Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment RIVER MEASE CATCHMENT

APRIL 2015

BLANK PAGE

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Natural England has engaged Westcountry Rivers Limited (the commercial arm of Westcountry Rivers Trust) to develop a method for catchment-wide pollution risk and source apportionment assessments. In addition, The Rivers Trust has been commissioned to facilitate the integration and dissemination of this work with Catchment Based Approach Partnerships. Catchment Based Approach (CaBA) was developed as a framework for improving water quality by Defra 2009. After a successful pilot phase in 2011 actions were made for the wider adoption and national roll out of CaBA from 2013. As rivers trusts now represent catchments across a large part of England and Wales, with new ones continually forming, they are responsible partner hosts for the majority of local CaBA initiatives around the United Kingdom. Key objectives of CaBA are to deliver positive and sustained outcomes for the water environment by promoting a better understanding of the environment at a local level; and to encourage local collaboration and more transparent decision-making when both planning and delivering activities to improve the water environment. The Catchment Based Approach is about much more than just complying with the Water Framework Directive. It allows local communities, businesses, organisations and other stakeholders to come together to undertake actions or develop projects which incorporate local priorities such as flood risk management, fisheries and biodiversity. The Catchment Based Approach will see issues being identified and tackled at a much more local level, giving key stakeholders and local communities the opportunity to get involved. “The introduction of the CaBA signifies a major change to land and water management. It is a key step in the right direction, but fulfilling its potential will take determination, imagination and thoughtful audit and review” (CIWEM, 2013).

3 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

The Rivers Trust (a company limited by guarantee and granted registered charity, 2004) provides a logical extension for the increasing level of liaison that had taken place for some time between established rivers trusts. The main aims of The Rivers Trust are, “to co-ordinate, represent and develop the aims and interests of the member Trusts in the promotion of sustainable, holistic and integrated catchment management and sound environmental practices, recognising the wider economic benefits for local communities and the value of education.” Westcountry Rivers Ltd is the commercial trading subsidiary of the Westcountry Rivers Trust (charity no. 1135007 company no 06545646). All profits generated through the consultancy are covenanted to the Trust to help secure the preservation, protection, development and improvement of the rivers, streams, watercourses and water impoundments in the Westcountry and to advance the education of the public in the management of water.

Cover photo: River Mease at Croxall © Paul Williams, 2011.

Published by: Westcountry Rivers Ltd. Rain Charm House, Kyl Cober Parc, Stoke Climsland, Callington, Cornwall, PL17 8PH. Tel: 01579 372140; Email: [email protected]; Web: www.wrt.org.uk

Document history:

Revision Details of Revision Prepared By Checked By Approved By Date of Issue

Issue v1 1st draft for client comment Angela Bartlett Dave Johnson Russell Smith 10/04/15

Issue v2 Final revisions Angela Bartlett Russell Smith

4 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Contents Contents 5 Abbreviations 7 Executive summary 8 Introduction 11 1.1 Key contacts 12 1.2 Purpose statement 12 Methodology 13 1.3 Pollution risk assessment & source apportionment 13 1.3.1 Pollution risk modelling 13 1.3.2 Existing evidence and water quality data review 13 1.4 Intervention strategy development 13 1.4.1 Assessment of current mitigation measures in the catchment 13 1.4.2 Targeting delivery 14 1.4.3 Proposals for delivery of future intervention 14 1.5 Assessment of potential outcomes 14 1.6 Limitations and suggestions for further research 14 Catchment overview 15 1.7 Morphology & hydrology 15 1.8 Social & economic 22 1.9 Farming & land use 23 Catchment classifications and challenges 29 1.10 River Mease SSSI classifications 29 1.11 WFD classifications 32 Pollution risk assessment & source apportionment 33 1.12 Suspended solids 33 1.12.1 Fine sediment risk analysis 33 1.12.2 Sediment source apportionment 40 1.12.3 River corridor & landscape sediment risk assessments 42 1.12.4 Water quality sediment analysis 43 1.13 Phosphorus 46 1.13.1 Phosphorus risk analysis 46 1.13.2 Diffuse and point agricultural sources 47 1.13.3 Consented & unconsented discharges 48 1.13.4 Groundwater and in-stream sources 50 1.13.5 Phosphorus source apportionment 51 1.13.6 Surface water quality phosphorus analysis 59 1.14 Additional pollution risks to the SAC/SSSI 61 1.14.1 Pollution incidents 61 Intervention strategy development 64 1.15 Prior interventions 64 1.15.1 Natural habitats & designated sites 64 1.15.2 Previous on-farm interventions 65 1.16 Targeting delivery – FARMSCOPER modelling areas 75

5 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Assessment of outcomes 78 1.16.1 FARMSCOPER analysis 78 1.17 Deliverables and costs for proposed plan 88 1.18 Increasing STW load risk 89 Conclusion 91 1.19 Delivery challenges 96 References 97 Further information & contacts 98 Appendix 1: Summary of optimisation and mitigation methods. 99 Appendix 2: List of Environmental Stewardship Scheme options with water quality benefits included in each category. 102

6 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Abbreviations CaBA – Catchment Based Approach CEH – Centre for Ecology and Hydrology CSF – Catchment Sensitive Farming CSM – Common Standards Monitoring DWPP – Diffuse Water Pollution Plan ES – Environmental Stewardship HES – High Ecological Status JNCC - Joint Nature Conservation Committee LOD – Limit of detection RBMP – River Basin Management Plans SAC – Special Area of Conservation SDD – Small Domestic Discharge SRP – Soluble Reactive Phosphorus SS – Suspended Solids SSSI – Site of Scientific Interest STW – Sewage Treatment Works (or Wastewater Treatment Works WwTW) TP – Total Phosphorus UWWTD – Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive WFD – Water Framework Directive

