The Natural Environment The Forest Office, Wood, Nr Haynes West End, Beds MK45 3QT T: +44 (0)1234 743666 F: +44 (0)1234 743667 e: [email protected] Indicators of Sustainablewww.greensandtrust.org.uk Development in To: Adventure, 26-34 BedfordshireLiverpool Road, March 2005 , LU1 1RS Produced by Sue Raven of the Greensand Trust for County Council, March 2005

Richard Woolnough Veronika Bale Director Education Officer T: +44 (0)1234 743666 M: +44 (0)1234 743667 The Forest Office, , Nr Haynes West End, Beds MK45 3QT e: [email protected] T: +44 (0)1234 743666 M: +44 (0)1234 743667 www.greensandtrust.co.uk e: [email protected] www.greensandtrust.org.uk

The Forest Office, Maulden Wood, Nr Haynes West End, Beds MK45 3QT T: +44 (0)1234 743666 F: +44 (0)1234 743667 e: [email protected] www.greensandtrust.org.uk

The Greensand Trust The Forest Office, Maulden Wood Haynes West End, Bedfordshire MK45 3QT Tel: 01234 743666 Fax: 01234 743699 www.greensandtrust.co.uk

w

Contents

Summary

A. River and canal water quality

Indicator 1 Percentage of length of rivers and canals of good quality Indicator 2 Percentage of length of rivers and canals of high nutrient status Indicator 3 Distribution of otters

B. Condition of important wildlife & geological sites

Indicator 4 Area of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and % in favourable condition Indicator 5 Area of County Wildlife Sites and % in favourable condition

C. Condition of the wider countryside

Indicator 6 Area of land under Countryside Stewardship agreements Indicator 7 Area of organic holdings Indicator 8 Area of woodland within Woodland Grant Scheme Indicator 9 Populations of wild birds

D. Access to the countryside

Indicator 10 Area of publicly accessible land managed for nature conservation per 1000 people

Appendices

1.1 Notes on indicators suggested for possible future use – river flow rates & LERAPs 2.1 Details of Environment Agency’s General Quality Assessment Scheme 2.2 Environment Agency guidelines for the use of data 2.3 Chemical water quality data 2.4 Biological water quality data 2.5 Nutrient level data 3.1 Condition of Sites of Special Scientific Interest 3.2 Condition of County Wildlife Sites 4.1 Sites managed for nature conservation with public access 4.2 Bedfordshire details from Woodland Trust report ‘Space for People’

Summary

Indicator 1 Percentage of length of rivers and canals of good quality In 2002, 57% of the length of rivers and canals in Bedfordshire was of good chemical quality; similar to that found in the East of region but slightly lower than that seen for England overall. The increase in quality seen in Bedfordshire over the previous decade is more marked than that seen regionally and nationally.

Indicator 2 Percentage of length of rivers and canals of high nutrient status In 2002, 77% of the length of the county’s rivers and canals had high nitrate concentrations and 95% had high phosphate concentrations; proportions that are slightly higher than those seen in the Anglian region and considerably higher than those seen for England as whole. Clear trends are difficult to identify.

Indicator 3 Distribution of otters In 2003/04 positive signs of otters were found at 41% of sample sites in the county, a considerable increase since the previous survey in 1996/97 when positive signs were found at 29% of sites. The spread seen through the county’s waterways has also been seen regionally and nationally.

Indicator 4 Area (ha) of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and % in favourable condition In 2004, 83% of the area of SSSI in the county was in favourable condition, up from 78% in 2001. This proportion is higher than the regional and national figures, however, it must be remembered that the percentage of the county’s area designated as SSSI is considerably lower than that seen in the region or England as a whole.

Indicator 5 Area (ha) of County Wildlife Sites and % in favourable condition Between 2001 and 2004 the number of County Wildlife Sites monitored increased from 20 to 83. Of these 83 sites (22% of the total number within the county), 64% of their area was found to be in favourable condition. There are no equivalent regional or national figures.

Indicator 6 Area (ha) of land under Countryside Stewardship agreements By 2003, there were 190 CSS agreements in the county covering an area of 2280ha; an increase in area of 78% since 2000. The proportion of the county’s land area under CSS agreements is similar to that seen in the region but less than that found for England as a whole. At all scales uptake of the scheme has increased year on year. From 2000 to 2005, considerable increases were seen in the lengths of arable margins and hedgerows being managed under the scheme in the county.

Indicator 7 Area (ha) of organic holdings By January 2004 there were 12 holdings registered as organic in the county, covering a total of 775ha, or 0.9% of the county’s agricultural land – a similar proportion to the East of England region but lower than that for England as a whole. This is an increase in the area of organic land in Bedfordshire of 9% since 2001.

Indicator 8 Area (ha) of woodland within Woodland Grant Scheme Since 2002 the area of woodland receiving WGS in Bedfordshire has continued to increase although the precise figures could not be established. Payments for planting have declined since 1999/2000; those for planting conifers have now all but stopped. No equivalent regional or national figures are available.

Indicator 9: Populations of wild birds Data from 30 common bird species suggests that in Bedfordshire there has been an increase in the proportion of species whose population size is declining between 1994 and 2003. This has also been seen at a national and regional scale but appears to be more marked in Bedfordshire.

Indicator 10: Area (ha) of publicly accessible land managed for conservation per 1000 people In 2004 there was 6.3ha of publicly accessible land managed for nature conservation available per 1000 people in Bedfordshire; up from 5.6ha per 1000 people in 2002. The total area, 2436ha, represents 2% of the land area of the county. There are no equivalent regional or national figures. There was 0.77ha of LNR available per 1000 people. A. River and canal water quality

Background Information The Environment Agency’s General Quality Assessment [GQA] scheme monitors the chemical and biological quality and nutrient status of running water across England and Wales. In Bedfordshire all major rivers, canals and tributaries (a length of 236.4km) are covered by the GQA scheme and so it provides a good indication of the quality of running water throughout the county.

Chemical quality is assessed on levels of dissolved oxygen, ammonia and biological oxygen demand – good indicators of the extent to which rivers are affected by the commonest types of pollution; sewage and the runoff and drainage from farms. Biological quality is assessed on the range of macro- invertebrates present in a stretch of water, compared with the number expected for the physical condition of that stretch. It gives a more integrated picture of the situation and can detect infrequently occurring pollution incidents that may be missed by the spot sampling techniques used in the chemical assessment. For both chemical and biological quality, stretches of rivers and canals are classified into six grades; Grade A (very good), Grade B (good), Grade C (fairly good), Grade D (fair), Grade E (poor) and Grade F (bad).

To assess nutrient status, levels of nitrates and phosphates are monitored as these are the nutrients most likely to be directly influenced by human activities. Grades range from 1 (very low) to 6 (nitrates - very high, phosphates – excessively high). Unlike the chemical and biological grades these are descriptive and cannot simply be interpreted as good or bad. They reflect not only variation in agriculture and sewage, but local geology.

A high level of phosphate (average concentration greater than 0.1mg/l) is that considered indicative of possible existing or future problems of eutrophication. A high level of nitrate (average concentration greater than 30mg/l) roughly corresponds with the limits used in the EC’s Drinking Water and Nitrate Directives.

Further details of the GQA scheme, taken from the Environment Agency Public Water Quality Register, are given in Appendix 2.1.

Source of data Data were obtained from the Environment Agency website [www.environment-agency.gov.uk] and also directly from the two regional offices covering Bedfordshire; Anglian and Thames. The most recent data available on the website were from 2002. All rivers and canals forming the county boundaries are included in the figures. Environment Agency guidelines for the use of the data are given in Appendix 2.2. Summary databases for the county prepared from the data supplied by the Environment Agency are given in Appendix 2.3 (chemical), Appendix 2.4 (biological) and Appendix 2.5 (nutrients).

Indicator 1 Percentage of length of rivers and canals of good quality

County level In 2002, 57% of the length of rivers and canals in Bedfordshire was found to be of good chemical quality (grades A – B). 95% was of good or fair quality (grades A – D). Full details are given in Table 1.1 and shown on Map 1.1.

% of length of rivers and canals

Beds Mid Beds South Luton Beds Beds & Borough Beds Borough Luton Chemical Grade A 0 4.60 0 0 2.22 2.14 B 53.41 55.93 51.88 0 54.35 52.36 C 34.09 21.33 17.22 100.00 24.89 27.64 D 7.45 17.08 16.75 0 13.77 13.26 E 5.05 1.06 14.15 0 4.77 4.60 F 0 0 0 0 0 0

% of good quality 53.41 60.53 51.88 0 56.57 54.50 % of good or fair quality 94.95 98.94 85.85 100.00 95.23 95.40

Table 1.1: Details of chemical water quality at county and district level, 2002

In the past, biological data has been available only every 5 years, however, from 2002, the Environment Agency aims to report on it annually. To date biological data for all sample stretches within the county are not available to download from their website for 2002 however the Agency has supplied a map illustrating the data [Map 1.2].

District level In order to break down data to district level, stretches crossing local authority boundaries have been allocated proportionally to each local authority area. Figures for these areas for 2002 are given in Table 1.1.

Whether percentage of good quality or good and fair quality is considered the pattern between the districts is similar with South Beds having the lowest water quality and Mid Beds the highest. It should be noted that the figures for Luton Borough are based on only two sample stretches.

Trends From 1990 to 2002 the percentage of Bedfordshire’s rivers and canals found to be of good quality has risen considerably. Its highest level came in 1996, however this was followed by a drop in 1997. Since then quality has risen again, although has not yet reached the peak seen in 1996. These changes are shown in Figure 1.1.

80

70

60 quality 50 ood of g th

g 40 n le

30 ge of ta n

20 perce

10

0 19190 19234591 1992 1993 1994 19967895 1996 1997 1998 191099 200011201201 201023 Year

Figure 1.1: Percentage of length of Bedfordshire’s rivers and canals of good chemical quality, 1990 to 2002

National/regional comparisons River water quality is one of the government’s national headline indicators and is also reported on regionally. Table 1.2 shows water quality for 1990 and 2002 on the local, regional and national scale.

In 2002, the percentage of length of good quality was similar to that seen in the East of England, but slightly lower than that for England as a whole. However, in 1990, the figure for Bedfordshire was considerably lower than for both the East of England and the whole country. The increase in quality seen since then in Bedfordshire has been marked. Using the broader percentage of good or fair quality masks this improvement.

1990 2002 Change (% points)

Good Good or fair Good Good or fair Good Good or fair

England 43 84 65 94 22 10 E England 21 82 55 92 34 11 Bedfordshire 4 88 57 95 53 7

Table 1.2: Percentage of length of rivers and canals of good or good and fair quality, 1990 and 2002, at local, regional and national level [regional & national data from ‘Regional quality of life counts – 2003’, DEFRA, June 2004]

Map 1.1

Map 1.2

Indicator 2 Percentage of length of rivers and canals of high nutrient status

County Level

In 2002, 77% of the length of Bedfordshire’s rivers and canals had nitrate concentrations classified as high or very high (grades 5 & 6), while 95% had phosphate concentrations classified as high to excessively high (grades 4, 5 & 6). Full details are given in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 and are shown on Maps 2.1 and 2.2.

% of length of rivers and canals

Beds Mid Beds South Luton Beds Beds & Borough Beds Borough Luton

Nitrate level 1 0 0 14.15 0 2.56 2.46 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5.68 0 7.08 0 3.20 3.08 4 16.42 16.55 22.41 100.00 17.56 20.58 5 77.90 7.61 21.69 0 33.88 32.65 6 0 75.84 34.67 0 42.80 41.23

% with high nutrient 77.90 83.45 56.36 0 76.68 73.88 status

Table 2.1: Details of nitrate levels at county and district levels, 2002. Average nitrate concentrations of greater than 30 mg/l are considered high (grades 4 & 5)

% of length of rivers and canals

Beds Mid Beds South Luton Beds Beds & Borough Beds Borough Luton Phosphate level

1 0 0 14.15 0 2.56 2.46 2 0 4.60 0 0 2.22 2.14 3 0 0 0 100.00 0 3.66 4 0 14.16 29.48 0 12.15 11.70 5 100.00 44.87 12.74 0 57.67 55.56 6 0 36.37 43.63 0 25.40 24.48

% with high nutrient 100.00 95.4 85.85 0 95.22 91.74 status

Table 2.2: Details of phosphate levels at county and district levels, 2002. Average phosphate concentrations of greater than 0.1 mg/l are considered high (grades 4, 5 & 6)

District level In order to break down data to district level, stretches crossing local authority boundaries have been allocated proportionally to each local authority area. Figures for 2002 are given in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.

In the case of both nutrients, South Beds district has the lowest percentage of length of rivers and canals of high nutrient status; perhaps reflecting the more agricultural, less urban nature of the other districts?

Trends It appears that over the period from 1995 to 2002, the proportion of lengths of rivers and canals in Bedfordshire with high levels of nutrients has not changed a great deal. The slight changes seen in Figure 2.2 suggest that the proportion of lengths of rivers and canals with high levels of nitrates has dropped slightly whereas the proportion with high levels of phosphate has risen a little.

100

90 nitrates phosphates 80

70 h t 60 g len r 50 ve ri f

o 40 %

30

20

10

0 19951231996 1997 19498 19599 20600 20701 20028 Year

Figure 2.1: Percentage of length of rivers and canals with high nutrient status from 1995 to 2002

In 1996, Nitrate Vulnerable Zones [NVZ] were designated by the government to protect drinking water supplies from high nitrate levels; in 2002, further NVZs were added. All of Bedfordshire is now considered a NVZ meaning that farmers must follow a set of rules to reduce the levels of nitrate being released into the water. It is possible this might be contributing to the slight drop in nitrate levels observed.

National/regional comparisons

The level of nutrients in rivers and canals is one of the government’s national core indicators. Table 2.3 shows the percentage of length with high nutrient status at the local, regional and national level. In this case, the regional area is the Environment Agency region in which the majority of Bedfordshire falls.

In the case of both nutrients the percentage of lengths of rivers and canals with high nutrient status in Bedfordshire is slightly higher than for the Anglian region as a whole and considerably higher than that seen nationally. The Anglian region consistently recorded the highest percentage of all regions for

Map 2.1

Map 2.2 both nutrients – it is likely this reflects the high proportion of its land which is under intensive agriculture.

In England as a whole, between 1995 and 2002, the percentage of rivers with high levels of nitrate showed little change while the percentage with high levels of phosphate fell slightly.

