the channel.

Andrew’s Stream is connected to the River Ouse via an un-named linear channel (the remnant of the former Iron River). This channel also receives some flow discharged from Barcombe Reservoir. At the time of surveys there was little perceptible flow within the linear channel, which has led to an abundance of common duckweed (this had died back at the time of the spring 2006 survey). Dense emergent macrophytes, predominantly reed sweet grass, branched bur- reed and reed canary grass lined the northern margin of the ditch. The southern bank of the ditch was eroded bare in places and poached by cattle. Small patches of emergent water forget-me-not (Myostis scorpiodies), amphibious bistort (Polygonum amphibia), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and gypsywort (Lycopus europaeus) were recorded in the margins of the ditch. A line of planted white willow (Salix alba) borders the southern bank.

The banks of Andrew’s Stream are steep, densely vegetated with Himalayan balsam, common nettle and broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolia), although areas of bare bank face are also present. The channel is relatively shallow and narrow with a gravel substrate. Yellow water lily, unbranched bur-reed, branched bur-reed and reed canary grass were the predominant macrophytes within the channel.

Spruce’s bristle-moss has been historically recorded within the survey area (Sussex Biodiversity Records Centre 2005). This moss grows in small tufts on the silt-covered bases of trees, particularly alder by rivers and is very rare in lowland England. Spruce’s bristle moss was not recorded during a survey carried out by SEW in 2006 or by Johns Associates in 2012, 2016 or 2020.

5.2.30 Freshwater macro-invertebrates Please refer to Section 4.5 above.

6 STRUCTURES 6.1 DESK STUDY

The Ouse has a history of being a modified and navigable river. The Sussex Ouse Restoration Trust provide a helpful summary of the historical background of the river.

“For hundreds of years boats have navigated on the tidal reaches of the river from the sea up to Lewes and beyond to Barcombe Mills. But by the end of the 18th century ‘canal mania’ was gripping the country, the national economy was booming, and people were looking for new ways to improve efficiency and productivity. Some prominent local landowners saw in the River Ouse an opportunity to invest and modernise.

An engineer of national repute, William Jessop, was asked to survey the river in 1787, with a view to extending navigation right up to Slaugham. Three years later the Upper Ouse Navigation Act was passed, a company of proprietors was formed, and work began. Progress was slow and costs quickly exceeded initial estimates. Eventually, about 1812, work finally finished with the river made navigable up to Upper Ryelands Bridge, near Balcombe, a not inconsiderable 22 miles and 19 locks above Lewes.

The Sussex Ouse was a rural navigation and, unlike many of its contemporaries in the Midlands and the North, served no large industrial towns. Its hinterland was the clay land of the Weald and so trade consisted mainly of the carriage of lime, chalk and manure for soil improvement, aggregates for road improvements and coal for the lime burning process and domestic use.

In 1801 there were 51 barges registered as trading on the river, 21 of which worked the river above Lewes”.

The Sussex Ouse Restoration Trust has also produced a map showing the position of the original locks along the river. This is reproduced below as Figure 6.1.

Figure 6.1: Location of Original Locks on the Ouse

A review of Ordnance Survey mapping and aerial imagery from Google Earth Pro has identified a number of structures associated with the River Ouse in the Study Reach. Table 6.1 is a register of identifiable structures/influences on flow. The location of these can be seen in Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2: Location of Original Locks on the Ouse

6.2 FIELD SURVEY

As a result of the historic modification of the Ouse, there are a significant number of structures that limit or prohibit the passage of fish. Particularly under low flow conditions.

The structures at Barcombe Mills are the first key obstacle to fish migrating from the tidally affected reaches of the river as they migrate to and from to upstream reaches. It is believed (from observations made by Entec during earlier studies, by South East Water, Halcrow, Windrush AEC, and the EA) that the current configuration and operation of the impounding structures at Barcombe Mills, together with the fish passes means that in periods of natural low flow (i.e. approaching the MRF of 20 Ml/d), flows are not sufficient to allow unimpeded upstream migration of sea trout. The EA (2004) reports that “all four possible fish passage routes at Barcombe Mills are practically impassable for any other species other than sea trout. While sea trout clearly pass upstream this is only possible for the stronger individuals and under certain flow conditions occurring only for limited periods.” Flows tend to be concentrated over the Main Channel encouraging sea trout to concentrate in the Mill Pool; there is no fish ladder present at this location to permit the upstream migration of fish past this obstacle. The EA (2004) reports that “while sea trout clearly can pass upstream this is only possible for the stronger individuals and under certain flow and water level conditions occurring only for

limited periods. The New Weir is completely impassable by fish and this leads to fish being attracted and trapped in the main tidal pool”.

The Environment Agency concurs with SEW that the Andrews Stream provides the best fish habitat and opportunities for fish to move beyond the obstructions at Barcombe Mills.

Sussex Ouse Conservation Society (SOCS – now the Ouse and Adur Rivers Trust [OART]) consider that a water depth of 2cm above the Garden Gate fish pass allows the passage of some sea trout, but any reduction below this level would significantly affect the ability of this species to migrate upstream of the structures at Barcombe Mills.

Numerous weirs are present along the river, not all of which have fish passes.