7 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Executive summary The River Mease is a lowland clay river in the Midlands area of England. The River Mease is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the EU Habitats Directive, and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The River Mease which is referred to in this report includes both the designated section of the River Mease and the lower section of Gilwiskaw Brook. The River Mease SAC/ SSSI has been identified as failing to meet its water quality targets due, at least in part, to diffuse water pollution pressures. Phosphorus and sediment have been identified as the main diffuse water quality issue for the ecological health of the Mease SSSI/ SAC. Current annual mean Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) concentrations are more than double the water quality target for the Mease SSSI/ SAC at all monitoring locations and up to ten times higher than the water quality target at some monitoring locations. At a catchment scale, sources SRP are equally important from combined non-agricultural sources, including urban run-off and Sewage Treatment Works (STWs) discharges, and combined sources from arable and livestock agriculture. The main source of sediment is from agriculture; natural erosion is a minor source. Water quality monitoring, and therefore SSSI condition assessments and Water Framework Directive (WFD) status, results suggest that water quality problems are widespread throughout the catchment for SRP and sediment. However, the monitoring data has limited spatial and temporal coverage. It is possible that more targeted monitoring would support the more spatially varied pattern of risk identified by the modelling and characterisation data discussed below. Catchment management approaches have the potential to deliver significant improvements in SRP at a catchment scale, but FARMSCOPER modelling suggests improvements will not improve water quality sufficiently to achieve the water quality targets for the Mease SSSI/ SAC. Therefore, additional emphasis needs to be on the reduction of SRP from non-agricultural sources, most notably urban run-off, if conservation targets for SRP are likely to be met. It should be noted that the findings stated above originate from the SAGIS model used in this report. Some recommendations have been made within the report to improve understanding, particularly with regards to STW discharges to improve and review the SAGIS model for the Mease catchment. Measures to reduce SRP losses from point sources should be focused in the Gilwiskaw Brook sub- catchment, which suffers from the highest number of category 3 National Incident Reporting System (NIRS) pollution incidents. Typically these incidents represent quick wins in terms of improving water quality. Working with the Environment Agency local staff could reveal known sources of pollution incidents which could be targeted to improve water quality. The entire Mease catchment should be targeted for management of phosphorus pollution from agricultural sources. Areas where there is most potential for phosphorus management include areas where sediment management is taking place, as many mitigation methods for sediment co-benefit phosphorus management. Based on percentage reduction of phosphorus from catchment-wide pollutant loss modelling in FARMSCOPER, sub-catchments which had the greatest potential for catchment management of phosphorus pollution were: the lower River Mease (30.1% reduction estimated); Harlaston Brook (18.4 % reduction estimated); Gilwiskaw Brook (17.2 % reduction estimated); and upper River Mease (13.4 % reduction estimated).

8 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Mitigation measures which are particularly effective for the reduction of SRP include: not applying manufactured fertiliser to high-risk areas; using poultry litter additives; not applying manure to high-risk areas; not spreading slurry or poultry manure at high-risk times; and using slurry injection application techniques. Catchment management approaches can deliver significant improvements in sediment at a catchment scale. This could deliver catchment scale improvements in ecological status for ecological elements where sediment is the limiting factor. The following areas were identified in SCIMAP as having a high potential sediment erosion risk in the Mease catchment: (1) the upper Mease; (2) Harlaston Brook; (3) Chilcote Brook; and (4) Meadow Brook. It is important to note that while Harlaston Brook was a high risk sub- catchment for sediment loss according to SCIMAP, FARMSCOPER only predicts that modest reductions in sediment loss are possible. The reason for this is that the Harlaston Brook sub- catchment has drained soils and measures to reduce sediment loss in this type of catchment are less effective. Based on percentage reduction of sediment from catchment-wide pollutant loss modelling in FARMSCOPER, sub-catchments which had the greatest potential for catchment management of sediment pollution were: : the lower River Mease (26.7 % reduction estimated); Harlaston Brook (24.3 % reduction estimated); Gilwiskaw Brook (22.3 % reduction estimated); and the upper River Mease (14.9 % reduction estimated).. As FARMSCOPER does have limitations in estimating pollutant reductions, sub-catchments modelled in SCIMAP as having a high sediment source risk should be investigated and considered as potential priority target areas. Mitigation measures which are particularly effective for the reduction of sediment include: establishing cover crops in the autumn; early harvesting and establishment of crops in the autumn; adopting reduced cultivation systems; management of in field sediment ponds and traps; and under-sowing spring cereals. Targeting catchment management within priority sub-catchments has the potential to deliver quick wins for the local ecology and build confidence in the intervention strategy chosen. There are a number of sources of evidence which will allow this fine tuning of the spatial placement of measures within the sub-catchments chosen. Source apportionment monitoring, derived from sediment finger printing, suggests that grassland is the most risky landuse for sediment and SRP. The monitoring and finger printing evidence coupled with the landcover map, which shows that the grassland sector covers ~ 20% of the catchment, suggests that the most cost effective way to improve water quality is to target the grassland sector within the priority sub-catchments. Outdoor pigs, maize, potatoes and horticulture all represent potential high risk landuse for sediment loss. The detailed identification of where these landuses occur overlaid on the SCIMAP risk map could provide a strong engagement message for land managers and a powerful rational for walkover survey work to identify hotspots of pollution. Groundwater is another high value receptor within the catchment which provides an additional rational to target catchment management work to maximise benefits and therefore opportunities for co-funding. Measures which reduce nitrate losses as well as sediment and SRP could provide multiple benefits within the area covered by the Source Protection Zone (SPZ) to Chilcote groundwater abstraction which is owned by South Staffordshire Water. Risk modelling data from SCIMAP suggests that there are a group of high risk streams in the sub-catchments to the south of

9 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

the Mease (Chilcote Brook, Meadow Brook and the Mease source or Upper Mease). The aforementioned streams represent a great target area for intervention especially where they are coincident with high risk landuse, see above. Interventions in this area could provide modest benefits for potable water by reducing nitrate leaching from agriculture into the Chilcote SPZ. Walkover surveys have highlighted hotspots of pollution across the catchment; however, the evidence from this report will allow future walkovers to be spatially targeted where they have the greatest potential to identify existing or new hotspots of pollution. Large farms present excellent opportunities for cost effective engagement and improvement in water quality. The Rural Land Registry CLAD data indicates that there are some significant holdings in the priority sub-catchments. Intensive work with land managers of large holdings may provide opportunities to influence the uptake of measures over much wider areas than would be possible by engaging with smaller farms. There has been significant Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF) engagement within the catchment. It will be important to liaise with Catchment Sensitive Farming Officers (CSFOs) in the area to understand what improvements in water quality current and past advice has been targeted on. Evidence from CSF suggests that much of the effort has been expended on soil management. If improvements to sediment and SRP are to be prioritised then it will be important to build on current advice rather than duplicating it.

10 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Introduction RIVER MEASE SAC/ SSSI The River Mease and the lower part of Gilwiskaw Brook represent relatively un-modified clay lowland rivers that are designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the EU Habitats Directive, and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The River Mease SAC/ SSSI which is referred to in this report includes both the designated section of the River Mease and the lower section of Gilwiskaw Brook. SAC and SSSI designations were made because the River Mease represents one of the best examples of an unspoilt meandering lowland river, which supports characteristic habitats and species. The River Mease SSSI/ SAC supports populations of spined loach (Cobitis taenia), bullhead (Cottus gobio) white-clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes), otter (Lutra lutra) and a range of river plants such as water crow-foot (Ranunculus sp.), which is a UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) species. SACs and SPAs (Special Protection Areas notified for birds) are collectively known as Natura 2000 sites and are protected under EU Habitats Directive for their habitats and species. Under the Water Framework Directive, water dependent Natura 2000 sites are classed as Protected Areas and are required to meet conservation objectives by 2015. The Improvement Programme for England’s Natura 2000 Sites (IPENS) has identified the need to develop Diffuse Water Pollution Plans (DWPPs) on a site-by-site basis, where the Natura 2000 sites are failing to meet these objectives due to diffuse water pollution. DWPPs are also identified as a remedy for SSSIs where they are in unfavourable condition due to diffuse water pollution. DWPPs are live documents and should provide an integrated catchment based approach to identifying and tackling diffuse water pollution. To effectively inform the targeting of actions, drive implementation and assess effectiveness these documents need to be evidence-led and regularly updated. This report provides the basis to update and inform the DWPP plan for the River Mease SAC/ SSSI. The River Mease SAC/SSSI has been identified as failing to meet its water quality targets due, at least in part, to diffuse water pollution pressures. This report provides an evidence-led spatial analysis of pollution sources within the Mease catchment, and identifies a bespoke targeted intervention strategy for improving water quality. Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) and Suspended Soils (SS) have been identified as the main pollution pressures to the River Mease SAC/SSSI, thus forming the main focus for this report. Note on terminology: within this report Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) is used to represent dissolved phosphorus which predominantly consists of ortho-phosphate.