Nitrate Phosphate

1995 2002 1990 1995 2002

England 54 52 67 58 60 Anglian Region 76 72 90 79 81 Bedfordshire 86 77 - 88 95

Table 2.3: Percentage of lengths of rivers and canals with high nutrient status in 1990, 1995 and 2002. Note – the Anglian region is an Environment Agency region, not a governmental one. [national & regional data from www.sustainable-development.gov.uk]

Indicator 3 Distribution of otters

Background information The presence of otters as a predator at the top of the food chain gives some indication that the quality of wetland habitats within a river system is likely to be good. From the 1950s to the 1970s, otter populations underwent a steep decline over much of the UK, including Bedfordshire. Water pollution by organochlorine pesticides is thought to have been a major contributory factor in this decline.

Records of otters received from Bedfordshire over the period 1995 to 2002 suggested that otters had now returned to many of the county’s watercourses. Some of these otters may have been from re- introductions to the county in the mid-1990s, some may have been wild-bred animals moving into the area.

Over the winter of 2003/04 an otter survey was carried out throughout the county. This involved searching for signs of otters, eg spraint and footprints, at pre-selected survey sites. The survey employed the same methodology and sample sites as a survey carried out during the winter of 1996/97. Direct comparisons could therefore be drawn between the results of the two surveys to show how the distribution of otters in the county had changed over the seven year period.

Source of data All information has been taken from ‘The Bedfordshire Otter Survey 2003/04’, a report prepared for the Wet Woodland Project in March 2004 by Amanda Proud of the Ivel & Ouse Countryside Project.

County level During the winter of 2003/04 signs of otters were found at 26 out of 63 sample sites (41%). Positive signs of otters were found on the Ouse, the Elstow Brook, the Marston Vale flooded clay pits, the Ivel, the Hiz, the Flit, the Ivel Navigation and the Rhee. Map 3.1 shows the distribution of sample sites and those where positive signs of otters were found.

District level Map 3.1 shows that during the winter of 2003/04 otters were widely distributed along the River Ouse through Bedford Borough. They were present in watercourses in the eastern part of the Mid Beds district, again part of the catchment of the Ouse, but no signs were found in the watercourses of South Beds which form part of the catchment of the River Lea.

Trends The 1996/97 survey found positive signs of otters at 18 of the 63 sites (29%). The results of the 2003/04 survey (41% of sites positive) therefore show a considerable increase in distribution since 1996/97 [Figure 3.1]. During this period otters have spread across the county and are now found over most of the Ouse catchment.

45

40 otters 35 gns of 30 itive si 25 ng pos

20 showi

15 d sites

mple 10 a

% of s 5

0 1996/97 2003/04 Survey date

Figure 3.1: Change in proportion of sample sites at which positive signs of otters were found during the surveys of 1996/97 and 2003/04. Number of sites sampled in both surveys was 63.

National/regional comparisons

The fourth national survey of otters in England was carried out by the Environment Agency from 2000 to 2002. Positive signs of otters were found at 34% of the sample sites visited. In the Anglian region positive signs of otters were found at 27% of sample sites. The survey confirmed that the distribution of otters has continued to increase in all regions of England since the first such survey in 1977-79 [‘Fourth Otter Survey of England 2000-2002, Environment Agency, 2003].

B. Condition of important wildlife and geological sites

Background Information Sites of Special Scientific Interest [SSSI] and County Wildlife Sites [CWS] represent the best wildlife habitat in Bedfordshire. SSSIs are designated by English Nature, are of national importance and are statutorily protected; CWSs are of local importance and are designated by the Bedfordshire Biodiversity Forum. Together these sites cover about 6-7% of the area of the county.

In 1997 English Nature began a monitoring programme for assessing the condition of SSSIs. Sites are divided into units, usually using physical rather than habitat boundaries. Each unit is assigned a habitat type; generally the most important one, although there may be other habitat types present in the unit. Each unit is classified as being in ‘favourable’ or ‘unfavourable’ condition. Condition is assessed according to both the condition of the habitats and species present and also the management in place to conserve, or recover, them. The category ‘unfavourable’ is further divided into ‘recovering’, ‘no change’ or ‘declining’ when compared to previous visits. English Nature aims to assess each SSSI every six years; more frequently if the site is perceived to be at risk.

A monitoring system for CWSs, based on the SSSI assessment method, has been developed for Bedfordshire and has been in use since 2002. To date only 11% of the area of the county designated as CWS has been monitored.

The monitoring scheme for both SSSIs and CWSs allows the results to be broken down into broad habitat types.

Source of data Data on SSSI condition have been obtained from the English Nature website [www.english- nature.gov.uk] and are summarised in Appendix 3.1.

Data on CWS condition have been taken from the CWS monitoring reports 2002-04, carried out for Mid Beds District Council and Beds County Council, and are summarised in Appendix 3.2.

Indicator 4 Area (ha) of SSSI and % in favourable condition

County level The number of SSSIs in the county remains 40. These cover an area of 1413ha and include sites designated for their biological and geological interest. The slightly higher figure for the area compared to the last report is due to a correction within the English Nature database, not a change in area on the ground.

Table 4.1 shows the condition of the county’s SSSIs as at 1 November 2004. The surveys on which this assessment is based were carried out over the period 1997 – 2004.

Condition Area (ha) Percentage of total [2001 area Percentage]

Favourable 915.32 64.8 [67.9] Unfavourable – recovering 252.67 17.9 [10.5] Unfavourable – no change 120.47 8.5 [15.2] Unfavourable – declining 124.62 8.8 [6.2] Not assessed 0 0 [0.2]

Total 1413.08

Table 4.1: Area and condition of Bedfordshire’s SSSIs in 2004

For reporting purposes English Nature combines both favourable and unfavourable - recovering categories to represent favourable. This convention will be followed throughout this report. The category ‘unfavourable – recovering’ indicates that although the condition is currently unfavourable, management is in place to address the problems.

In 2004, 82.7% of Bedfordshire’s SSSIs were in favourable condition, up from 78.4% in 2001.

District level Table 4.2 breaks this data down by district. Sites crossing local authority boundaries have been allocated to the authority in which the majority of the site falls. South Beds has a lower percentage of its SSSIs, by area, in favourable condition than Bedford Borough and Mid Beds.

District No. Area (ha) % in favourable % in favourable condition condition in 2001

Beds Borough 8 166.22 87.51 87.4 Mid Beds 14 492.19 93.28 89.5 South Beds 18 754.67 74.66 69.3 Luton Borough 0 0 - -

Total 40 1413.08

Table 4.2: Details of number, area and condition of SSSIs within Bedfordshire & Luton districts, 2004.

Habitat types

No. of sites at % of area in % in favourable Habitat Total area of which habitat favourable condition in habitat (ha) found condition 2001

Standing water 26.30 2 100.00 100.00 Fen/marsh/swamp 9.78 3 57.1 88.9 Bog 2.52 1 0 - Lowland woodland 684.85 10 95.8 93.4 Lowland calcareous grassland 400.56 12 64.9 54.5 Lowland neutral grassland 55.59 11 87.7 89.4 Lowland acid grassland 14.91 2 49.3 27.9 Lowland heathland 62.45 3 46.8 46.8 Earth heritage 156.12 5 86.6 85.5

Total 1413.08

Table 4.3: Details of SSSI condition by broad habitat type, 2004

The habitat types with the lowest percentage of area in favourable condition are heathland, acid grassland and fen/marsh/swamp. Standing water, woodland, neutral grassland and earth heritage sites all have a high percentage of their area in favourable condition, however, it should be noted in the case of standing water that this is represented by only two sites. Improvements in condition since 2001 have been seen for acid grassland and calcareous grassland. The condition of fen/marsh/swamp habitats has deteriorated during this period.

Trends There has been no change in number or area of SSSIs since 2001, however, during this period the percentage of their area in favourable condition has risen slightly from 78% to 83% [Table 4.1]. Slight improvements in the percentage of area in favourable condition have been seen in Mid Beds and South Beds during this period while Beds Borough has remained the same [Table 4.2]. The condition of habitat types has mostly remained similar since 2001 [Table 4.3] although improvements have been seen for acid and calcareous grasslands and a drop in condition for fen/marsh/swamp habitats.

80

70 on ti

ndi 60 co e l b a 50 our v fa

n 40 i SI SS 30 of a e r 20 % of a

10

0 20011 2002 4 Date

Figure 4.1: Change in percentage of area of SSSI in Bedfordshire that is in favourable condition, 2001-2004

National/Regional Comparisons The condition of SSSIs is one of the Government’s national core indicators. It has set a Public Service Agreement target that 95% of SSSI land, by area, should be in favourable condition by 2010.

SSSI condition in November 2004 for Bedfordshire and its districts is shown in Table 4.4, together with regional and national figures. It can be seen that in general, the condition of our SSSIs is better than the regional and national figures; English Nature’s 2003 report on SSSI condition found that most lowland habitats were in better condition than the national average. Mid Beds has almost reached the government PSA target.

Area % of SSSI area in favourable condition

England 65.36 East of England 77.52 Bedfordshire 82.65 Bedford Borough 87.51 Mid Bedfordshire 93.28 South Bedfordshire 74.66

Table 4.4: SSSI condition at national, regional and local scales, 2004

Whilst this is good news, it must not be forgotten that the percentage of the area of Bedfordshire that is designated as SSSI [1.2%] is considerably lower than this percentage for both the East of England region [6.6% - Regional Environment Strategy for the East England. EERA & EEEF, 2003] and England as a whole [around 7% - England’s best wildlife and geological sites: the condition of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England in 2003. English Nature, 2003].

Indicator 5 Area (ha) of County Wildlife Sites and % in favourable condition

County level There are currently 381 CWSs in Bedfordshire and Luton, covering an area of 7145ha (this excludes the SSSI land which is included within many CWS boundaries). No Regionally Important Geological & Geomorphological Sites (RIGS), the geological equivalent of CWSs, have yet been designated within Bedfordshire & Luton.

83 (21.8%) CWSs within Bedfordshire have been monitored since the monitoring programme started in 2002 – these cover 764.74ha and represent 10.7% of the area of CWSs in the county. As these are still all initial monitoring visits, no assessment can yet be made as to whether sites in ‘unfavourable’ condition are recovering, not changing or declining.

Condition Area (ha) Percentage of area [2002 percentage] monitored

Favourable 492.24 64.3 [53.4] Unfavourable 269.0 35.2 [46.6] Destroyed 3.5 0.5 [0]

Total 764.74

Table 5.1: Area (ha) and condition of Bedfordshire’s CWSs, 2004

Of the area of land designated as CWS that was assessed between 2002 and 2004, 64.4% was found to be in a favourable condition [Table 5.1]. One site of 3.5ha, Marsh, was found to have been destroyed since it was designated in 1997.

District level Table 5.2 shows the data for CWSs broken down by district. Sites crossing local authority boundaries have been allocated to the authority in which the majority of the site falls.

Area % monitored District Total no. Total area (ha) No. monitored monitored (ha) in favourable condition

Beds Borough 123 2265.45 9 111.0 100.00 Mid Beds 145 3606.83 54 550.9 59.10 South Beds 90 1034.09 20 102.84 54.10 Luton Borough 23 238.98 0 0 -

Total 381 7145.35 83 764.74

Table 5.2: Details of number and area of CWSs, and condition of those monitored, within Bedfordshire & Luton districts, 2004

Although the percentage of monitored CWSs in favourable condition appears to be considerably higher in Bedford Borough, far fewer sites have been monitored in this district. All of the nine sites monitored in this district were woodland sites – a habitat which tends to be in relatively good condition within the county.

Habitat types

Total area of No. of sites at % of area in % in favourable Habitat habitat (ha) which habitat favourable condition in monitored found condition 2002

Standing water - - - - Fen/marsh/swamp 12.30 4 0 - Bog - - - - Lowland woodland 488.94 50 87.14 71.4 Lowland calcareous grassland 28.80 3 100.00 - Lowland neutral grassland 145.0 22 16.34 21.4 Lowland acid grassland 89.70 11 15.27 10.7 Lowland heathland - - - - Earth heritage - - -

Total 764.74

Table 5.3: Details of CWS condition by broad habitat type, 2004

Care should be taken interpreting these figures as for several habitat types only a few sites have been monitored. As with SSSIs, the proportion of CWS woodland area in favourable condition is high. This is also the case for calcareous grassland however only three sites have been monitored to date. The condition of both acid and neutral grassland appears to be low. None of the fen/marsh/swamp habitat monitored was found to be in favourable condition, although the area monitored was small, covering only a small number of sites.

Trends The number of County Wildlife Sites in the county has gone up very slightly since 2002 although one site has been found to have been destroyed since its designation. During this period the number and area of CWSs monitored has risen from 20 to 83; from 243ha to 765ha.

The percentage of monitored CWSs in favourable condition, by area, has gone up since 2002 - from 53% to 64% [Table 5.1]. It must be remembered that the 2004 figure is a more representative estimate of CWS condition, as it now incorporates a larger sample of sites, not an improvement in the condition of the sites monitored in 2002.

In 2002 only CWSs in Mid Beds had been monitored; by 2004 the number of sites monitored in this district had risen from 20 to 54 and the percentage of area in favourable condition had risen slightly from 53% to 59%.

Table 5.3 includes data from 2002 broken down by habitat. Although the data are too few to draw firm conclusions, there appears to be a similar pattern between habitats to 2004 – woodland being in better condition than acid and neutral grassland.

National/Regional Comparisons No equivalent national or regional figures are available for the condition of CWSs.

C. Condition of the wider countryside

Indicator 6 Area (ha) of land under Countryside Stewardship agreements

Background Information Countryside Stewardship has, until recently, been the government’s main scheme for the countryside. It was launched in 1991 and the last applications were received in 2004. As part of the England Rural Development Programme it is run by Defra. The scheme makes payments to farmers and other land managers to manage land in an environmentally beneficial way. Grants are available to enhance, restore and recreate targeted landscapes, their wildlife habitats and historical features and to improve opportunities for public access. Capital and annual payments are available for land committed to an approved 10-year management plan.

Within the scheme various landscape types are eligible, for example, arable farmland, chalk & limestone grassland, countryside around towns, field boundaries, historic features, lowland heath, new access, meadows & pastures, old orchards and waterside land. In addition, each county has a set of targeting statements describing the most important environmental features and habitats in the county, together with key objectives as to how these should be conserved and enhanced. These guide the type of applications that are successful.

As from 2005 a new Environmental Stewardship scheme will replace Countryside Stewardship, however, existing agreements will continue until the end of their 10 year term.