There are eleven fish passes in the lower River Ouse. These are associated with:

• Garden Gates (TQ 43474 14845)

• Barcombe House Weir (TQ 43329 14877)

• Fish Ladder (TQ 43405 14790)

• Andrews Weir (TQ43692 14676)

• Anchor Gates (TQ44181 15938)

• Sutton Hall (TQ 44086 18680)

• Fletching Mill (TQ 42398 23027) – now removed.

During the survey of all 25 riverine 500m survey reaches, no physical obstruction to fish pass function from coarse woody debris or ‘litter’ was observed. Maintaining this state is clearly important for the continued efficacy of these structures but also from flow and flood conveyance/risk. The absence of obstructions at fish passes during drought is critical.

In addition to the weirs, other obstructions to fish passage are present, including:

• bridges and associated bed/bank reinforcements and energy reduction structures;

• coarse woody debris jams (e.g. fallen trees);

• exposed sediment bars/berms as a result of low flow;

• other man-made structures such as deflectors; and

• very shallow water

Please refer to Appendix F for further details of the structures recorded at the Drought Monitoring sites.

7 RECREATION

A broad range of recreational activities is associated with the River Ouse between Ardingly and Hamsey. These include:

• Walking/running/dog walking on local Public Rights of Way and National Trails such as the Sussex Ouse Valley Way;

• Bike riding and horse riding on brideways and by-ways;

• Boating upstream of the Anchor Inn upstream of Barcombe;

• Nature conservation and historic environment conservation activities (e.g. with the OART and the Sussex Ouse Restoration Trust

• Angling.

A review of Ordnance Survey mapping has identified a wide range of recreational features or assets associated with the Study Area. These have been tabulated and mapped and further information can be found in Sections 3.5.20 and 3.5.21.

8 SEA TROUT REDD SURVEY

Surveys of certain river reaches associated with sea trout redds have occurred in 2012/13 and 2017/18. Due to restrictions associated with Covid and winter flow conditions, a re-survey in winter 2020 was not possible, but will occur in the winter of 2021-22 to update this drought baseline. For further information on the previous sea trout redd surveys please refer to Appendix H.

9 ARDINGLY RESERVOIR SURVEY

Surveys of Ardingly Reservoir have occurred for the purpose of informing this drought baseline in 2012 and 2016. Due to restrictions associated with Covid and winter flow conditions, a re-survey in winter 2020 was not possible, but will occur in the autumn/winter of 2021-22 to update this drought baseline. For further information on the previous Ardingly Reservoir surveys please refer to Appendix G.

10 DROUGHT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Detailed analysis of the baseline data and development trends associated with the data associated with this baseline report will be completed in 2021, once the remaining seasonal information is collected in May 2021. This will further inform future Drought Permits and an update to this Environmental Baseline. This will help the alignment of baseline data to support future drought monitoring. Proposed drought monitoring will include: Weekly riverine site monitoring based on the following activities/metrics: • Mobilisation • Wetted width and height from water surface to bankfull level to allow calculation of change in water depth. • Depth of water above the uppermost obstruction, and distance between the lower-most obstruction and the water surface (if present) to demonstrate any changes in the functionality of the structure and the potential for continued fish passage;

• Flow profile of a representative cross section of the site;

• Evidence of a reduction / increased vulnerability of key habitat features (e.g. sub-aerial exposure of key fish spawning habitat);

• Fixed point photograph; • Water quality from a hand-held probe (dissolved oxygen, electrical conductivity, pH, temperature, total dissolved solids, salinity [will be taken at 0.5m depth intervals below Barcombe Mills to detect the denser saline wedge], turbidity), as well as observation (odour and visual condition [e.g. colour, foam etc]). In addition, ammonia will be tested for. This is because with reduced flows the dilution from sewage effluent will be less and levels of ammonia will rise. Ammonia is toxic to aquatic life at relatively low levels and is probably the best field method for assessing how much sewage effluent is in the water. • Southern Water has previously provided sewage effluent data and this dataset will be maintained live during and after a drought period. This, together with ammonia monitoring, will allow the monitoring of the potential effect of sewage effluent in the low flow conditions experienced in drought. The suite of 26 sites will encapsulate the various STW outfalls down through the catchment and a cumulative assessment of changes in ammonia, DO etc will be undertaken. • Algae – field chlorophyll measurement, plus visual records (e.g. percentage cover); • Qualitative assessment from observation of fish mortality, poaching and predation; efficiency of fish ladders, evidence of stranded fish, algal and macrophyte growth together with any general observations of areas requiring further scrutiny. • Daily inspection (Monday to Friday) above and below Barcombe Mills (all structures) and at Ardingly Reservoir draw down tower and upper arms to confirm whether distressed fish are present and whether mitigation is required. Weekly monitoring at Ardingly Reservoir involves the following metrics:

• Water quality measurements taken at 10 locations at 0.5m intervals in the water column (including turbidity, dissolved oxygen, electrical conductivity, pH, temperature, total dissolved solids, salinity); • Visible evidence of an algal bloom e.g. scums; • Visible evidence of fish in distress; and • Use of downscan sonar/ fishfinder to confirm whether fish are using prospective ‘safe haven’ areas as drought conditions develop.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX H

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX J

APPENDIX K