11 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

LOCAL CONTACTS Engagements and consultations over the production of this report have been with Natural England, local Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF) officer(s), Trent Rivers Trust and the Environment Agency. 1.1 Key contacts

Organisation Role Contact

SSSI Responsible Officer Sadie Hobson Natural England Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF) Officer Rob Gornall

Trent Rivers Trust Senior Project Officer Ruth Needham

Partnership and Strategic Overview Officer Sarah Mallett Environment Agency Biodiversity Officer Chris Farmer

Strategic Planning Analyst – Wastewater non- Severn Trent Water Mark Craig infrastructure

1.2 Purpose statement The purpose of this report is to provide analysis and interpretation of the evidence which can be used to identify the most effective measures and locations for targeting actions within the catchments to reduce the impact of water quality pressures, specifically from excess phosphorus and siltation, in the River Mease SAC/ SSSI. The SSSI units covered in this report includes all units for the River Mease, these are numbers 1 to 3 inclusive on the River Mease, and unit 4 on the lower section of Gilwiskaw Brook. The main focus of this report is on improving the condition of the identified site(s), where diffuse pollution is preventing favourable condition. Specifically to:  Identify and confirm causes of unfavourable condition in relation to water quality.  Collate the evidence and identify the sources of the identified water quality impacts.  Identify any further evidence or monitoring investigations that may be required.  Produce an intervention strategy to identify the most effective measures and locations for deployment of measures.  Engage and integrate with local contacts, including Catchment Based Approach (CaBA) hosts to capture their knowledge and work within the catchment and encourage long-term engagement in working together to help deliver the actions identified in the plans.  Increase the understanding of the issues and information that can be used to enable the effective targeting of actions’ In partnership with other regulatory and local stakeholders, Natural England will look to ensure implementation of the necessary actions in the catchment to achieve compliance with water quality targets and favourable condition status within the identified site(s) where feasible and where mechanisms exist.

12 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Methodology The scalable Pollution Risk Assessment approach adopted here has been tailored to the Mease catchment taking into consideration its size, the available data and pollution challenges upstream of identified sites. An examination of available information on catchment characteristics relating to potential pollution pressures provides a starting point for this assessment. The most recent water quality targets for the River Mease SAC/ SSSI were used along with the most recent available water quality monitoring data, to assess compliance to understand the water issues for the sites, the scale of the problem and therefore the scale of the reductions that would be required to achieve favourable condition. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) Good ecological Status (GES) classifications have been used to provide background information on pollution pressures and challenges. 1.3 Pollution risk assessment & source apportionment In order to develop tailored and targeted catchment management interventions, data and modelling outputs and existing evidence were used to provide an integrated spatial assessment of pollution risks at the catchment scale. The outputs were then used to diagnose possible causes for any degradation or failure to meet conservation targets within the identified site(s). 1.3.1 Pollution risk modelling There are a variety of approaches available to model land use and other human-derived pollution risks and estimate pollutant loads across the catchment. The main modelling approaches used in this report include; SCIMAP a fine sediment erosion risk tool and SAGIS a source apportionment model used to estimate the contribution of consented and un-consented sewage discharges, as well as SRP inputs from diffuse sources. PSYCHIC was also used to estimate Total Phosphorus (TP) loads delivered to receiving waters respectively. The outputs of risk assessment tools and models have been combined with additional spatial data and evidence to identify potentially high risk areas for targeted pollutants in each catchment or sub- catchment. 1.3.2 Existing evidence and water quality data review Having assessed pollution risk, a comprehensive review of historical and spatial evidence has been undertaken encompassing data collated from the Environment Agency and where available, a variety of additional 3rd party sources. The review of the monitored data / evidence will examine the observed / measured pollutant loads contributed by various sections of the catchment. 1.4 Intervention strategy development 1.4.1 Assessment of current mitigation measures in the catchment Before a full catchment management plan can be developed, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of what mitigation measures have already been put in place or are in the process of being implemented. The measures assessed include the presence of naturally occurring mitigation in the landscape, the protection of the landscape through the designation of protected areas, the uptake of Environmental Stewardship Schemes (ESS), interventions delivered through Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF), Forestry Commission English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS), and any other relevant environmental management work being done in the catchment.

13 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

1.4.2 Targeting delivery A ranking system based on weighted averages from water quality and SCIMAP modelling results was used to identify areas with the greatest sediment pollution risk to the identified site. SAGIS outputs used in this report were summarised to highlight priority catchments and point sources for management of phosphorus. The FARMSCOPER model was used to estimate potential pollution reductions in representative sub-catchments for areas identified as having a high pollution risk for sediment and phosphorus from agricultural sources. Any sub-catchments identified as having a high phosphorus pollution risk from point sources were highlighted and discussed. 1.4.3 Proposals for delivery of future intervention A detailed intervention strategy that will help to remediate the diffuse agricultural pollution problems found and mitigate part of the risk to the River Mease SAC/ SSSI is provided for the catchment. The intervention plan outlines which areas and activities represent the greatest pollution risk and what interventions would be required to mitigate those risks. Source apportionment outputs were used to identify areas where point source pollution may present a greater risk to the River Mease SAC/ SSSI. In addition, consideration was given to the capacity of the existing permits associated with existing Sewage Treatment Works (STWs) to accommodate potential future impacts of growth on the identified site(s). 1.5 Assessment of potential outcomes It is vital that sufficient evidence is collected to provide an objective and scientifically robust assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention strategy. The assessment of potential outcomes demonstrates the type of pollutant reductions which might be achievable. The FARMSCOPER decision support tool was used as a guide for pollutant load reductions which might be possible under different catchment management scenarios, along with secondary financial, ecological and social benefits. FARMSCOPER derived reductions were used in a SAGIS scenario test to provide estimates of maximum potential reductions in-channel SRP concentrations. 1.6 Limitations and suggestions for further research Any identified limitations and suggestions for further research and critical data and evidence gaps are detailed within the report.