Source of data Data for 2003 were obtained from the Defra website [www.defra.gov.uk], and further figures for 2005 were obtained from their Countryside Stewardship Advisor for Bedfordshire. Luton Borough is included within Bedfordshire on the Defra database.

Indicator results

County level By 2003 there were 190 Countryside Stewardship agreements in existence in Bedfordshire & Luton, covering an area of 2280ha. This represented 1.85% of the land area of Bedfordshire & Luton.

In January 2005, 202 (14.4%) of the area’s 1402 holdings were involved in the scheme, 956km of arable margins were being managed under Stewardship agreements [roughly the same distance as from Land’s End to John O’Groats!] and 275 km of hedges had either been restored or were to be restored under the scheme.

District level Breaking down data to district level is not recommended by Defra. It is felt that using the data on such a small scale could be misleading as the various districts contain different habitat types and as such are set different targets.

Map 6.1 shows the distribution of holdings within the Countryside Stewardship scheme in Bedfordshire & Luton in July 2004.

Trends Since 2000 uptake of the Countryside Stewardship scheme has continued to increase in Bedfordshire.

The number of holdings involved in the scheme rose from 166 in 2000 to 190 in 2003; an increase of 14% in three years [Figure 6.1]. By January 2005, the number had reached 202.

195

190

185

180 ts en

m 175 ree

170 . of ag o N 165

160

155

150 20001 20203 Date

Figure 6.1: Increase in number of Stewardship agreements in Bedfordshire, 2000 - 2003

The area of land involved increased from 1280ha in 2000 to 2280ha in 2003 [Figure 6.2]; an increase in area of 78% in three years.

2500

2000 ) (ha 1500 ement e r ag r

1000 ea unde r A

500

0 20001 2002 3 Date

Figure 6.2: Increase in area of land under Stewardship agreement in Bedfordshire, 2000 – 2003

Lengths of arable margins being managed under the scheme more than doubled in five years from 405km in 2000 to 956km in 2005.

In 2000, 203km of hedges had been entered into agreements for restoration or planting. The figure for 2005 was 275km; an increase of 35% over five years.

National/Regional Comparisons

The area under agreement under the Environmentally Sensitive Area and Countryside Stewardship Agri-Environment schemes is one of the Government’s national core indicators. Nationally there has been a continual increase in the area of land under both types of agreements in the period from 1987 to 2002. There are no ESAs within Bedfordshire – however this year on year increase has been seen in the uptake of Countryside Stewardship.

Table 6.1 shows that the percentage of Bedfordshire & Luton under Countryside Stewardship agreements is similar to that found over the East of England region. These percentages however are lower than that for England as a whole; perhaps not surprising given the highly intensive arable nature of eastern England.

No. of agreements Area under % of total land area agreement (ha)

Bedfordshire 190 2,280 1.85 East of England 1,814 35,370 1.81 England 16,101 530,620 3.99

Table 6.1: Details of national, regional and local Countryside Stewardship agreements, 1994 - 2003

The percentage of holdings in Countryside Stewardship in Bedfordshire & Luton compares favourably with other counties in the area [Table 6.2].

Number of agreements Number of holdings % of holdings with agreements

Bedfordshire & Luton 202 1402 14.4 343 3345 10.3 Hertfordshire 183 1544 11.9 West Essex 107 1992 5.4

Table 6.2: Percentage of holdings with Countryside Stewardship agreements, January 2005

Agri-Environment Agreements in Bedfordshire

Countryside Stewardship Holdings County Boundaries Bedfordshire Map 6.1 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (c) Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Defra 100018880 2003.

Map Produced on 07 July 2004 from GEN-i, Defra RDS Generic Information System

Indicator 7 Area (ha) of organic holdings

Background Information

Organic farming, with its emphasis on sustainable production avoiding the use of pesticides and herbicides, can be used as an indicator of land which is being managed in a manner beneficial to the health of the environment.

Organic farmers have to meet a range of standards and to be registered with an organic certification body. The baseline standards are provided by the Advisory Committee of Organic Standards (ACOS) which also approves and monitors the work of the organic certification bodies.

A 2004 joint EN/RSPB review comparing organic and non-organic farms concluded that usually, although not always, organic farms were better for wildlife than equivalent non-organic farms [‘Does organic farming benefit biodiversity?’ Biological Conservation, 2004].

Source of data Defra now collates data on organic farming from the various organic sector bodies throughout the UK and provide county data on request. Luton Borough is included within Bedfordshire on the Defra database.

Indicator results

County level In January 2004 there were 12 holdings registered as organic within Bedfordshire, covering a total of 775ha of the county. This represents 0.9% of the county’s agricultural land by area. Of this land, 733ha were fully organic while 41ha were in conversion. Table 7.1 gives details of the types of organic crops involved.

Broad crop Area (ha)

Cereals 207.70 Crops 62.58 Permanent pasture 288.61 Temporary pasture 173.03 Vegetables 21.32 Woodland & set aside 21.49

Total 774.73

Table 7.1: Organic crops in Bedfordshire, January 2004

District level The distribution of organic holdings throughout the county is shown on Map 7.1. The apparent location of two sites in Buckinghamshire is due to the plotting of the map by postcode. Table 7.2 shows that there are organic holdings in each of the districts apart from Luton.

Number of organic holdings

Beds Borough 5 Mid Beds 4 South Beds 3 Luton Borough 0

Bedfordshire 12

Table 7.2: Numbers of organic holdings in Bedfordshire’s districts, 2004

Trends Data on organic holdings has only recently been collated in one place so long term data is hard to obtain. In December 2001 there were 10 holdings registered as organic within Bedfordshire [’Organic farming in Bedfordshire: constraints and solutions’, Elm Farm Research Centre, 2001]. This represented 711ha of land either fully organic or in conversion (0.81% of the county’s agricultural land). There has therefore been an increase of two holdings and 64ha in just over two years. This represents an increase in the area of organic land of 9%.

National/Regional Comparisons The area of land converted or in conversion to organic production is one of the government’s national core indicators. This area has increased dramatically in recent years. In 1998 only 55,000ha of UK land was converted or in conversion to organic production but, by 2003, this figure had risen to 741,000ha [data from www.sustainable-development.gov.uk].

Table 7.3 shows that the percentage of Bedfordshire’s agricultural land registered as organic is similar to the East of England region, but lower than England as a whole. In England the percentage of agricultural land farmed organically is much higher in areas such as the south-west and the north-east.

Total % of total In-conversion Organic Total (ha) agricultural agricultural area (ha) area

England 36,904 222,026 258,930 9,177,389 2.8% East of England 2,986 9,687 12,672 1,458,963 0.9% Bedfordshire 41 733 775 87,339 0.9%

Table 7.3: Local, regional and national organic holdings, January 2004 [regional and national data from Organic Statistics, England published by Defra and National Statistics, July 2004]. Area of agricultural land in Bedfordshire from June Agricultural Census, 2003

Map 7.1

Northamptonshire Cambridgeshire

Bedfordshire

Buckinghamshire

Hertfordshire

0 2 4 8 12 16 Kilometers

Bedfordshire Organic Holdings

Organic Holdings This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery By Postcode Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Defra 100018880 2004. Map produced by Leeds GIU November 2004

Indicator 8 Area (ha) of woodland within Woodland Grant Scheme

Background Information The Woodland Grant Scheme [WGS] was, until June 2004, the government scheme to encourage the creation and beneficial management of woodlands. It was administered by the Forestry Commission. All privately owned woodlands were considered for grants under the WGS. Applicants that best suited the priorities of the England Forestry Strategy were given higher priority.

Annual management grant was paid for the beneficial management of existing woodlands. The grant was paid for a five year period, during which the proposed work had to be carried out to the Forestry Commission’s satisfaction. Grants were also available for the planting of new woodlands; both broadleaf and conifer. Such areas had to be maintained to the satisfaction of the Forestry Commission for ten years after planting.

Grant agreements in existence at the time of the scheme’s closure continue to operate. A new England Woodland Grant Scheme will be launched in July 2005.

Source of data Data were obtained from the East England Conservancy of the Forestry Commission. Luton is included within Bedfordshire on this database.

Indicator results

County level

Due to the format of data supplied concerning annual management grants, it has not been possible to accurately work out the area of woodland currently receiving this grant. Figures are however available for the area approved for this grant during the period April 2002 until December 2004. These cannot simply be added to the figure for August 2002 from the previous report to give an up-to-date figure as there is some overlap in the time periods and an unknown number of schemes will have expired during this period.

During the financial year 2003/04, WGS payments were made for the new planting of 13.70ha of broadleaf woodland in Bedfordshire. No payments were made for the planting of coniferous woodland.

District level

Area of woodland (ha) Area (ha) of new Area (ha) of new approved for annual broadleaf planting in conifer planting in District management grant in 2003/04 2003/04 April 2002 – Dec 2004

Beds Borough 166.91 1.89 0 Mid Beds 1036.91 11.81 0 South Beds 62.37 0 0 Luton Borough 15.6 0 0

Total 1281.79 13.70 0

Table 8.1: Details of WGS payments in Bedfordshire districts

It can be seen that the area of existing woodland being approved for annual management grant between April 2002 and December 2004 was greatest in Mid Bedfordshire. This district also saw the largest area of new broadleaf planting.

Trends Additional areas of woodland in Bedfordshire received annual management grants during the period from 2002 to 2004.

Figure 8.1 shows that the area of new broadleaf woodland being planted annually in Bedfordshire under the WGS appears to have been declining since 1999/2000. The area of conifer planted has always been significantly lower than the area of broadleaf planted and in the last few years this has all but stopped.

140

broadleaf 120

conifer

100

80 a) (h ea Ar 60

40

20

0 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 Year

Figure 8.1: Area (ha) of new planting in Bedfordshire under the WGS, 1993/94 – 2003/4

Figure 8.2 shows the area of broadleaf planting broken down by district.

90

80 Beds Borough

Mid Beds 70 South Beds

60 ng i ant l

50 eaf p l broad 40 of a) h

30 Area (

20

10

0 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 Year

Figure 8.2: Areas (ha) of broadleaf planting in Bedfordshire districts, 1993/94 – 2003/04 National/Regional Comparisons

Although it was originally intended that the national core indicator ‘area of land under agri-environment schemes’ would be developed to include the area of land within WGS, this appears not to have happened. The current national core indicator is ‘sustainable management of woodlands’ measured by the proportion of woodland area certified under the Forest Stewardship Council [FSC].

FSC certification is achieved by meeting the UK Woodland Assurance Standard [UKWAS] or the FSC UK standard. Certified woodlands are monitored to ensure that good management continues to be implemented. As with the WGS, woodland can be sustainably managed without being certified. This may particularly apply to small woodlands due to the cost of certification or where timber is not produced commercially and therefore there is no need for certification.

In 2001, 291,000ha in England (24% of woodland) and 1,084,000ha in the UK (39% of woodland) was FSC certified. Data for Bedfordshire have been requested but not yet obtained.

Indicator 9 Populations of wild birds

Background Information Birds are very useful indicator species. They are found in a wide variety of habitats and, being at or near the top of the food chain, their numbers reflect conditions throughout their habitat.

The British Trust for Ornithology [BTO] runs a Breeding Bird Survey [BBS] in which its volunteers throughout the country collect data on numbers of common birds. The BBS is based on surveys of randomly selected 1km squares. Within each square two 1km transects across the square are walked on two occasions, surveyors recording the birds they hear or see. Its aim is not to establish total population sizes but to compare numbers year to year.

The BBS was initiated in 1994 and its data are used by the BTO, the RSPB and JNCC to produce the government’s national headline indicator on population trends of wild birds. Prior to 1994, the Common Bird Survey provided data for examining trends in bird populations.

It is recommended that a species must occur in 20 or more squares for accurate population trends to be established. The small size of Bedfordshire means that is difficult to calculate statistically significant trends for any but the commonest species.

Source of data Data on 30 of the commonest species were obtained from the BTO’s website [www.bto.org] and the analysis was carried out by Paul Vann of Beds CC. The fieldwork for the BBS in the county was carried out by members of the Bedfordshire Bird Club. Luton is included within Bedfordshire in the BBS.

Indicator results

County level

1994 - 2000 2000 - 2002 2002 – 2003 Bedfordshire No. of species whose population 21 17 13 increased No. of species whose population 9 13 17 decreased % increasing 70% 57% 43%

East of England No. of species whose population 18 14 14 increased No. of species whose population 12 16 16 decreased % increasing 60% 47% 47%

England No. of species whose population 22 16 16 increased No. of species whose population 8 14 14 decreased % increasing 73% 53% 53%

Table 9.1: Details of the proportion of 30 common species increasing at a county, regional and national level

District level Breaking these data down to district level is inadvisable due to the small sample sizes involved.

Trends Table 9.1 suggests that in Bedfordshire between 1994 and 2003 there has been a decrease in the proportion of species whose population size is increasing.

80 od 70 ng peri 60 duri d e s a e

r 50 c n ton i i 40 a

popul 30 hose w

s 20 e i c e p 10 % of s

0 1994-2000 2000-2002 2002-2003 Period

Figure 9.1: Changes in the proportion of 30 common bird species whose population size is increasing in Bedfordshire, 1994 – 2003.

National/Regional Comparisons

Populations of wild birds are one of the government’s national headline indicators. In the period 1970 to 2003, although the overall population of British breeding birds increased, populations of woodland and farmland birds declined significantly, falling by 11% and 43% respectively. An encouraging sign is that towards the end of this period, from 1998 to 2003, the decline in population of both these types of birds appeared to level off [www.sustainable-development.gov.uk].

Directly comparable figures are not available regionally, however regional wild bird indices calculated for 1994 – 2002 suggest that the proportion of woodland and, particularly, farmland bird species with declining populations was higher in the East of England than over England as a whole [Regional quality of life counts – 2003, Defra, 2004].

Table 9.1 suggests that the increase in the proportion of common species whose population size is declining seen at local, regional and national scales has been more marked in Bedfordshire. D. Access to the countryside

Indicator 10 Area (ha) of publicly accessible land managed for nature conservation per 1000 people

Background Information Access to land rich in wildlife can contribute greatly to people’s quality of life. For this reason English Nature has produced a set of Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards, one of which is the provision of at least 1ha of Local Nature Reserve [LNR] per 1000 population. This is a target within the Urban Habitat Action Plan of the Bedfordshire & Luton Biodiversity Action Plan.