14 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Catchment overview 1.7 Morphology & hydrology The River Mease catchment is included in the Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment. The area that drains into the River Mease provides the focus for this report. The wider management catchment is shown in Figure 1, as the Mease catchment is included in initiatives and plans which cover the wider Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment; specifically, River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs), (Catchment Abstraction Management Plans) CAMs, and the catchment partnership area hosted by Severn Trent Water. Figure 1: Morphology and hydrology of the Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment showing key hydrological features and the location of the River Mease watershed.

© Natural England [2014] reproduced with the permission of Natural England, http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/copyright/. © Crown Copyright and database right [2014]. Ordnance Survey licence number 100022021’.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

15 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 2: Map showing location of River Mease SAC/ SSSI.

© Crown Copyright and database right [2014]. Ordnance Survey licence number 100022021’. The River Mease flows through rolling lowland valleys and drains a total area of approximately 174 km2 (Figure 3). The source of the River Mease is formed by a number of small streams near the village of Norton-Juxta Twycross and meanders for approximately 25 km to its confluence with the River Trent near Croxall. The main tributaries to the north of the River Mease are the Gilwiskaw Brook in the (11.4 km), Saltersford Brook (9 km), Hooborough Brook (6 km), Seal Brook (4.2 km) and Pessall Brook (7.2 km). The main tributaries to the south of the Mease are Meadow Brook (2.2 km), Chilcote Brook (3.9 km) and Harlaston Brook (7.6 km). The catchment has a relatively low topography (130 m above sea level). The upper Mease drains the elevated Charnwood Area whilst the lower catchment is flatter. The Gilwiskaw Brook is steeper than the River Mease, which results in a slightly different character, in-channel features and vegetation, which adds to the diversity of the SSSI/ SAC (Jacobs, 2012). The hydrology of the River Mease is characterised by pronounced variations between low and high flows. The catchment receives an annual rainfall of around 650 mm and has a generally fast run-off response to rainfall owing to the presence of low-permeability clay rich soils (CEH, 2014). Base flows in the River Mease are provided by sandstone bedrock. Urban and road runoff, Sewage Treatment Works (STW) and discharges from industry also contribute to the flow regime. The hydrology is additionally influenced by rising mine water in the north of the catchment around Hooborough Brook (Jacobs, 2012). The main gauging station on the River Mease was located at Stones Bridge (NGR: SK 261 115), however, this was replaced in 2002 with a new gauging station at Clifton Hall on

16 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

the River Mease. The Clifton Hall flow gauging station on the River Mease calculates the average flow at around 3 m /s-1 (2002 - 2012) (excluding high peak flows which caused flooding in 2007). Figure 3: Morphology and hydrology of the River Mease catchment showing key hydrological features and the location of the River Mease SAC/ SSSI.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

© Environment Agency Figure 4 shows Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) designations within the Mease catchment. NVZs focus primarily on management of diffuse agricultural nitrate pollution, and are designated where land drains and contributes to the nitrate found in ‘polluted’ waters. Polluted waters include: surface or ground waters that contain at least 50 mg/l of nitrate; surface or ground waters that are likely to contain at least 50 mg/l nitrate if no action is taken; and waters which are eutrophic, or are likely to become eutrophic if no action is taken. The entire Mease catchment has been designated as a ‘Surface Water NVZ’. In addition, the upper region of the catchment has been identified as a groundwater NVZ. In addition, Figure 4 shows ‘Sensitive Areas’ identified under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD) within the Mease catchment. If discharges from qualifying STWs – which are those serving a population equivalent of greater than 10,000 - either directly or indirectly are found to cause (or may cause) eutrophication, or result in excess nitrate levels (i.e. >50 mg/l of nitrate) in drinking water supplies, the receiving water bodies are identified as sensitive, and a further level of treatment than secondary is required to protect these areas within seven years of the identification. An example of a typical tertiary treatment process is the modification of a conventional secondary treatment plant to remove additional phosphorus and nitrogen. Tertiary treatment technologies

17 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

can include: membrane filtration and separation, dechlorination and disinfection systems, reverse osmosis systems, ion exchange, activated carbon adsorption and physical/chemical treatment. More stringent tertiary treatment involves reducing the levels of nitrogen and/or phosphorus discharging from STWs (or WwTWs) to meet the standards set in the UWWTD. The entire River Mease SAC/ SSSI (including Gilwiskaw Brook) has been identified as eutrophic rivers. The UWWTD describes Eutrophication as ‘the enrichment of water by nutrients especially compounds of nitrogen and/or phosphorus, causing an accelerated growth of algae and higher forms of plant life to produce an undesirable disturbance to the balance of organisms present in the water and to the quality of the water concerned’.

Figure 4: Map showing surface water and groundwater Nitrate Sensitive Zone designations (NVZs) and Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD) sensitive areas in the Mease catchment.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

© Environment Agency Figure 5 shows Source Protection Zones (SPZs) within the Mease catchment. Groundwater abstraction points for Public Water Supply (PWS) are also shown. Groundwater SPZs have been designated where local groundwater is used in public drinking water supply and it is therefore essential to protect them from contamination originating from any activities that might cause pollution in the area; the closer the activity to the actual borehole the greater the risk. Groundwater SPZs are split into three categories or zones, divided as follows:  SPZ1 – Inner zone (RED)

18 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Defined as the 50 day travel time from any point below the water table to the source: designed to protect against the effects of human activity which might have an immediate effect upon the source.  SPZ2 - Outer zone (GREEN) Defined by a 400 day travel time from a point below the water table or at least 25% of the recharge catchment or 250 m: designed to provide protection against slowly degrading pollutants.  SPZ3 – Total catchment (PURPLE) Covers the complete catchment area of the groundwater source. In confined aquifers, the source catchment area may extend for some distance from the source. Around 30% of the Mease catchment has an SPZ designation. The main abstraction point for drinking water is located near Chilcote. South Staffordshire Water has a licence to abstract water from the Chilcote borehole to meet water supply demands in the southern parts of the district. South Staffordshire Water’s ‘Water Resources Plan’ for 2010-2035 sets out objectives to improve service, reduce leakage and improve resource development to meet future needs. The plan includes a 1 megalitre reduction in water abstraction on a borehole in Chilcote (in order to reduce abstractions within the Mease catchment to sustainable levels) (South Derbyshire District Council, 2014).

19 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 5: Map showing designated groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs) within the Mease catchment. Groundwater abstraction points for Public Water Supply are shown.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

© Environment Agency Figure 6 shows the dominant bedrock geology formations covering the Mease catchment. Bedrock geology in the Mease catchment predominantly comprises of sandstone and sandstone mixtures in the east of the catchment and mudstone in the west and south of the catchment. Mudstone is a generally impermeable fine-grained sedimentary rock consisting of a mixture of clay and silt-sized particles. Sandstone in the first and second terrace gravels have been described as a ‘minor aquifer’ which can be locally important where there are intergranular flow mechanisms and hydraulic continuity with watercourses. The sandstone bands in the catchment have been described as a ‘major aquifer’, owing to both intergranular and fracture flow.

20 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 6: Map showing dominant bedrock geology types within the Mease catchment.

British Geological Survey Data (BGS) copyright: ‘Derived from (50 km) scale BGS Digital Data under Licence 2006/072 British Geological Survey. © NERC’ © Natural England [2014] reproduced with the permission of Natural England, http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/copyright/. © Crown Copyright and database right [2014]. Ordnance Survey licence number 100022021’.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

© Environment Agency The dominant soil type in the Mease catchment (Figure 7), are slowly permeable clay-rich loam, which tends towards seasonal waterlogging, with occasional areas of sandier soils. The lower permeability soils are found around the headwater streams of the River Mease, the upper-reaches of Gilwiskaw Brook, and the lower-reaches of the River Mease. Clay-rich soils are highly cohesive and with a low erosion risk factor. However, the low porosity leads to waterlogging and high run-off rates draining to stream networks during peak rainfall. In addition, high flow periods can lead to bank scouring and bank erosion where large sections of compact clay-rich soils can fall into the river. Well drained stoney loam soils exist around the mid-reaches of the River Mease and the lower- reaches of Gilwiskaw Brook. The well drained soils in the Mease catchment have a slower rainfall runoff response compared with clay soils but they have a higher erosion risk factor; particularly sandy soils found around Measham, which present a risk of gullying.

21 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 7: Map showing dominant soil types within the Mease catchment. Soil types are described in terms of their predominant hydrological functions.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

1.8 Social & economic The Mease catchment lies within four county boundaries, including Derbyshire in the northwest, Leicestershire in the east, Staffordshire in the southwest, and a small portion of Warwickshire south of Chilcote. The human populations within the Mease catchment are dispersed around a number of small villages with populations of generally <1000 people. Areas of greatest population densities are focused around Ashby-de-la-Zouch (~ 12,370), Measham (~ 5,209), and Donisthorpe (~ 1,886) Appleby Magna (~ 962) (Figure 8). Ashby-de-la-Zouch, a small market town formed around upper Gilwiskaw Brook, has the largest population in the catchment, which grew by 0.82% per year between 2001 and 2011 (ONS Census, 2011). Industry in the catchment is characterised by extensive areas of arable cultivation, local expansion of residential areas and retail and industrial developments. A large portion of the land to the north and west of Ashby-de-la-Zouch was historically quarried and mined for coal, limestone, granite and brick clay. A number of major roads run across or alongside rivers within the catchment, the largest and most heavily used being the M42 motorway near Appleby Magna, the A444 which crosses the River

22 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Mease east of Netherseal, and the A42 which crosses the River Mease west of Measham. The A42 is believed to add a considerable amount to the flow to the River Mease (Jacobs, 2012). Figure 8: Map illustrating population density hotspots, key infrastructure and county boundaries in the Mease catchment.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

1.9 Farming & land use Figure 9 shows land use in the Mease catchment from the 2007 Landcover Map (LCM) (CEH, 2007). Arable and horticultural was shown to be the dominant landuse type, covering around 62.3 % of the catchment; followed by improved grassland covering around 20.8 %; urban (~ 6.3 %) and rough low- productivity grassland (~ 4.2 %). The areas classified as despoiled land north and south of Moira are likely to represent historic mining sites and quarries. The 2007 data shows that woodland was sparse and that tree cover was generally confined to copses and spinneys on the clay ridges and occasional groups of trees on stream sides. The woodlands were mainly deciduous, and hedgerow trees were often mature ash and oak. Willow and alder were frequently found along the streams and next to field ponds, but the main river courses were very open (NE, 2013). It should be noted that woodland cover has increased considerably north of the River Mease since 2007 due to National Forest planting schemes.

23 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 9: Map showing landcover classifications for the Mease catchment. Minimum mapped area: 0.5 ha. Arable broadly includes both arable and horticultural land (CEH, 2007).

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

The Rural Land Register data in Figure 10 indicates that there were around 170 farms (>10 Ha) covering around 78 % of the Mease catchment (CLAD RLA, 2014). There were around 80 farms in the catchment which covered over 50 Ha. Farm holding sizes ranged from 10 to around 437 Ha, with the average farm size being around 134 Ha for farms over 50 Ha in size. Around 16 of the farm holdings covered over 200 Ha. Most of the larger farms (230 – 437 Ha) were focused around the River Mease and Gilwiskaw Brook.

24 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 10: Map providing an overview of farm coverage and farm sizes in the Mease catchment, using 2014 Rural Land Registry data.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

Figure 11 shows a snapshot comparison of the relative intensity of selected farming practices using Agricultural Census returns data from the years 2000 and 2010. Farming and land use practices represented here are those which are considered to have the greatest potential impact upon nutrient and sediment pollution supply and transport within the Mease catchment. Whist all of the selected practices can act as sources of diffuse nutrient and sediment pollution: maize farming practices pose a particular risk for sediment pollution and cattle can pose a particular risk for phosphorus pollution. Overall the agricultural census data shows that arable, pasture and livestock farming practices were focused around the south and west of the catchment; this is likely to be due to less intensive farming on steeper ground and heavier clays northeast of the River Mease. The data in Figure 11 also indicate that, the total coverage of maize cropping practices increased by around 117 Ha between 2000 and 2010, with additional coverage mainly focused to the south of the River Mease and in a hotspot near Overseal. Hotspots for maize cropping were shown to exist in the southwest of the catchment near the source of the River Mease and near the source of the Pessall Brook near Overseal. Temporary grassland cover was shown to have increased by 1,253 Ha between 2000 and 2010.

25 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

In 2010, cattle and sheep numbers had decreased by around 2,908 and 4,701 respectively. The decreases in livestock practices are likely to have resulted from widespread trends in the area which include the consolidation of farm holdings and the conversion of permanent pasture to arable land use. It was noted during stakeholder engagements that sheep numbers had increased again since 2010. Agricultural change in the Mease catchment has also included the decline in hedgerows, with removal and frequent trimming of hedges in the more commercially farmed areas and the consequential loss of hedgerow trees (NE, 2013).