As this target excludes other publicly accessible land of high wildlife value serving a similar function to LNRs, the above indicator was developed in order to provide a measure of the accessibility of land rich in wildlife to people in Bedfordshire.

The definition of ‘managed for nature conservation’ used is ‘sites which have a management plan in which nature conservation plays an important role’. Sites which have permissive access have been included however those for which there is an entrance fee have been excluded.

Source of data Data were obtained from organisations owning or managing such land in the county. An up-to-date database of the sites meeting the criteria is given in Appendix 4.1.

Future data management As part of the Bedfordshire Green Infrastructure Project, an open spaces and outdoor access audit has recently been carried out by Beds County Council. Site boundaries are stored on a GIS system. The criteria for inclusion in this audit were broader than the present study, being based on the PPG17 definition of open space, however, the sites meeting the criteria for this indicator should be included within this wider audit (with the probable exception of those through which access is granted under the Countryside Stewardship scheme). In future it may be possible to include ‘indicator sites’ as a subset of the open space GIS database which would allow maps to be produced of their distribution.

Indicator results

County level In Bedfordshire, 2436ha of publicly accessible land is now managed for nature conservation. This equates to 6.27 ha per 1000 population and is 2.04% of the land area of the county [Table 10.1]. If Luton is included, the area rises to 2558ha; 4.47ha per 1000 people and 2.07% of the area of the two authorities.

There are now 18 Local Nature Reserves within Bedfordshire but none in Luton. LNRs cover 299.23ha. This equates to 0.77ha per 1000 people in Bedfordshire, however only 0.52ha per 1000 people if Bedfordshire & Luton are considered together.

District level Table 10.1 illustrates the variation in provision between districts. When considered per 1000 people, provision is highest in Mid Beds and lowest in Luton Borough, however, as a percentage of the area of the district, South Beds and Luton score more highly.

District Population Area (ha) Area (ha) of Area (ha) per % of district access land 1000 people area

Beds Borough 149,900 47,653 606.87 4.05 1.27 Mid Beds 125,000 50,285 1146.08 9.17 2.28 South Beds 113,700 21,282 683.01 6.01 3.21 Luton 184,371 4,226 122.50 0.66 2.90

Bedfordshire 388,600 119,220 2435.96 6.27 2.04 Beds & Luton 572,971 123,446 2558.46 4.47 2.07

Table 10.1: Availability of publicly accessible land managed for nature conservation in Bedfordshire [population data are 2003 mid-year estimates from Beds CC and Luton BC websites]

Area (ha) of District No. of LNRs Area (ha) of LNRs LNR per 1000 % of district area people

Beds Borough 7 60.40 0.40 0.13 Mid Beds 8 158.13 1.27 0.31 South Beds 3 80.7 0.71 0.38 Luton Borough 0 0 0 0

Bedfordshire 18 299.23 0.77 0.25 Beds & Luton 18 299.23 0.52 0.24

Table 10.2: Availabilty of LNRs in Bedfordshire districts.

A similar pattern of variation can be seen in the availability of LNRs with Mid Beds having the largest area per 1000 people – at 1.27ha more than meeting English Nature’s target. There are no LNRs in Luton Borough. When provision is considered as a proportion of the area of the district, South Beds again scores slightly higher than Mid Beds. In both cases, provision is lower within Bedford Borough.

Trends In 2002 in Bedfordshire there was 2168ha of access land managed for nature conservation; 5.6ha per 1000 people. By 2004 this had risen by 268ha (12%) to 2436ha, 6.3ha per 1000 people.

Just under half of this increase is due to data newly included on access land provided by Countryside Stewardship (some 106ha). Much of this land was already accessible under agreement in 2002 but data was not easily obtained and so was not included in the database. However the remainder is due to new sites meeting the criteria – either by the production of management plans, land purchase or new access agreements.

The provision of Local Nature Reserves in Bedfordshire rose very slightly between 2002 and 2004; from 0.76ha per 1000 people to 0.77ha per 1000 people.

National/Regional Comparisons

There is no equivalent national or regional indicator.

The government’s national core indicator ‘ease of access to local green space and countryside’ is based on data from a survey of attitudes to quality of life and the environment carried out in 2001 in which it was found that 84% of respondents were within easy walking distance of local green space or countryside. There are no equivalent local data.

There are, however, other pieces of work which can provide an impression of where Bedfordshire stands in relation to other areas.

• A study in Luton using one of English Nature’s Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards – namely that no person should live more than 300m from their nearest area of natural greenspace of at least 2ha in size – showed that this standard was not being met in the Borough. The proportion of the population not having this access to greenspace varied between enumeration districts from 8% to 75% [A Review of the Provision of Accessible Informal Green Space in the Borough of Luton, Bedfordshire Wildlife Trust, 2003].

• Recently the Woodland Trust has developed a set of standards for the provision of woodland open space [Space for People; targeting action for woodland access, The Woodland Trust, 2004]. They have carried out an audit to provide baseline data on the current situation across the country. Appendix 4.2 summarises the targets and the data they have for Bedfordshire, Luton and the districts, together with regional and national figures. In general it can be seen that currently access to woodland open space in Bedfordshire is less than for the East of England region and England as a whole. Access to woodland open space is much higher in Mid Beds than in the other districts.

Notes on indicators suggested for possible future use Appendix 1.1

River flow rates River flow is essential for maintaining river uses such as healthy ecosystems, abstraction, navigation and recreation. River flow rate varies naturally due to rainfall and is subject to marked seasonal and year-to-year variation. River flow rate is not a government indicator, however, it is reported on nationally by the Environment Agency, using data from eight sites throughout England and Wales. One of these sites is on the River Great Ouse at Offord (see below).

Source: Environment Agency

Data are reported as mean monthly river flows. They are displayed over decades to establish long term trends that may be due to climate change or abstraction. No clear trends have emerged nationally as yet, however, the Agency does note that there could be significant regional and local differences. The above graph does suggest a long term decrease in river flow in the Anglian region.

A list of the gauging stations within Bedfordshire was requested from the Environment Agency and is shown below. Given the downward trend suggested by our closest national indicator site, and that data are available for a range of sites over a reasonable length of time, it seems worth developing a flow rate indicator for the county.

Gauging Stations within or just outside Bedfordshire Length of record Station Name Station Number River NGR River water level Flow 033057 Ouzel SP 917 241 12/1993 - present 02/1976 - present Shefford 033028 Flit TL 143 393 10/1979 - present 09/1966 - present 033033 Hiz TL 190 379 10/1979 - present 04/1973 - present 033022 Ivel TL 153 509 10/1979 - present 08/1959 - present Roxton 033039 Ouse TL 160 535 10/1979 - present 10/1972 - present Bedford 033002 Ouse TL 055 495 03/1993 - present 01/1933 - present Clipstone New Weir 033090 Clipstone Brook SP 940 259 09/2001 - present* 02/2004 - present Clipstone Old Weir 033030 Clipstone Brook SP 933 255 n/a 10/1957 - 07/1980 Meagre Farm 033012 Kym TL 155 631 10/1979 - present 05/1960 - present Ashwell 033040 Rhee TL 267 401 10/1979 - present 11/1965 - present Hitchin 033065 Hiz TL 185 290 02/1994 - present 08/1980 - present Bletchley 033058 Ouzel SP 883 322 07/1992 - present 05/1978 - present Willen 033015 Ouzel SP 883 409 08/1992 - present 01/1962 - present Broughton 033031 Broughton Brook SP 888 407 06/1991 - present 11/1970 - present Newport Pagnell Main 033137 Ouse SP 877 442 10/1979 - present 10/1969 - present Newport Pagnell Mill 033237 Ouse SP 877 442 12/1992 - present 10/1969 - present Cappenham 033018 Tove SP 712 487 10/1979 - present 02/1962 - present

* there are a lot of gaps in this data. Quite a patchy record.

LERAPs Local Environment Risk Assessments for Pesticides [LERAPs] were suggested as a possible means of measuring beneficial farmland management in the form of buffer zones adjacent to water courses.

A LERAP can be carried out by a landowner if they are spraying pesticide near a watercourse and would like to reduce the buffer zone specified on the product label. In the case of some products a LERAP cannot be carried out as it is illegal to reduce the specified buffer zone.

This does not appear to be an appropriate method by which to measure beneficial farmland management and should not be considered further for development as an indicator.

The General Quality Assessment Scheme Appendix 2.1 Methodologies for the classification of river and estuary quality [taken from the Water Quality Public Register, Environment Agency, Anglian Region]

General Quality Assessment of Rivers – Chemistry

The chemical GQA describes quality in terms of chemical measurements which detect the most common types of pollution. It allocates one of six grades (A to F) to each stretch of river, using the same, strictly defined procedures, throughout England and Wales. The process is set out below.

To each sampling site, we assign a stretch of river that the site will characterise. In the main these sites, and the monitoring, are the same as those used to take decisions on developments that will affect water quality – discharges, abstractions and changes in land use.

We use only results from the routine pre-planned sampling programmes with samples analysed by accredited laboratories. To avoid bias we ignore all extra data collected for special surveys or in response to incidents or accidents. The routine programme involves monthly sampling at some 7,000 monitoring points on over 40,000 kilometres of rivers and canals in England and Wales.

Sites are sampled a minimum of 12 times a year. We use the data collected over three years because this produces 36 samples per site, giving the required precision in making judgements about particular rivers, bearing in mind the cost of monitoring. All the results collected over the three years are included. No extreme data values are excluded.

Chemistry grades at a glance

Grade Quality A Very good B Good C Fairly good D Fair E Poor F Bad

A grade is defined in Table 1 by standards for the determinands biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia and dissolved oxygen. A grade is assigned to each river length according to the worst determinand. These determinands are indicators of pollution that apply to all rivers, first because of the widespread risk of pollution from sewage or farms, and second because of the toxicity of ammonia and the requirement for dissolved oxygen for aquatic life, including fish.

Table 2 describes the general characteristics of each grade.

General Quality Assessment of Rivers – Biology

Each biological sampling site corresponds to a stretch of river also characterised by a chemical site (but not all stretches have a biological sampling point). Although biological and chemical sites are not always coincident they are subject to the same water quality, and as far as possible are not separated by tributaries, discharges, weirs or other potential influences on water quality.

The biological scheme is based on the macro-invertebrate communities of rivers and canals, and include insects such as mayflies and caddis flies, together with snails, shrimps, worms and many others. Macro-invertebrates can be affected by pollutants that occur infrequently or in very low concentrations and which may be missed by chemical sampling.

For biological assessment, macro-invertebrates are grouped into 83 taxa. As different taxa respond differently to pollution, they are given scores of between 1 (pollution-tolerant taxa) and 10 (pollution- sensitive taxa). The presence of taxa sensitive to pollution suggests better water quality than for sites where only pollution-tolerant taxa are found.

By comparing taxa found in the sample with those expected if the river were unpolluted, rivers can be classified into one of six grades (Table 3). There will be some rivers where water quality might permit a higher grade were it not for limits imposed by poor habitat, the nature of the river channel or the pattern of river flows.

The divisions between grades are based on the need to detect and report changes in biological quality so that any deterioration may be acted upon before it goes too far. The extremes (grades a and f) are set to reflect very good and bad quality, with intermediate grades set pragmatically between these extremes. Although the biology of these intermediate grades will differ from site to site in terms of the actual taxa that are present, the grades will reflect the relative position of the sites on a common scale between the best and worse possible quality.

The grading of waters through sampling is not precise. There is, on average, a risk of 22% that rivers will be graded incorrectly. It is unusual for this error to extend beyond the adjacent grade. There is a tendency for a pessimistic grade to be calculated as taxa are more likely to be missed than added when samples are analysed.

Biology grades at a glance

Grade Quality a Very good b Good c Fairly good d Fair e Poor f Bad

General Quality Assessment of Rivers – Nutrients

Samples are analysed for their concentrations of two nutrients, nitrate and phosphate. Data collected over three years are used to determine average nutrient concentrations. All the results collected over three years are included. No extreme data values are excluded.

A grade from 1 to 6 is allocated for both phosphate and nitrate. These are not combined into a single nutrients grade, because they reflect different aspects of water quality. Table 4 shows the limits for each phosphate grade. Table 5 shows the limits for each nitrate grade.

There are no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ concentrations for nutrients in rivers in the way that we describe chemical and biological quality. Rivers in different parts of the country have different concentrations of nutrients. ‘Very low’ nutrient concentrations, for example, are not necessarily good or bad; the classification merely states that concentration in this river are very low relative to other rivers.

Phosphate grades

The descriptors used relate to the Phosphate concentrations in the grades. ‘High’ descriptions refer to grades where the average concentration is more than 0.1mgl-1. This is the concentration which is considered indicative of possible existing or future problems of eutrophication (the enrichment of water by nutrients, especially compounds of nitrogen and/or phosphorus, causing accelerated growth of algae and higher plant forms which can disturb the balance of organisms present in the water and the quality of the water concerned.)

High concentrations of phosphate do not necessarily mean that the river is eutrophic. Other factors have to be taken into account such as the amount and type of algae present, flow rates and dissolved oxygen concentration.

Nitrate grades

The descriptors used relate to the Nitrate concentrations in the grades. ‘High’ descriptions refer to grades where the average concentration is more than 30mgl-1. This limit very roughly corresponds to the 95 percentile limit of 50mgl-1 which is used in the European Community (EC) Drinking Water Directive and the EC Nitrate Directive. There is, however, no direct comparison because the methods used to calculate the 95 percentile for the purposes of these Directives are strictly laid down and cannot be estimated from average concentrations over three years.