26 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 11: Continued next page. Map series showing the relative intensity of selected agricultural land use in 2000 and 2010, as derived from Agricultural Census data at 2 km grid resolution.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

27 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 11: …continued. Map series showing the relative intensity of selected agricultural land use in 2000 and 2010, as derived from Agricultural Census data at 2 km grid resolution.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

28 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Catchment classifications and challenges Two status classifications relating to pollution pressures in the Mease catchment include SSSI condition assessments and the WFD status. While Natural England are responsible for monitoring SSSI and SAC conditions, the Environment Agency carry-out water quality monitoring for statutory and water management purposes. Brief descriptions of SSSI and WFD assessment methods, standards and targets are provided below, followed by information on the current status of both the River Mease SSSI units and cycle 2 WFD waterbodies within the catchment. It should be noted that the SSSI condition assessment and WFD objectives do not include Suspended Solid (SS) concentration targets or objectives. The main reason for this is that SS concentrations occur in naturally wide ranges within and across different rivers systems. However the SSSI Common Standard Monitoring (CSM) guidance does include an objective for siltation – ‘no unnaturally high levels of siltation’, which should be assessed using field observations and site specific information derived from river habitat surveys. Therefore, a more realistic method for identifying sediment pressures is to use local knowledge and evidence from local research. Sediment pollution has been identified as an important water quality driver for the River Mease SAC/ SSSI in areas where field observations exist. Existing field observation evidence for the River Mease SAC/ SSSI include: Natural England condition assessments carried-out in 2010; a sediment fingerprinting study (ADAS, 2012); and a sediment tracing project (APEM, 2014), the findings from which are summarised later in this report. Despite existing evidence, the literature search for this report has highlighted the need for comprehensive evidence of sediment issues within River Mease. In this report, a full risk assessment of sediment pollution is provided for the whole catchment to identify any potentially high risk areas to support current and future work to mitigate sediment pollution risk. 1.10 River Mease SSSI classifications Favourable condition targets must be met in order for SSSI units to be classed as being in ‘favourable condition’. The method for assessing SSSIs includes methods and measures, such as, River Habitat Surveys (RHS), water quality monitoring, and calculation of biological indexes. Condition assessments use Environment Agency monitoring data covering the three most recent consecutive years to evaluate water quality and biological indices. The results of the condition assessment, in particular, the status of protected habitats and species, are then used to define a condition for the site/ unit (JNCC, 2014). The entire River Mease SSSI was classified as ‘unfavourable no change’ in the most recent condition assessment which took place in 2010. ‘Unfavourable no change’ means that: ‘the unit/feature is not being conserved and will not reach favourable condition unless there are changes to the site management or external pressures and this is reflected in the results of monitoring over time, with at least one of the mandatory attributes not meeting its target with the results not moving towards the desired state. The longer the SSSI unit remains in this poor condition, the more difficult it will be, in general, to achieve recovery. At least one of the designated feature(s) mandatory attributes and targets are not being met (JNCC, 2014)’. The main reasons for the unfavorable condition in the River Mease SSSI were attributed to: drainage, inappropriate weirs dams and other structures, invasive freshwater species, siltation, water abstraction, and water pollution from agriculture/run off and discharges (NE, 2010).

29 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

In this report, a water quality condition assessment was carried-out for the River Mease SAC/ SSSI using statutory Environment Agency monitoring data from 2011 – 2013. All parameters, except for SRP were evaluated using combined data over three years as set out in the CSM guidance (2014). Instead, the average for SRP was provided for each year to allow for comparison over the years. SRP was the only parameter with variable targets across the SSSI units (0.05 mg/l in units 1 to 3 on the River Mease and 0.04 mg/l on unit 4 on the lower Gilwiskaw Brook). Figure 12 shows the condition assessment results for the River Mease SAC/ SSSI. Table 1 details the descriptive statistics and targets used in the water quality condition assessment. The condition assessment highlights SRP as the main water quality driver for the River Mease SAC/ SSSI during the period 2011 - 2013. SRP concentrations were found to be non-compliant at all monitoring sites in all years where data was available. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) was also found to be non-compliant at 4 out of 5 monitoring sites. Furthermore, Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) was found to be non-compliant across all 4 monitoring sites where data was available. Low DO concentrations and high BOD can result from eutrophication in systems with excess nutrient concentrations. Total ammonia and un-ionised ammonia concentrations were found to be compliant at all sites where monitoring data was available.

30 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 12: Water quality Condition Assessment for the River Mease SAC/ SSSI. The assessment was produced using Common Standards Monitoring (CSM) guidance the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC, 2014). SSSI units for the River Mease SAC/ SSSI are shown. Assessments were made using Environment Agency statutory monitoring data for European Union directives from 2011 – 2013 inclusive. Assessments were only made for sites with adequate sampling frequency, references for each sample point are provided. Descriptive statistics for each site are detailed in Table 1.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™ © Environment Agency

31 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Table 1: Descriptive statistics and water quality targets used for the River Mease SAC/ SSSI water quality Condition Assessment shown in Figure 12. Assessments were made using Environment Agency statutory monitoring data for European Union directives from 2011 – 2013 inclusive. Statistic calculations conform to those set out in Common Standards Monitoring (CSM) guidance the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC 2014) (except for SRP, see previous text). Values highlighted in green were compliant with the target; those highlighted in red were non-compliant.

SITE NUMBER

CHEMICAL PARAMETER STATISTIC TARGET 1 2 3 4 5 CONCENTRATION

th Un-ionised Ammonia (mg/l) 95 percentile 0.003 - - 0.005 0.006 0.021 2011 – 2013 (*2013 only) n 37 - - 12* 8*

th Total Ammonia (mg/l) 90 percentile 0.19 0.14 0.13 0.22 0.14 0.25 2011 – 2013 (*2013 only) n 37 18 18 12* 20

th DO % saturation 10 percentile 79 68 83 72 89 >85 2011 – 2013 (*2013 only) n 37 18 18 12* 20

BOD (mg/l) Mean 1.51 1.76 1.76 - 2.38 1.5 2011 - 2013 n 19 18 18 - 18

YEAR 0.05 0.04

2011 0.51 0.53 0.19 - 0.16 SRP (mg/l) Annual mean 2012 0.20 0.18 0.13 - 0.17

2013 0.24 0.14 0.16 0.20 0.27

Abbreviations: DO: Dissolved Oxygen; BOD: Biological Oxygen Demand. 1.11 WFD classifications The status of cycle 2 waterbodies within the Mease catchment, detailed in this section, provide information relating to the issues of physical, chemical and biological pressures in meeting Good Ecological Status (GES). It should be noted however that, whilst WFD waterbody monitoring data and classifications can provide some insight into pollution issues, the low sampling resolution rarely allows for identification of high risk areas and provision of targeted interventions. For instance, many waterbodies only have one monitoring location, which may not always capture changes in water quality as pollution loads are added, diluted, sequestered and transformed via natural processes. In additional water quality targets for WFD GES can differ and in many cases can be less stringent than the targets for the Natura 2000 Protected Areas and/or SSSIs, therefore the WFD GES classifications are included in this section are presented as contextual information. Figure 13 shows the WFD classification ‘health report card’ for the Mease catchment. In contrast to the SSSI condition assessment in Figure 12 the ‘health report card’ does not highlight SRP as a significant pressure or reason for failure across all sites, namely Hooborough Brook where SRP (or ortho-P) is shown as ‘good’. The discrepancy is likely to be due to differences in assessment methods, missing data and less stringent targets for SRP to achieve WFD GES at the time of classification. However, most sites within both catchments were classified as having’ moderate’ or ‘poor’ overall and ecological status, highlighting the need for further investigation and management.

32 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 13: Water Framework Directive (WFD) ‘health report card’ showing 2013 surface water classification for cycle 2 surface waterbodies in the River Mease. © Environment Agency Natural England for © Cro © Natural England [2014 wn Copyright and database right [2014]. Ordnance Survey licence number 100022021’. PGA, through Next Perspectiv

] reproduced with the permission of Natural England, http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/copyright/. es™

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Pollution risk assessment & source apportionment Having evaluated compliance with SSSI water quality targets and waterbody WFD classifications along with consideration of the issues highlighted in existing literature, sediment and phosphorus were found to present significant water quality pressures to the River Mease SAC/ SSSI. In this section an integrated assessment of both observed (monitored) and derived (modelled) data were used to identify potential sources of sediment and phosphorus to the River Mease SAC/ SSSI, and their relative contribution to the in-channel concentrations and loads received by the identified site(s). This desk-based assessment is undertaken in accordance with the ‘source-pathway-receptor’ principle of pollution (Figure 14).

Figure 14: Pollution source, pathway receptor principle which has been used to assess pollution risk in the Mease catchment.

1.12 Suspended solids Numerous methods have been developed to identify the sources of sediment and the dynamics of sediment transport in rivers. Overall these studies reveal that the sediment load in rivers is primarily derived from point or diffuse sources in three principal locations, these are: (1) material from the river channel and banks, (2) soil and other organic material from the surface of surrounding land, and (3) particulate material from anthropogenic sources such as roads, industry and urban areas. In the following sections SCIMAP sediment erosion risk model outputs, sediment fingerprinting data and water quality monitoring data are used to identify high risk areas and apportion sediment pollution within the Mease catchment. 1.12.1 Fine sediment risk analysis In addition to the mobilisation of sediment and other suspended material from within the riparian corridor, fine sediment can be mobilised from land-surface sources by overland flow. Potential sources can be identified through field surveys, but to get an initial catchment-wide assessment of the risk, a spatial modelling approach can be used to assess the fine sediment erosion and mobilisation risk across the catchment.

A catchment scale assessment of erosion risk is beneficial in helping to target and tailor both further monitoring, advice and catchment management interventions.

The SCIMAP fine sediment risk model, developed through a collaborative project between Durham and Lancaster Universities (Reaney, 2006) was used to carry-out a catchment scale assessment of erosion risk for the Mease catchment. The development of the SCIMAP risk modelling framework was also supported by the UK Natural Environment Research Council, the Eden Rivers Trust, the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency. SCIMAP provides an indication of where sediment erosion risk occurs in the catchment by: (1) identifying locations where, due to land-use, sediment is available for mobilisation (pollutant source mapping) (the 2007 CEH landcover map was used for SCIMAP outputs presented in this report); and (2) combining landcover information with a map of hydrological connectivity (likelihood of fine 33

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

sediment, and associated pollutants mobilisation and transfer). There are three mapped outputs from SCIMAP, these are: 1. Fine sediment erosion risk maps – which map the relative risk of potential for sediment mobilisation and likely delivery to a watercourse from that area of land. In this report, the fine sediment erosion risk maps are symbolised to show the highest 50% of sediment erosion risk derived for each catchment. 2. In-channel SS concentration risk maps – which map the relative risk that the sediment delivery is going to create significant uplift in SS concentrations in the watercourse. The derived in-channel SS concentration risk is shown as quintiles, with the red points representing the highest 20% of risk within the catchment. 3. Hydrological connectivity maps – which map the hydrological connectivity based on the analysis of the potential pattern of rainfall, topography, soil moisture and saturation across a landscape. For each point in the landscape, the probability of continuous flow to the river channel network is assessed. Network flow mapping is achieved through the spatial prediction of soil moisture and hence the susceptibility of each point in the landscape to generate saturation excess overland flow. It should be noted that the erosion risk and in-channel SS concentration risk maps are an indication of the potential underlying risk based on the landuse type and hydrological connectivity, as the model does not take account of the management measures and practices. In practice on the ground the modelled risk can be increased or lessened by the way the land is actually being managed. For example, a presence of a buffer strip in a high risk location may reduce connectivity and therefore reduce the sediment erosion risk. In this report, the Mease catchment was analysed with a 10 m digital elevation model (DEM) resolution, with zoomed 5 m DEM resolution analyses of areas identified as having a particularly high potential for fine sediment erosion risk (Figure 18). The hydrological connectivity map resulting from this analysis is shown in Figures 15, whilst the resulting fine sediment erosion risk and estimated in-channel SS concentration maps are shown in Figures 16 and 17 respectively. The output from SCIMAP the Mease catchment highlights the widespread potential for fine sediment erosion risk. There were a number of small streams which could act as pathways for fine sediment mobilisation to the Mease SAC/ SSSI river system. Fine sediment run-off risk was found to be widely spread in the Mease catchment, with distinct localised areas of high risk focused around the River Mease, south of the River Mease and east of Gilwiskaw Brook. As highlighted in Figure 17, the south of the catchment was modelled as having a much greater risk resulting from a combination of increased hydrological connectivity and greater arable and horticultural land use coverage in the 2007 CEH landcover map. In reality the in-channel fine sediment concentration risk is likely to be even lower than modelled for the Saltersford Brook, downstream of Willesley Lake. The lake acts as a sediment trap the effects of which are not captured within the SCIMAP modelling framework. In the Saltersford Brook part of the catchment agriculture is also fairly well set back from the watercourse further reducing risk in this area. Based on local knowledge of the catchment the areas of expected highest sediment pollution risk were in the Upper Mease and also to the east and north of Ashby-de-la-Zouch where steep slopes combine with arable farming leading to erosion issues. Higher resolution maps of areas known or expected to have high sediment erosion risk are provided in Figure 18.

34 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

An additional point to note is that the SCIMAP outputs have not highlighted the area around Measham as having a particularly high sediment erosion risk. However, the presence of sandy soil types around Measham, as shown in Figure 7 presents a potential for sediment erosion risk. The aforementioned point highlights a potential limitation of the SCIMAP framework where soils data is not included in the sediment risk analysis. Despite this, SCIMAP can still be effectively used to identify local areas with a high potential for sediment erosion risk within the sediment erosion risk maps. However, it is important that factors such as soil type (and discrepancies in input land cover data) are considered and that where possible, the SCIMAP derived outputs are validated with local data and evidence.

Figure 15: Map showing the surface flow index model derived from rainfall (5 km) and topographic (10 m Digital Elevation Model (DEM)) data in the SCIMAP modelling framework, covering the Mease catchment. The surface flow index model shows modelled flow pathways and hydrological connectivity, based on input topography and rainfall data. Results are relative to the modelled catchment area.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™ © Environment Agency

35 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 16: Map showing fine sediment erosion risk for the Mease catchment. The output was derived using the SCIMAP modelling approach. Input data: 5 km rainfall data; 10 m Digital Elevation Model (DEM); and landcover 2007 map (LCM). The top 50% of erosion risk is shown. The fine sediment erosion risk map shows area which have been modelled as being a potential source of fine sediment to receiving waters. Results are relative to the modelled catchment area.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™ © Environment Agency

36 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 17: Map showing estimated in-channel suspended solid (SS) concentration risk for channel flow pathways in the Mease catchment. The output was derived from the erosion risk map in Figure 16 produced using the SCIMAP modelling framework. Results are relative to the modelled catchment area.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™ © Environment Agency

The drivers for high fine sediment erosion risk and runoff in the zoomed areas in Figure 18 are summarised below: A - Increased connectivity and arable land use. B - Increased connectivity and arable land use. C - Increased connectivity and arable land use. D - Increased connectivity, arable land use and steep slopes to the south of the catchment. E - Increased connectivity, arable land use and steep slopes to the northeast of the catchment.