Phosphate and Nitrate grades at a glance

Grade Description – Phosphate Description – Nitrate 1 Very low Very low 2 Low Low 3 Moderate Moderately low 4 High Moderate 5 Very high High 6 Excessively high Very high

SECTION 2 - TABLES

Table 1: Standards for the chemical GQA GQA Grade Dissolved oxygen Biochemical oxygen demand Ammonia (% saturation) (mgl-1) (mgNl-1) 10-percentile 90-percentile 90-percentile A 80 2.5 0.25 B 70 4 0.6 C 60 6 1.3 D 50 8 2.5 E 20 15 9.0 F <20 - - NOTES: 90-percentile compliance – the river should contain less than the specified levels for at least 90% of the time. 10-percentile compliance – levels should not fall below the standard for more than 10% of the time. mgl-1 – milligrammes per litre mgNl-1 – milligrammes per litre of Nitrogen

Table 2: Grades of river quality for the chemical GQA Chemical grade Likely uses and characteristics* A Very good All abstractions Very good salmonid fisheries Cyprinid fisheries Natural ecosystems B Good All abstractions Salmonid fisheries Cyprinid fisheries Ecosystems at or close to natural C Fairly good Potable supply after advanced treatment Other abstractions Good cyprinid fisheries Natural ecosystems, or those corresponding to good cyprinid fisheries D Fair Potable supply after advanced treatment Other abstractions Fair cyprinid fisheries Impacted ecosystems E Poor Low grade abstraction for industry Fish absent or sporadically present, vulnerable to pollution** Impoverished ecosystems** F Bad Very polluted rivers which may cause nuisance Severely restricted ecosystems * Provided other standards are met ** Where the grade is caused by discharges of organic pollution

Table 3: Grades of river quality for the biological GQA Grade Biological criteria a The biology is similar to (or better than) that expected for an average, unpolluted river of this type, size and location. There is a high diversity of families, usually with several species in each. It is rare to find a dominance of any one family. b The biology shows minor differences from grade ‘a’ and falls a little short of that expected for an unpolluted river of this size, type and location. There may be a small reduction in the number of families that are sensitive to pollution, and a moderate increase in the number of individuals in the families that tolerate pollution (such as worms and midges). This may indicate the first signs of organic pollution. c The biology is worse than that expected for an unpolluted river of this size, type and location. Many of the sensitive families are absent or the number of individuals is reduced, and in many cases there is a marked rise in the numbers of individuals in the families that tolerate pollution. d The biology shows considerable differences from that expected for an unpolluted river of this size, type and location. Sensitive families are scarce and contain only small numbers of individuals. There may be a range of those families that tolerate pollution and some of these may have a high number of individuals. e The biology is restricted to animals that tolerate pollution with some families dominant in terms of the numbers of individuals. Sensitive families will be rare or absent. f The biology is limited to a small number of very tolerant families, often only worms, midge larvae, leeches and the water hog-louse. These may be present in very high numbers, but even these may be missing if the pollution is toxic. In the very worse cases there may be no life present in the river.

Table 4: Phosphate classification Grade Grade limit (mgPl-1) Description Average 1 <0.02 Very low 2 >0.02 to 0.06 Low 3 >0.06 to 0.1 Moderate 4 >0.1 to 0.2 High 5 >0.2 to 1.0 Very high 6 >1 Excessively high NOTES: MgPl-1 – milligrammes per litre of Phosphate

Table 5: Nitrate classification -1 Grade Grade limit (mgNO3l ) Description Average 1 <5 Very low 2 >5 to 10 Low 3 >10 to 20 Moderately low 4 >20 to 30 Moderate 5 >30 to 40 High 6 >40 Very high -1 NOTES: MgNO3l – milligrammes per litre of Nitrate

Environment Agency Guidelines for the use of data Appendix 2.2

GENERAL

1. Nothing in this notice will in any way restrict your statutory or any other rights of access to the Data.

2. All intellectual property rights in the data and information supplied to you (“Data”) whether owned by the Agency (“Agency Data”) or third parties (“Third Party Data”) will continue to be owned by the respective parties.

3. The Data have not been prepared to meet your or anyone else’s individual requirements and it is therefore your responsibility to ensure that the Data meet your needs.

4. The Agency cannot ensure that the Data in its possession will always be accurate, complete, up to date or valid but the Agency will use reasonable care to ensure that you are provided with an accurate copy of the Data that is in its possession. The Agency gives no warranty that the copy of the Data that it provides is accurate. This does not restrict your statutory rights.

5. Any charge you may pay us reflects only the reasonable cost of supplying the Data to you.

6. If you have asked for the Data to be supplied in an electronic format we cannot guarantee that the medium is free from any defects and you should undertake the appropriate virus checks.

7. Third party data use, including copying, must be limited to statutory rights.

USE OF AGENCY DATA

8. INTERNAL BUSINESS OR PERSONAL USE. You may use Agency Data for your own private use or for use within your business without restriction.

9. GIVING COPIES TO OTHERS. You may do this without restriction in respect of Agency Data provided that you make no charge and attach a copy of this notice. Recipients should also comply with the notice. Whenever possible and appropriate any authorised copying of Agency Data shall acknowledge the Agency’s ownership of Agency Data. One way of doing this is by adding the words “Copyright © Environment Agency” to the information or copy.

10. OTHER USE. If you wish to use Agency Data in any way other than as set out above (including in particular for commercial gain, for example by way of rental, licence, sale or providing services for consideration) you should contact us with details of what you are proposing to do, UNLESS we have already indicated to you that your proposed use is agreed OR you are satisfied that such use would not infringe our intellectual property rights.

11. USE BY SOLICITORS, SURVEYORS ETC.. If you are a solicitor, a chartered surveyor or other professional whose professional body has an arrangement with the Agency you may use Agency Data in accordance with these arrangements (“Professional Body Arrangements”) in which case paragraphs 1 to 8 above and the Professional Body Arrangements shall apply. Paragraphs 1 to 10 above shall apply in respect of all uses not covered by Professional Body Arrangements.

River Name Local Env. Agency Stretch Name LENGTH GQA02 GQA01 GQA00 GQA99 GQA98 GQA97 GQA96 GQA95 GQA94 GQA93 GQA92 GQA91 GQA90 GQA89 GQA88 GQA87 GQA86 GQA85 Authority (km) BARTON BROOK Mid Beds SPEED THE PLOUGH PH .... RECTORY FARM 4.5 B A ABBBCCCCDDDEEDCD BARTON BROOK South Beds SPEED THE PLOUGH PH .... RECTORY FARM 1.3 B A ABBBCCCCDDDEEDCD BROUGHTON BROOK Mid Beds BIRCHMOOR GREEN ..... M1 10.5 B B B C C C B B CDDDDCCCCO CAMPTON BROOK Mid Beds RECTORY FARM .... CONFL. FLIT 4.9 C B CCDCBBBCCCDDDDEO CAT DITCH Mid Beds NEWNHAM ROAD BRIDGE ..... CONFL. IVEL 0.4 B B CDDCAABBCBCDDCCO CLIPSTONE BROOK South Beds LEIGHTON BUZZARD...OUZEL 1.5 B B BBBBBBBCCDDCBCCE CLIPSTONE BROOK South Beds HOCKCLIFFE ..... LEIGHTON BUZZARD 5.0 B B BBBBBBCCDEDBBCCC CLIPSTONE BROOK TRIB South Beds FOURNE HILL MANOR ..... CLIPSTONE BROOK 3.0 B B BBBBBBBCCDDCBCCE ELSTOW BROOK Beds Borough OCTAGON FARM...CONFL. OUSE 1.1 B B B C C C B CCCCCCDDDCC ELSTOW BROOK Beds Borough A421...OCTAGON FARM 7.9 B B B C C C B CCCCCCDDDCC ELSTOW BROOK Beds Borough STEWARTBY LAKE OUTLET .... A421 4.5 C B C B C C C B CCCCDDEFFF BROOK/FLIT Mid Beds A5120...GREENFIELD 3.5 C C C BBBBBBBBBCCDDEE FANCOTT BROOK/FLIT Mid Beds GREENFIELD ..... HALL END 2.5 C C C BBBBBCDDDDDDEDD FANCOTT BROOK/FLIT Mid Beds M1 CHALTON...PREISTLY FARM 2.1 D C C BBBBBBBBBCCDDDC FANCOTT BROOK/FLIT South Beds M1 CHALTON...PREISTLY FARM 4.1 D C C BBBBBBBBBCCDDDC FANCOTT BROOK/FLIT Mid Beds PREISTLY FARM... A5120 2.3 D C C BBBBBBBBBCDDDDD FLIT Mid Beds ... PRIORY 2.9 B B BBBBBBBBBCCDDDCC FLIT Mid Beds CHICKSANDS PRIORY ..... SHEFFORD 1.3 B B BBBBBBBBBCCDDDCC FLIT Mid Beds HALL END ..... BEADLOW 3.2 B B B B C C B B B CCCCCDDEE GRAND UNION CANAL South Beds GREAT SEABROOK...GRAFTON REGIS 6.0 E E E E E DDDDEEEDDOOOC BROOK Mid Beds HEADWATERS ..... CLIFTON STW 3.1 C C DDDCBCCCDDDDEDDD HENLOW BROOK Mid Beds CLIFTON STW ..... CONFL. IVEL 1.2 E E E E E D C E E D D E E E C C D O HEXTON BROOK Mid Beds HEXTON ..... 5.2 A A AABAAAABBBBCCCDO HIZ Mid Beds HOLWELLBURY BROOK....THE GRANGE HENLOW 4.1 C C DCCCBBBDDDDDDDDC HIZ Mid Beds CONFL. RIVER OUGHTON .... HOLWELLBURY BR 3.0 D C CDDCBBBCCCCDDDCC IVEL Mid Beds BALDOCK - CONFL HIZ 6.0 B B CDDCAABBCBCDDCCO IVEL Mid Beds CONFL. HIZ ..... CONFL. IVEL NAVIGATION 3.9 B B CCCCBBBBCCDEEECC IVEL Mid Beds CONFL. IVEL NAVIGATION ... MANOR FARM 5.8 B B B C B C C C B B B CDDDCCC IVEL Mid Beds MANOR FARM .... GIRTFORD 5.0 B B CCCCBCBCCCDDEDCO IVEL Mid Beds GIRTFORD ..... 4.0 B B BBBBBBBBCCDDEDCO IVEL NAVIGATION Mid Beds CONFL. FLIT AT SHEFFORD .... CONFL IVEL 4.6 B B BBBBBBBBBCBCCCCC KYM Beds Borough TILBROOK….GREAT STAUGHTON 1.5 D C D EEEEDCEEEEEEFFE LEA Luton …. 0.6 C D EEEEEDCDDDE D LEA Luton LEAGRAVE…. LAKES 8.3 C D EEEEEDCDDDE D LEA South Beds LUTON HOO LAKES….LUTON STW 3.0 D C B CDDCCCDDDD E LEA South Beds LUTON STW…. BRIDGE 0.8 B B BBBBBBBCEEE E MILLBRIDGE/COMMON BROOKS Mid Beds GAMLINGAY STW...GALLEY HILL 2.9 D D D E DDDDDDDEEEDDCO MILLBRIDGE/COMMON BROOKS Mid Beds GALLEY HILL...IVEL 6.0 C D DDDDCCCCDDDDDCOO NEW INN BROOK Mid Beds NEW INN FM .... RECTORY FARM 5.5 B B B CDDCCCCEEEEEDOO OUSE Beds Borough OLNEY….TURVEY 1.5 B B BBBBBBCCCCCCCCCC OUSE Beds Borough TURVEY ..... HARROLD MILL ROAD BRIDGE 5.9 B B ABBBBCCCCCCCCCCC OUSE Beds Borough HARROLD ROAD BRIDGE .... SHARNBROOK MILL 7.0 B B BBBBBBBCCCCCCBCC OUSE Beds Borough KEMPSTON MILL...CONFL. NEW CUT 8.5 B B BBBBBBBBCCCCCDCC OUSE Beds Borough BROMHAM MILL ..... KEMPSTON MILL 3.5 B B BBBBBBBBBBCCCCCC OUSE Beds Borough CONFL. NEW CUT ..... CONFL. ELSTOW BROOK 4.0 C C C C C B B CCCCCCDCCCD OUSE Beds Borough WILLINGTON ..... CONFL. IVEL 5.9 B B B B C C B C B CCCCBBCCC OUSE Beds Borough CONF ELSTOW BROOK...WILLINGTON 1.0 B B B B C C B CCCCCCDCCDD OUSE Beds Borough CONFL. IVEL .... B1428 BRIDGE 4.4 D D CCCCBCCCCDDECCCO OUSE Beds Borough SHARNBROOK MILL...THE SPINNEY 11.0 C C BBBBBBCBCCCCOOOO OUSE Beds Borough THE SPINNEY ..... BROMHAM MILL 7.5 C C BBBBBBCBCCCCOOOO OUZEL South Beds A4146 BRIDGE...GROVELOCK 3.6 B C BBBBCCCCCCCCCDDD OUZEL South Beds GROVELOCK ..... STW 4.3 B C BBBBCCCCCCCEEEEE OUZEL South Beds LINSLADE STW ..... STAPLEFORD MILL 3.1 C C C D D E DCDDEEEEEEEE OUZEL BROOK South Beds ….STANBRIDGEFORD STW 4.2 C B B C C C B B B C D EEEEEDD OUZEL BROOK South Beds STANBRIDGEFORD STW….A4146 BRIDGE 2.5 B B B C C C B B CCDDDDDDCC PIX BROOK Mid Beds LETCHWORTH STW .... CONFL. HIZ 5.0 D C B B B C C B C C EEEFFFFE RIVER RHEE Mid Beds ASHWELL VILLAGE ... HOOKS MILL 5.6 B B B C C C B B B CCCCCEFEB RUNNING WATERS/STEPP Mid Beds STW ..... HALL END 4.0 D D DDDDCDDEEEEEEEEE SHARN BROOK Beds Borough HEADWATERS ..... OUSE 4.0 E D D EEEBBDDDCCDDDDD

Appendix 2.3: Chemical water quality assessments - Bedfordshire and Luton River Name Local Authority Env. Agency Stretch Name LENGTH BIOL00 BIOL99 BIOL98 BIOL97 BIOL96 BIOL95 BIOL94 BIOL93 BIOL92 BIOL91 BIOL90 (km) BARTON BROOK Mid Beds SPEED THE PLOUGH PH .... RECTORY FARM 4.5 a a c c c d e e e d d BARTON BROOK South Beds SPEED THE PLOUGH PH .... RECTORY FARM 1.3 a a c c c d e e e d d BROUGHTON BROOK Mid Beds BIRCHMOOR GREEN ..... M1 10.5 c c O b b cccccc CAMPTON BROOK Mid Beds RECTORY FARM .... CONFL. FLIT 4.9 c b b c d d b c b d e CAT DITCH Mid Beds NEWNHAM ROAD BRIDGE ..... CONFL. IVEL 0.4 a a a b aaacOac CLIPSTONE BROOK South Beds LEIGHTON BUZZARD...OUZEL 1.5 bbbbbcccecd CLIPSTONE BROOK South Beds HOCKCLIFFE ..... LEIGHTON BUZZARD 5.0 bbbbbcccecd CLIPSTONE BROOK TRIB South Beds FOURNE HILL MANOR ..... CLIPSTONE BROOK 3.0 bbbbbcccecd ELSTOW BROOK Beds Borough OCTAGON FARM...CONFL. OUSE 1.1 bbbbccaccbc ELSTOW BROOK Beds Borough A421...OCTAGON FARM 7.9 bbbbccaccbc ELSTOW BROOK Beds Borough STEWARTBY LAKE OUTLET .... A421 4.5 b cccccceccc FANCOTT BROOK/FLIT Mid Beds A5120...GREENFIELD 3.5 b c d b cccccce FANCOTT BROOK/FLIT Mid Beds GREENFIELD ..... HALL END 2.5 b c d b cccccce FANCOTT BROOK/FLIT Mid Beds M1 CHALTON...PREISTLY FARM 2.1 c c b c b c OOOOe FANCOTT BROOK/FLIT South Beds M1 CHALTON...PREISTLY FARM 4.1 c c b c b c OOOOe FANCOTT BROOK/FLIT Mid Beds PREISTLY FARM... A5120 2.3 c c b c b c OOOOe FLIT Mid Beds BEADLOW...CHICKSANDS PRIORY 2.9 c d b c c d d e e c f FLIT Mid Beds CHICKSANDS PRIORY ..... SHEFFORD 1.3 c d b c c d d e e c f FLIT Mid Beds HALL END ..... BEADLOW 3.2 c b ccccecebc GRAND UNION CANAL South Beds GREAT SEABROOK...GRAFTON REGIS 6.0 c d b c c b OOOOb HENLOW BROOK Mid Beds HEADWATERS ..... CLIFTON STW 3.1 c c e d e e OOOOe HENLOW BROOK Mid Beds CLIFTON STW ..... CONFL. IVEL 1.2 ccccccOOOOO HEXTON BROOK Mid Beds HEXTON ..... UPPER GRAVENHURST 5.2 a b b c b c b b b e c HIZ Mid Beds HOLWELLBURY BROOK....THE GRANGE HENLOW 4.1 bbbbbcdcOcb HIZ Mid Beds CONFL. RIVER OUGHTON .... HOLWELLBURY BR 3.0 c d d c d c f d O e d IVEL Mid Beds BALDOCK - CONFL HIZ 6.0 a a a b aaacOac IVEL Mid Beds CONFL. HIZ ..... CONFL. IVEL NAVIGATION 3.9 a b c b b c b b O c c IVEL Mid Beds CONFL. IVEL NAVIGATION ... MANOR FARM 5.8 b a a b b c bdbbb IVEL Mid Beds MANOR FARM .... GIRTFORD 5.0 b a b a b b b c b b b IVEL Mid Beds GIRTFORD ..... TEMPSFORD 4.0 bbbbabecbbc IVEL NAVIGATION Mid Beds CONFL. FLIT AT SHEFFORD .... CONFL IVEL 4.6 a b c c b b e c c b c KYM Beds Borough TILBROOK….GREAT STAUGHTON 1.5 b ccccccbdbc LEA Luton SUNDON PARK….LEAGRAVE 0.6 d e d LEA Luton LEAGRAVE….LUTON HOO LAKES 8.3 c e d LEA South Beds LUTON HOO LAKES….LUTON STW 3.0 c c b LEA South Beds LUTON STW….EAST HYDE BRIDGE 0.8 b c c MILLBRIDGE/COMMON BROOKS Mid Beds GAMLINGAY STW...GALLEY HILL 2.9 d c d c d d OOOOc MILLBRIDGE/COMMON BROOKS Mid Beds GALLEY HILL...IVEL 6.0 d d d e d d OOOOd NEW INN BROOK Mid Beds NEW INN FM .... RECTORY FARM 5.5 b c d d d c d c d e f OUSE Beds Borough OLNEY….TURVEY 1.5 b b a a bbbbbbb OUSE Beds Borough TURVEY ..... HARROLD MILL ROAD BRIDGE 5.9 a b a b b b c bbbb OUSE Beds Borough HARROLD ROAD BRIDGE .... SHARNBROOK MILL 7.0 a b b c c b a c a c c OUSE Beds Borough KEMPSTON MILL...CONFL. NEW CUT 8.5 a bbbbbbaObb OUSE Beds Borough BROMHAM MILL ..... KEMPSTON MILL 3.5 a bbbbbbaObb OUSE Beds Borough CONFL. NEW CUT ..... CONFL. ELSTOW BROOK 4.0 a b b a b b OOOOb OUSE Beds Borough WILLINGTON ..... CONFL. IVEL 5.9 a b b b a a a b a a b OUSE Beds Borough CONF ELSTOW BROOK...WILLINGTON 1.0 a b b b a a a b a a b OUSE Beds Borough CONFL. IVEL .... B1428 BRIDGE 4.4 a a b b c b OOOOb OUSE Beds Borough SHARNBROOK MILL...THE SPINNEY 11.0 c b d d c d e d d d c OUSE Beds Borough THE SPINNEY ..... BROMHAM MILL 7.5 c b d d c d e d d d c OUZEL South Beds A4146 BRIDGE...GROVELOCK 3.6 a d b c b c OOOOc OUZEL South Beds GROVELOCK ..... LINSLADE STW 4.3 a d O c b c OOOOO OUZEL South Beds LINSLADE STW ..... STAPLEFORD MILL 3.1 ccccccbbbcc OUZEL BROOK South Beds HOUGHTON REGIS….STANBRIDGEFORD STW 4.2 b b b c c c d e e c e OUZEL BROOK South Beds STANBRIDGEFORD STW….A4146 BRIDGE 2.5 b b b c c c d f d c c PIX BROOK Mid Beds LETCHWORTH STW .... CONFL. HIZ 5.0 c b c c c d d d O c d RIVER RHEE Mid Beds ASHWELL VILLAGE ... HOOKS MILL 5.6 a c b c b b OOOOO RUNNING WATERS/STEPP Mid Beds FLITWICK STW ..... HALL END 4.0 ddddededdee SHARN BROOK Beds Borough HEADWATERS ..... OUSE 4.0 ccccccOOOOO

Appendix 2.4: Biological water quality assessments - Bedfordshire and Luton River Name Local Authority Env. Agency Stretch Name LENGTH PHOS PHOS PHOS PHOS PHOS NIT NIT NIT NIT (km) 90 95 00 01 02 95 00 01 02 BARTON BROOK Mid Beds SPEED THE PLOUGH PH .... RECTORY FARM 4.5 65665 6555 BARTON BROOK South Beds SPEED THE PLOUGH PH .... RECTORY FARM 1.3 65665 6555 BROUGHTON BROOK Mid Beds BIRCHMOOR GREEN ..... M1 10.5 54444 6666 CAMPTON BROOK Mid Beds RECTORY FARM .... CONFL. FLIT 4.9 65555 5554 CAT DITCH Mid Beds NEWNHAM ROAD BRIDGE ..... CONFL. IVEL 0.4 34555 6666 CLIPSTONE BROOK South Beds LEIGHTON BUZZARD...OUZEL 1.5 42334 4554 CLIPSTONE BROOK South Beds HOCKCLIFFE ..... LEIGHTON BUZZARD 5.0 42334 4554 CLIPSTONE BROOK TRIB South Beds FOURNE HILL MANOR ..... CLIPSTONE BROOK 3.0 42334 4554 ELSTOW BROOK Beds Borough OCTAGON FARM...CONFL. OUSE 1.1 54555 5544 ELSTOW BROOK Beds Borough A421...OCTAGON FARM 7.9 54555 5544 ELSTOW BROOK Beds Borough STEWARTBY LAKE OUTLET .... A421 4.5 55555 4333 FANCOTT BROOK/FLIT Mid Beds A5120...GREENFIELD 3.5 66655 6666 FANCOTT BROOK/FLIT Mid Beds GREENFIELD ..... HALL END 2.5 66655 6666 FANCOTT BROOK/FLIT Mid Beds M1 CHALTON...PREISTLY FARM 2.1 66655 6666 FANCOTT BROOK/FLIT South Beds M1 CHALTON...PREISTLY FARM 4.1 66655 6666 FANCOTT BROOK/FLIT Mid Beds PREISTLY FARM... A5120 2.3 66655 6666 FLIT Mid Beds BEADLOW...CHICKSANDS PRIORY 2.9 65655 6666 FLIT Mid Beds CHICKSANDS PRIORY ..... SHEFFORD 1.3 65655 6666 FLIT Mid Beds HALL END ..... BEADLOW 3.2 66655 6666 GRAND UNION CANAL South Beds GREAT SEABROOK...GRAFTON REGIS 6.0 2111 1111 HENLOW BROOK Mid Beds HEADWATERS ..... CLIFTON STW 3.1 66666 5544 HENLOW BROOK Mid Beds CLIFTON STW ..... CONFL. IVEL 1.2 66666 6666 HEXTON BROOK Mid Beds HEXTON ..... UPPER GRAVENHURST 5.2 52222 4444 HIZ Mid Beds HOLWELLBURY BROOK....THE GRANGE HENLOW 4.1 65666 6665 HIZ Mid Beds CONFL. RIVER OUGHTON .... HOLWELLBURY BR 3.0 66666 6666 IVEL Mid Beds BALDOCK - CONFL HIZ 6.0 34555 6666 IVEL Mid Beds CONFL. HIZ ..... CONFL. IVEL NAVIGATION 3.9 66666 6666 IVEL Mid Beds CONFL. IVEL NAVIGATION ... MANOR FARM 5.8 66666 6666 IVEL Mid Beds MANOR FARM .... GIRTFORD 5.0 66666 6666 IVEL Mid Beds GIRTFORD ..... TEMPSFORD 4.0 66665 6666 IVEL NAVIGATION Mid Beds CONFL. FLIT AT SHEFFORD .... CONFL IVEL 4.6 65555 6666 KYM Beds Borough TILBROOK….GREAT STAUGHTON 1.5 55555 5655 LEA Luton SUNDON PARK….LEAGRAVE 0.6 3433 5444 LEA Luton LEAGRAVE….LUTON HOO LAKES 8.3 3433 5444 LEA South Beds LUTON HOO LAKES….LUTON STW 3.0 2234 4333 LEA South Beds LUTON STW….EAST HYDE BRIDGE 0.8 6666 6666 MILLBRIDGE/COMMON BROOKS Mid Beds GAMLINGAY STW...GALLEY HILL 2.9 65655 6666 MILLBRIDGE/COMMON BROOKS Mid Beds GALLEY HILL...IVEL 6.0 66666 6666 NEW INN BROOK Mid Beds NEW INN FM .... RECTORY FARM 5.5 42344 4444 OUSE Beds Borough OLNEY….TURVEY 1.5 65555 5555 OUSE Beds Borough TURVEY ..... HARROLD MILL ROAD BRIDGE 5.9 65555 5555 OUSE Beds Borough HARROLD ROAD BRIDGE .... SHARNBROOK MILL 7.0 65555 5555 OUSE Beds Borough KEMPSTON MILL...CONFL. NEW CUT 8.5 65555 5555 OUSE Beds Borough BROMHAM MILL ..... KEMPSTON MILL 3.5 65555 5555 OUSE Beds Borough CONFL. NEW CUT ..... CONFL. ELSTOW BROOK 4.0 65555 5555 OUSE Beds Borough WILLINGTON ..... CONFL. IVEL 5.9 65555 5555 OUSE Beds Borough CONF ELSTOW BROOK...WILLINGTON 1.0 65555 5555 OUSE Beds Borough CONFL. IVEL .... B1428 BRIDGE 4.4 65555 5555 OUSE Beds Borough SHARNBROOK MILL...THE SPINNEY 11.0 65555 5555 OUSE Beds Borough THE SPINNEY ..... BROMHAM MILL 7.5 65555 5555 OUZEL South Beds A4146 BRIDGE...GROVELOCK 3.6 65666 5555 OUZEL South Beds GROVELOCK ..... LINSLADE STW 4.3 65666 5555 OUZEL South Beds LINSLADE STW ..... STAPLEFORD MILL 3.1 66666 6666 OUZEL BROOK South Beds HOUGHTON REGIS….STANBRIDGEFORD STW 4.2 66666 6666 OUZEL BROOK South Beds STANBRIDGEFORD STW….A4146 BRIDGE 2.5 66666 6666 PIX BROOK Mid Beds LETCHWORTH STW .... CONFL. HIZ 5.0 66666 6666 RIVER RHEE Mid Beds ASHWELL VILLAGE ... HOOKS MILL 5.6 55555 6666 RUNNING WATERS/STEPP Mid Beds FLITWICK STW ..... HALL END 4.0 66666 6666 SHARN BROOK Beds Borough HEADWATERS ..... OUSE 4.0 55555 5544

Appendix 2.5: Nutrient level assessments - Bedfordshire and Luton Appendix 3.1: Condition of SSSI units (Bedfordshire) - compiled 1 Nov 2004 Data from English Nature

SSSI name District Main habitat Unit no. Unit area (ha) Date Condition Barton Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 44.23 10/6/2004 Favourable Barton Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 3.74 8/11/2004 Unfavourable declining Biddenham Pit BB Earth heritage 1 0.17 5/25/1999 Unfavourable declining Biddenham Pit BB Earth heritage 2 0.24 1/11/2002 Favourable Blow's Down SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 19.67 7/11/2003 Unfavourable recovering Blow's Down SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 13.63 7/11/2003 Unfavourable recovering Cooper's Hill MB Dwarf shrub heath - lowland 1 18.06 10/13/1999 Unfavourable declining Deacon Hill MB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 25.08 6/15/2004 Favourable Deacon Hill MB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 10.33 3/3/1999 Favourable Double Arches Pit SB Earth heritage 1 1.61 7/11/2001 Favourable Dropshort Marsh SB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 2.73 6/30/1999 Favourable And Downs SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 38.55 8/16/2002 Unfavourable recovering Dunstable And Whipsnade Downs SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 12.94 7/27/2000 Unfavourable recovering Dunstable And Whipsnade Downs SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 3 21.87 8/23/2004 Unfavourable no change Fancott Woods And Meadows SB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 9.06 11/12/1999 Unfavourable recovering Fancott Woods And Meadows SB Neutral grassland - lowland 2 4.2 11/12/1999 Unfavourable recovering BB Standing open water and canals 1 21.64 7/21/1999 Unfavourable recovering MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 1 11.3 2/26/1998 Favourable Flitwick Moor MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 2 9.56 2/6/1998 Favourable Flitwick Moor MB Fen, marsh and swamp 3 2.71 10/25/2003 Unfavourable declining Flitwick Moor MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 4 4.61 2/26/1998 Favourable Flitwick Moor MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 5 31.6 7/28/1999 Favourable Galley And Warden Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 11.63 7/18/2003 Favourable Galley And Warden Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 20.41 7/18/2003 Unfavourable recovering Galley And Warden Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 3 14.44 7/18/2003 Unfavourable no change Galley And Warden Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 4 0.47 6/27/2001 Favourable BB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 1 21.28 7/16/2001 Favourable Hanger Wood BB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 2 2.83 7/16/2001 Favourable Houghton Regis Marl Lakes SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 15.46 10/31/2000 Favourable Houghton Regis Marl Lakes SB Standing open water and canals 2 4.66 10/31/2000 Favourable Chalk Pit SB Earth heritage 1 131.33 10/21/1998 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Dwarf shrub heath - lowland 1 8.6 6/22/2000 Unfavourable declining Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Dwarf shrub heath - lowland 2 6.56 6/22/2000 Unfavourable declining Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 3 15.94 9/8/2003 Unfavourable no change Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 4 8.16 9/8/2003 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 5 14.24 9/8/2003 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 6 3.71 6/13/1997 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Neutral grassland - lowland 7 3.67 8/4/2000 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Dwarf shrub heath - lowland 8 20.18 8/4/2000 Unfavourable recovering Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 9 15.16 9/8/2003 Unfavourable recovering Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 10 25.2 6/11/2004 Unfavourable recovering Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 11 20.67 7/29/1999 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 12 18.45 7/29/1999 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 13 22.65 7/29/1999 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 14 10.33 7/29/1999 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 15 11.76 7/29/1999 Favourable Kings And Bakers Woods And Heaths SB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 16 6.51 6/11/2004 Favourable Kings Wood And Glebe Meadows, H. Conquest MB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 9.43 6/9/2004 Favourable Kings Wood And Glebe Meadows, H. Conquest MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 2 26.67 6/9/2004 Favourable MB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 7.97 10/6/2004 Favourable MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 1 5.59 7/24/2003 Favourable Marston Thrift MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 2 18.32 7/24/2003 Favourable Marston Thrift MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 3 13.5 7/24/2003 Favourable MB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 4.14 6/27/2000 Unfavourable recovering MB Acid grassland - lowland 1 2.79 8/2/2004 Unfavourable no change Maulden Heath MB Acid grassland - lowland 2 4.77 8/2/2004 Unfavourable no change Maulden Wood And Pennyfather's Hill MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 1 50.62 7/30/1997 Favourable Maulden Wood And Pennyfather's Hill MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 2 43.84 11/13/1998 Favourable Maulden Wood And Pennyfather's Hill MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 3 16.5 11/13/1998 Favourable Maulden Wood And Pennyfather's Hill MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 4 37.81 1/15/1998 Favourable Nares Gladley Marsh SB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 5.12 6/9/1999 Favourable Nine Acres Pit SB Earth heritage 1 20.72 6/17/2003 Unfavourable no change BB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 1 19.29 4/15/2003 Favourable Odell Great Wood BB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 2 13.11 4/15/2003 Unfavourable no change Odell Great Wood BB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 3 31.68 4/15/2003 Favourable Odell Great Wood BB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 4 21.62 4/15/2003 Favourable Wood MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 1 16.23 8/1/2002 Unfavourable recovering MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 2 17.65 7/31/2002 Favourable Potton Wood MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 3 13.86 7/31/2002 Favourable Potton Wood MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 4 15.92 7/31/2002 Favourable Potton Wood MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 5 14.55 7/31/2002 Favourable Potton Wood MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 6 7.29 7/31/2002 Favourable Marsh MB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 4.25 3/15/2004 Unfavourable recovering Pulloxhill Marsh MB Neutral grassland - lowland 2 0.83 3/15/2004 Unfavourable recovering MB Acid grassland - lowland 1 7.35 12/4/2003 Unfavourable recovering Sandy Warren MB Dwarf shrub heath - lowland 2 9.05 8/5/1998 Unfavourable recovering Smithcombe, And Sundon Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 2.77 6/8/2004 Unfavourable no change Smithcombe, Sharpenhoe And Sundon Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 5.67 4/15/2004 Unfavourable declining Smithcombe, Sharpenhoe And Sundon Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 3 14.35 4/15/2004 Unfavourable declining Smithcombe, Sharpenhoe And Sundon Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 4 21.27 4/15/2004 Unfavourable declining Smithcombe, Sharpenhoe And Sundon Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 5 28.86 4/15/2004 Unfavourable declining Smithcombe, Sharpenhoe And Sundon Hills SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 6 13.21 6/7/2004 Unfavourable no change Southill Lake And Woods MB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 1 25.28 7/30/1998 Favourable Stevington Marsh BB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 4.63 7/1/1999 Unfavourable no change Stevington Marsh BB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 2.85 7/1/1999 Unfavourable declining SB Fen, marsh and swamp 1 1.49 3/18/2004 Unfavourable no change Sundon Chalk Quarry SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 24.68 3/18/2004 Favourable BB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 1 9.03 5/25/1999 Favourable Swineshead Wood BB Broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland 2 12.53 5/25/1999 Favourable Marsh SB Fen, marsh and swamp 1 5.58 2/20/2002 Unfavourable recovering Tilwick Meadow BB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 2.56 7/9/2001 Favourable Chalk Quarry SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 10.57 1/18/2001 Unfavourable declining Totternhoe Chalk Quarry SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 1.62 1/14/1998 Favourable Totternhoe Chalk Quarry SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 3 1.21 5/31/2000 Unfavourable declining SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 1 4.6 9/29/2004 Unfavourable recovering Totternhoe Knolls SB Calcareous grassland - lowland 2 8.48 9/29/2004 Favourable Totternhoe Stone Pit SB Earth heritage 1 2.05 1/11/2002 Favourable MB Bogs 1 2.52 9/10/2004 Unfavourable no change Wavendon Heath Ponds MB Neutral grassland - lowland 2 2.21 9/6/2004 Unfavourable no change Yelden Meadows BB Neutral grassland - lowland 1 2.76 10/17/2002 Favourable Appendix 3.2: Condition of Bedfordshire's County Wildlife Sites Data from monitoring carried out in 2002, 2003 & 2004*

Site Site Number Unit District Area (ha) Date surveyed Surveyor Habitat Condition Park 1882/4/1 1 M 7.6 26.6.02 PI LA Unfavourable Ampthill Park 1882/4/1 2 M 17 26.6.02 PI LA Unfavourable Ampthill Park 1882/4/1 3 M 15.5 26.6.02 PI LA Unfavourable Ampthill Park (Laurel Wood) 1882/4/1 4 M 9.6 26.6.02 PI LW Unfavourable Aspleybury Wood 31061/1 1 M 3 23.4.02 PI LW Favourable Buckle Grove 31006/1 1 M 16 8.5.02 PI LW Favourable Cainhoepark Wood 31070/3 1 M 3.7 25.4.02 PI LW Favourable Cainhoepark Wood 31070/3 2 M 4.4 25.4.02 PI LW Favourable Cainhoepark Wood 31070/3 3 M 0.5 25.4.02 PI LW Favourable 1789/2 1 M 24.5 10.5.02 PI LW Favourable Holcot Wood 30560/1 1 M 22.7 15.5.02 PI LW Favourable Lark Hill 31018/1/1 1 M 0.8 1.7.02 PI LN Favourable Marston Thrift non-SSSI 30580/12 1 M 18.7 16.5.02 PI LW Unfavourable Marston Thrift spinnies 30580/12 1 M 3.7 9.5.02 PI LW Favourable Marston Thrift spinnies 30580/12 2 M 1.4 9.5.02 PI LW Favourable Marston Thrift spinnies 30580/12 3 M 0.6 9.5.02 PI LW Favourable Maulden heath & grasslands 31008/6 1 M 8.3 28.6.02/1.7.02 PI LA Unfavourable Maulden heath & grasslands 31008/6 3 M 0.9 28.6.02/1.7.02 PI LN Unfavourable Maulden heath & grasslands 31008/6 4 M 4.6 28.6.02/1.7.02 PI LN Unfavourable Maulden heath & grasslands 31008/6 6 M 2.5 28.6.02/1.7.02 PI LN Unfavourable Maulden heath & grasslands 31008/6 7 M 4.5 28.6.02/1.7.02 PI LA Favourable Maulden heath & grasslands 31008/6 8 M 2.2 28.6.02/1.7.02 PI LA Favourable Meadhook Wood 31002 1 M 2.5 3.5.02 PI LW Favourable Portobello Wood 31000/1 1 M 2.9 3.5.02 PI LW Favourable Salford Wood 30649 1 M 1 9.5.02 PI LW Favourable Simpsonhill Plantation 31010/5 1 M 14.5 21.5.02 PI LW Unfavourable Speedsdairy Wood 31071 1 M 3.4 24.4.02 PI LW Unfavourable Hospital Grounds 1870/1 1 M 0.8 10.5.02 PI LN Unfavourable Temple Grove 31072/2 1 M 2.1 24.4.02 PI LW Unfavourable Tingley Field Plantation 31066/1 1 M 7.8 11.6.02 PI LW Favourable Warren Wood 31010/7 1 M 26 2.5.02 PI LW Favourable Watergate Meadow, Tebworth 30304/1 1 M 1.6 4.7.02 PI LN Favourable Meadows 43 1 M 1.3 16.9.03 PI LN Unfavourable Ampthill Cemetery 201 1 M 1.4 16.9.03 PI LA Unfavourable Ampthill Cutting 199 1 M 2.1 16.9.03 PI LN Unfavourable Ampthill Knoll 201 1 M 0.9 16.9.03 PI LA Unfavourable Duck End 191 1 M 1.6 22.7.03 PI LN Unfavourable Duck End 191 2 M 1.7 22.7.03 PI LA Unfavourable Heath Meadow (Ouzel Valley) 11 1 S 2.3 5.6.03 PI LA Unfavourable Linslade Wood 9 1 S 5.5 20.5.03 PI LW Unfavourable Northley Farm Meadows 314 1 M 1.6 19.9.03 PI LN Unfavourable Ouzel Meadows (Ouzel Valley) 11 1 S 14 17.6.03 PI LN Unfavourable Pulloxhill North Marsh 180 1 M 0.8 17.9.03 PI F Unfavourable Pulloxhill South Grasslands 179 1 M 8.4 17.9.03 PI LN Unfavourable Pulloxhill South Grasslands 179 2 M 2.4 17.9.03 PI LN Unfavourable Readshill Grassland 184 1 M 0.3 17.9.03 PI LA Unfavourable Sandhouse Pit (Double Arches) 18 1 S 3 24.6.03 PI LN Unfavourable Sandhouse Pit (Double Arches) 18 2 S 0.8 24.6.03 PI LC Favourable Shillington Churchyard 294 1 M 1.2 19.9.03 PI LN Favourable Shillington Meadow 292 1 M 1.9 19.9.03 PI LN Unfavourable Stockgrove Country Park 16/17 1 S 10.5 11.6.03/12.6.03 PI LA Unfavourable Stockgrove Country Park 16/17 2 S 0.5 11.6.03/12.6.03 PI LA Favourable Tiddenfoot Park 5 1 S 4 12.6.03 PI LA Favourable Wavendon Heath Fullers Earth Quarry 39 1 M 10 25.6.03 PI LA Unfavourable Astey Wood 61 1 B 8.8 20.5.04 PI LW Favourable Bowels Wood 230 1 B 8.3 22.6.04 RL LW Favourable How Wood 85 1 B 2.2 20.5.04 PI LW Favourable Lambert's Spinney 60 1 B 2.1 24.5.04 PI LW Favourable Molliver's Wood 231 1 B 3.6 29.7.04 RL LW Favourable Pippin Wood 259 1 B 4.7 7.9.04 RL LW Favourable Ransom's Wood 63 1 B 2.1 24.5.04 PI LW Favourable Salem Thrift 86 1 B 8.2 14.6.04 RL LW Favourable Sheerhatch Wood 332 1 B 71 18.6.04 RL LW Favourable Ashen Grove 122 1 S 3.7 1.6.04 SH LW Favourable Badgerdell Wood 150 1 S 10.6 7.5.04 PI LW Favourable Castlecroft Wood 139 1 S 3.9 9.6.04 SH LW Favourable 276 1 S 2.8 12.7.04 PI LN Unfavourable Folly Wood 132 1 S 4.2 7.5.04 PI LW Favourable George Wood, Streatley 165 1 S 5.2 6.5.04 PI LW Unfavourable Greencroft Wood 114 1 S 3.9 1.6.04 SH LW Favourable Little John's/Dame Ellen's Woods 137 1 S 3.7 9.6.04 SH LW Favourable Long Grove 123 1 S 3 25.6.04 SH LW Favourable Sallowsprings Wood 120 1 S 2.1 30.6.04/16.7.04 SH LW Favourable Wood 140 1 S 2.5 8.6.04 SH LW Favourable Stanbridge Meadows 29 1 S 4.1 10.6.04 PI LN Favourable Stanners Wood 141 1 S 3.24 8.6.04 SH LW Favourable Sundon Wood 162 1 S 5.4 5.5.04 PI LW Favourable Thorn Spring 135 1 S 3.9 3.6.04 PI LW Unfavourable Blue Lagoon 305 1 M 5 28.7.04 RL LC Favourable Blunham Disused Railway 348 1 M 5.2 3.9.04 RL LN Unfavourable Broadlands 298 1 M 3 13.5.04 PI LW Favourable Bury Farm, HC (King's Wood & grassland) 229 1 M 46 5.7.04 PI LN Unfavourable Chicksands Aerial Site (c grassland) 290 1 M 16 13.7.04 PI LN Favourable Wood 373 1 M 40 16.6.04 RL LW Favourable Everton Churchyard 374 1 M 0.5 21.7.04 RL LN Unfavourable Moor 204 1 M 2.7 9.6.04 PI LN Unfavourable 204 2 M 0.5 9.6.04 PI F Unfavourable Grange Meadow, Haynes 225 1 M 5 29.6.04 PI LN Unfavourable Grange Meadow, Haynes 225 2 M 5 29.6.04 PI LN Unfavourable Grange Meadow, Haynes 225 3 M 7 29.6.04 PI LN Unfavourable Haynes Church End Marsh 220 1 M 3.5 4.6.04 PI F Destroyed Lower Alders 303 1 M 5.1 2.6.04 PI LW Favourable Montague Wood 186 1 M 6 10.5.04 PI LW Favourable Moors Plantation 196 1 M 2.3 28.5.04 PI LW Favourable Nunswood 304 1 M 2.9 17.6.04 RL LW Favourable Palmers Wood 327 1 M 61 26.5.04 RL LW Favourable Patemans Wood 297 1 M 5.9 13.5.04 PI LW Favourable Pennyfathers Moors & Grasslands 187 1 M 7.5 2.6.04 PI LW Favourable Pennyfathers Moors & Grasslands 187 2 M 2.4 2.7.04 PI F Unfavourable Pennyfathers Moors & Grasslands 187 3 M 2 2.7.04 PI F Unfavourable Pennyfathers Moors & Grasslands 187 4 M 3.1 2.7.04 PI F Unfavourable Sandy Cemetery 344 1 M 1.7 20.7.04 RL LA Favourable Sir Johns Wood 363 1 M 8.7 15.7.04 RL LW Favourable Stewartby Lake 209 1 M 23 14.6.04 PI LC Favourable Thrift Wood 181 1 M 3.4 27.5.04 PI LW Favourable Utcoate Grange Meadow 42 1 M 0.8 6.7.04 PI LA Favourable Utcoate Grange Meadow 42 2 M 0.5 6.7.04 PI LA Unfavourable Wood near Washers Wood 49 1 M 2.3 11.5.04 PI LW Favourable Wrest Park Grounds 183 1 M 2 15.6.04 PI LN Unfavourable *Data taken from:

Condition Recording System for County Wildlife Sites' prepared on behalf of Mid Beds DC and the Beds & Luton Wildlife Working Group by the Greensand Trust, June 2002, Phil Irving.

Mid Beds County Wildlife Site Work 2003' prepared on behalf of Mid Beds DC by the Greensand Trust, December 2003, Phil Irving.

County Wildlife Site Monitoring & Survey Work 2004' carried out on behalf of Mid Beds DC & Beds CC by the Greensand Trust, the Ivel & Ouse Countryside Project and the North Chilterns Trust, September 2004, Phil Irving.

Key to habitats

F = fen/marsh/swamp LA = lowland acid grassland LC = lowland calcareous grassland LN = lowland neutral grassland LW = lowland woodland Site Grid Ref District Area (ha) Status Management Details Access situation

Kempston Wood SP 995470 BB 16.5 CWS owned & managed by Woodland Trust open access Wilstead Wood TL 072425 BB 61 CWS owned by Haynes Park, part managed by Park, part by FE permissive access West Wood SP 993625 BB 84 CWS owned & managed by FE open access TL 169564 BB 7.12 CWS managed by Wildlife Trust open access TL 103492 BB 1.86 CWS owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access SP 963626 BB 8.82 CWS managed by Wildlife Trust open access Wymington Meadow SP 959632 BB 1.48 CWS managed by Wildlife Trust open access Harrold/Odell CP SP 960570 BB 58.7 CWS owned by BCC, managed by IOCP open access Clapham Park Wood TL 047531 BB 11.5 CWS owned & managed by Beds CC open access Stevington Country Walk SP 995525 BB 10 CWS (part) owned & managed by Beds CC open access TL 067476 BB 24 LNR owned & managed by BBC open access Mowsbury Hill TL 066532 BB 3 LNR owned & managed by BBC open access Park Wood TL 046520 BB 4.6 LNR owned & managed by BBC open access TL 065516 BB 11 LNR owned & managed by BBC open access Brown's Wood TL 025545 BB 6 LNR owned & managed by BBC open access Hill Rise, Bedford TL 045508 BB 1 LNR owned & managed by BBC open access TL 027515 BB 10.8 LNR/CWS owned & managed by Beds CC open access Swineshead & Spanoak Woods TL 065668 BB 46 SSSI owned & managed by Woodland Trust open access Felmersham Gravel Pits SP 991584 BB 21.19 SSSI owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access Gulliver's Spinney & Church Farm SP 985615 BB 2.7 owned & managed by Woodland Trust open access Land near Water End (Cople) TL 104478 BB 3.3 owned & managed by Woodland Trust open access Pavenham Osier Beds SP 990551 BB 1.4 owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access Priory Country Park TL 075490 BB 100 owned & managed by BBC open access Biddenham Loop Country Park TL 014495 BB 26.3 owned & managed by BBC open access Hillgrounds TL 039489 BB 30 owned & managed by BBC open access Crow Hill Farm, Wilden TL 083552 BB 6 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2013) Milton Ernest Access TL 023563 BB 0.5 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2011) Oakley Open Area SP 004529 BB 5.8 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2012) Stafford Bridge Meadows, Oakley TL 005548 BB 7.4 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2013) Buttons Ramsey Community Woodland TL 004467 BB 8 owned & managed by Forest of Marston Vale permissive access Dog Field, Cople TL 102492 BB 5.5 owned by Beds CC, managed by Forest of Marston Vale open access Ridgeway Community Woodland TL 015465 BB 13.4 owned & managed by Forest of Marston Vale permissive access Van Diemans Land TL 020455 BB 8 leased & managed by Forest of Marston Vale permissive access Wood TL 069259 LB 15.5 CWS owned & managed by Woodland Trust open access Downs TL 075215 LB 40 CWS owned & managed by LBC open access Fallowfield TL 082240 LB 5 CWS owned & managed by LBC open access Leagrave Marsh TL 058246 LB 6 CWS owned & managed by LBC open access Bradgers Hill TL 087243 LB 10 CWS owned & managed by LBC open access Cowslip Meadow TL 082246 LB 6 CWS owned & managed by LBC open access Castle Croft with Bluebell Wood TL 074206 LB 9 CWS owned & managed by LBC open access Riverside Walk TL 088235 LB 6 CWS owned & managed by LBC open access Meads TL 070243 LB 5 owned & managed by LBC open access

Appendix 4.1: Sites with public access managed for nature conservation in Bedfordshire - as at Jan 2005 Common with Hay Wood TL 103244 LB 20 owned & managed by LBC open access Chicksands Wood TL 100400 MB 114 CWS owned by Crown Estates, leased & managed by FE permissive access Rowney Warren TL 120405 MB 110 CWS owned by Southill Estate, part managed by Estate & part by FE permissive access College Wood TL 142470 MB 13 CWS owned & managed by FE open access Cut Throat Meadow TL 040381 MB 1.58 CWS managed by Wildlife Trust open access Tunnel TL 114446 MB 3.32 CWS managed by Wildlife Trust open access Campton Plantation TL 130389 MB 15.4 CWS owned & managed by Beds CC open access Duck End, Maulden TL 051375 MB 0.84 CWS owned by BCC, managed by GST open access Rushymeade, Pulloxhill TL 064338 MB 7 CWS owned by Pulloxhill PC, managed with GST open access Ampthill Park TL 025385 MB 61 CWS owned & managed by Ampthill TC open access Swiss Garden Woodland TL 148447 MB 3.82 CWS leased from Old Warden Estate, managed by Beds CC open access, on marked paths Sandy Pinnacle TL 178493 MB 5.4 CWS leased by Sandy TC from Pym Estate, managed by IOCP open access Reynold & Holcot Woods SP 962391 MB 97.8 CWS (part) owned & managed by Woodland Trust open access Marston Vale Millennium CP TL 005414 MB 75 CWS (part) owned & managed by Forest of Marston Vale permissive access TL 167487 MB 7.68 LNR owned by Sandy TC, managed by Wildlife Trust & IOCP open access Flitton Moor TL 056360 MB 5.3 LNR/CWS owned & managed by BCC open access Flitwick Wood TL 024348 MB 13.4 LNR/CWS owned by BCC, managed by FVEG open access Henlow Common & Langford Meadow TL 184405 MB 19 LNR/CWS owned & managed by Beds CC open access Cooper's Hill TL 028376 MB 12.95 LNR/SSSI owned by Ampthill TC, managed by Wildlife Trust open access King's Wood & Glebe Meadows TL 045403 MB 40 LNR/SSSI owned & managed by BCC open access Maulden Church Meadows TL 059382 MB 3.4 LNR/SSSI owned & managed by BCC open access Marston Thrift SP 973418 MB 56.4 LNR/SSSI/CWS leased & managed by BCC open access Maulden Wood TL 074387 MB 142 SSSI owned & managed by FE open access Wavendon Heath Ponds SP 931338 MB 4.9 SSSI owned & managed by Bedford Estates access agreement with BCC & GST Potton Wood TL 252502 MB 94.8 SSSI/CWS owned & managed by FE open access Flitwick Moor TL 046354 MB 38.46 SSSI/CWS owned & managed by BCC & Wildlife Trust open access Hills TL 120295 MB 74.39 SSSI/CWS owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access Plummer's Copse, Haynes TL 098415 MB 1 owned & managed by Woodland Trust open access Stanford Wood TL 160406 MB 24 owned by Southill Estate, managed by FE permissive access Arlesey Old Moat TL 189373 MB 2.12 owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access Glebe Meadows TL 189376 MB 2.14 owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access Warren Villas TL 182472 MB 8.9 managed by Wildlife Trust open access Arlesey Bridge Meadows TL 188382 MB 5.48 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2007) Baulk House, Langford TL 173403 MB 7.96 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2009) Carts Farm Trust, Gravenhurst TL 120361 MB 9.01 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2013) Chicksands Access TL 131391 MB 2.5 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2011) Deacon Hill TL 125297 MB 36 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2011) Mill Meadows, near Arlesey TL 189364 MB 14.63 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2013) Mill Meadows, Sandy TL 173487 MB 4 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2013) Rectory Wood, SP 960418 MB 7.5 owned & managed by Forest of Marston Vale permissive access Barton Gravel Pits TL 098299 SB 1 CWS owned by SBDC, managed with Wildlife Trust open access Sewell Cutting SP 997227 SB 3.57 CWS owned by SBDC, managed with Wildlife Trust open access Tiddenfoot Waterside Park SP 915237 SB 11.5 CWS owned by SBDC, managed by GST open access Common TL 025157 SB 28 CWS owned by SBDC, managed with Studham PC & NCT open access

Appendix 4.1: Sites with public access managed for nature conservation in Bedfordshire - as at Jan 2005 Whipsnade Heath TL 017182 SB 23.6 CWS owned by SBDC & BCC, managed with NT & NCT open access Sandhouse Pit SP 936298 SB 4 CWS owned by Lafarge, managed by GST permissive access Bluebell (Linslade) Wood SP 907263 SB 5.5 CWS owned by BCC, managed by GST open access Ouzel Meadows (incl. Vimy Rd) SP 919263 SB 15 CWS owned by LLTC & managed by GST open access Heath Wood & Meadow SP 912274 SB 11.6 CWS owned by SBDC, managed with GST open access Lancot Meadow TL 003217 SB 2.07 CWS managed by the Wildlife Trust open access Cottage Bottom Field TL 040206 SB 15 LNR/CWS owned & managed by Beds CC open access Galley & Warden Hills TL 092265 SB 52 LNR/SSSI owned & managed by LBC open access Totternhoe Knolls SP 979220 SB 13.7 LNR/SSSI/CWS owned by BCC, managed by National Trust & Wildlife Trust open access Dropshort Marsh TL 007276 SB 2 SSSI owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access Dunstable Downs TL 197204 SB 52.6 SSSI owned by BCC, managed by NT open access Whipsnade Downs TL 001190 SB 34 SSSI owned & managed by NT open access Smithcombe Hills TL 073295 SB 17.59 SSSI owned by BCC, managed by National Trust open access Sundon Hills CP TL 055290 SB 49.87 SSSI owned by BCC, managed by National Trust open access Totternhoe Quarry SP 985225 SB 8.51 SSSI owned & managed by the Wildlife Trust open access Blows Downs TL 033216 SB 46.36 SSSI/CWS owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access Stockgrove CP SP 918291 SB 26 SSSI/CWS owned by BCC, managed by GST open access King's Wood, Heath & Reach SP 932298 SB 63.5 SSSI/NNR owned & managed by Lafarge, Wildlife Trust, BCC & GST permissive access Barton Hills TL 090298 SB 44 SSSI/NNR owned & managed by English Nature open access Sallowsprings TL 006186 SB 1.2 owned & managed by Wildlife Trust open access Houghton Hall Park TL 025235 SB 17.5 owned by SBDC & HRTC, managed by NCT open access Whipsnade Green TL 017177 SB 15 owned by SBDC, managed with NT, NCT & Zoo open access Linslade Community Woodland SP 905260 SB 32 owned & managed by Leake Family Trust access as long as scheme lasts Sharpenhoe Clappers TL 067303 SB 29 owned & managed by National Trust open access Moleskin TL 063297 SB 45 owned & managed by National Trust open access Knolls Wood SP 921270 SB 5.3 owned by SBDC, managed with GST open access Chews Charity Farm, Dunstable TL 000232 SB 4.04 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2012) Heath & Reach Poors Land SP 919282 SB 3 CSS agreement permissive access (expires 2009)

Appendix 4.1: Sites with public access managed for nature conservation in Bedfordshire - as at Jan 2005

Appendix 4.2: Details for Bedfordshire districts, the East of England and England from The Woodland Trust (2004) ‘Space for People: Targetting action for woodland access’

The Woodland Trust Access Standard aspires • that no person should live more than 500m from at least one area of accessible woodland of no less than 2ha in size • that there should also be at least one area of accessible woodland of no less than 20ha within 4km (8km round trip) of people’s homes

England East of England Bedfordshire Luton Beds Borough Mid Beds South Beds % population with access to 10.18 8.49 5.19 6.51 3.61 8.97 3.22 2ha+ wood within 500m

% population with access to 55.18 44.24 43.53 0 8.73 75.24 55.25 a 20ha+ wood within 4km

Accessible woods % extra population with 26.08 27.48 22.59 24.51 16.05 27.73 25.66 access to a 2ha+ wood within 500m if existing woods opened % extra population with 26.74 37.55 25.74 80.80 32.50 13.41 30.08 access to a 20ha+ wood within 4km if existing woods

Inaccessible Inaccessible woods opened % population requiring new 63.74 64.03 72.22 68.98 80.34 63.30 71.12 woodland for access to a 2ha+ wood within 500m % population requiring new 18.08 18.21 30.72 19.20 58.77 11.34 14.67 woodland for access to a 20ha+ wood within 4km Minimum area of new 48,683 7,352 590 77 195 275 119 woodland required for 2ha+ woods within 500m (ha) Minimum area of new 15,392 3,254 163 20 63 40 80 woodland required for 20ha+ woods within 4km

Woodland creation Woodland (ha)