37 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 18: Continued next page. Map showing zoomed fine sediment erosion risk for selected areas identified as having a potential sediment source risk in the Mease catchment. Zoomed areas have been modelled to a higher resolution, with 5 m Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data. A landcover (LCM, 2007) map has been added to zoomed maps. The fine sediment erosion risk map shows area which have been modelled as being a potential source of fine sediment to receiving waters.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™ © Environment Agency

38 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 18: …continued. Map showing zoomed fine sediment erosion risk for selected areas identified as having a potential sediment source risk in the Mease catchment. Zoomed areas have been modelled to a higher resolution, with 5 m Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data. A landcover (LCM, 2007) map has been added to zoomed maps. The fine sediment erosion risk map shows area which have been modelled as being a potential source of fine sediment to receiving waters.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™ © Environment Agency

39 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

1.12.2 Sediment source apportionment The chemical composition of sediment samples can be analysed to identify their sources. Methods which apportion sediment sources based on characteristic signatures are often referred to as sediment fingerprinting studies. A reconnaissance and second phase sediment fingerprinting studies were carried out by ADAS during the summer in 2012 and APEM during winter in 2014 (Figures 19 and 20 respectively). Both studies provide snapshots of in-channel sediment apportionment from selected source types for sediments in the Mease catchment during the study time periods. In the 2012 reconnaissance study, a total of seven individual tributary sub-catchments were identified as the major spatial sediment sources. The spatial sources were the Upper Mease main stem, Gilwiskaw Brook, Hooborough Brook, Chilcote Brook, Seal Brook, Harlaston Brook and Pessall Brook. The fine-grained sediment sourcing exercise apportioned the relative inputs from areas of the River Mease catchment with the characteristics of the spatial source tributaries to the overall outlet selected for the study at Croxall. The spatial units were taken as being representative of terrain types across the River Mease and representative of those areas not strictly covered by the sampling strategy deployed by reconnaissance survey. A total of eight primary potential sediment source types were identified and included in the representative source material sampling exercise. Sediment finger printing was conducted in the two most important tributary sub-catchment spatial units or terrain types identified by the spatial sourcing exercise; these were the Harlaston Brook and the Upper Mease main stem. The 2014 study followed and similar sediment fingerprinting methodology to that used by ADAS in 2012, providing complimentary sediment source apportionment data for additional sites along the River Mease and its tributaries. The 2012 and 2014 sediment fingerprinting studies also provided analyses of particulate phosphorus sources and phosphorus bioavailability respectively, in the Mease catchment. The findings for phosphorus are summarised late in this report. The Upper Mease, Harlaston Brook and Hooborough Brook were indicated as the main sources of sediment loads to the River Mease outlet at Croxall in the 2012 study (Figure 19). The sediment source apportionment results for both Harlaston Brook and the Upper Mease are as follows: Upper Mease - in order of percentage contribution: grassland surface soils (25 %) > arable surface soils (22 %) > farm track surfaces (17 %) > agricultural field drains (12 %) > damaged road verges / urban street dust (8 %) > channel banks/subsurface sources (6 %) > and reclaimed mine spoil (2 %). Harlaston Brook - grassland surface soils (41 %) > farm track surfaces (20 %) > agricultural field drains (1 4%) > urban street dust (11 %) > damaged road verges (6 %) > arable surface soils (5 %) > and channel banks/subsurface sources (3 %). Grassland surface soils were indicated as the main fine-grained sediment source in both the Upper Mease and Harlaston Brook, with farm tracks and arable field drains also indicated as important sources in both sub-catchments. Arable surface soils were found to be more important in the Upper Mease along with reclaimed mine spoil, which was not found to be present in the Harlaston Brook.

40 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 19: Map showing sediment load and source apportionment fingerprinting results (ADAS, 2012). The study measured and compared sediment loads (30 samples/ site) at 7 sites, located on the exit point of tributaries to the main River Mease channel. A sediment fingerprinting methodology was used to provide source apportionment for the two sites (Upper Mease and Harlaston Brook) which were found to provide the greatest loads to the River Mease in the study.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

© Environment Agency Key findings from the second phase 2014 study (Figure 20) are summarised below: The amount of silt stored on the channel bed in the Mease tributaries was high compared to other measured systems. Geochemical sediment fingerprinting results for the stored bed material showed similar patterns to those observed in the 2012 study, implying, in the context of Fallout radionuclides (FRN) data, a long residence time for sediment. It was difficult for the sediment fingerprint to distinguish channel banks in the Mease system. It was therefore believed that cultivated inputs were being underestimated by the fingerprinting. The key information that was provided by the geochemical sediment fingerprints was the importance of roads as a conveyance pathway via eroded soil washing through gateways; this was also identified in the first phase of work in 2012. Winter-sampled suspended sediment FRN data suggest that sediment in transit during the wet period of 2014 was recently mobilised from cultivated catchment surface soils and that this material was conveyed rapidly to the main Mease channel with a signal which apportioned it to the very uppermost surface of the soil.

41 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 20: Map showing results from a complimentary study to continue investigations shown in Figure 19 (APEM, 2014). This study provided additional sediment fingerprinting source apportionment results for the tributaries to the River Mease, and along the River Mease.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

In separate studies, some of the main roads in the Mease catchment, particularly the A42, have been highlighted to pose sediment pollution risks to the Mease river system. A study is currently been undertaken on behalf of Natural England to investigate the issue and provide a road risk prioritisation which can be used to guide better management and mitigation of runoff. 1.12.3 River corridor & landscape sediment risk assessments Fine sediment pollution in rivers can be derived from natural geomorphological processes, such as bank and channel erosion, and through erosion of the soil and materials from the land surface during run-off events. The aforementioned inputs can be significantly increased if river banks and channels become damaged or excessively disturbed due to the actions of livestock given unrestricted access to the watercourse or if soil condition is degraded due to the farming practices being undertaken upon it. Walkover surveys can provide detailed fine scale information about sediment source areas. In 2013, APEM carried-out wet weather sediment tracing walkover surveys aimed at identifying actual and potential sources of sediments in to the Mease river system.

42 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

In the walkover survey findings, presented in Figure 21, a large number of sources or potential sources of sediment pollution were identified along all surveyed rivers. Most sites were recorded as being either localised or potential sources with only 4 major sources identified. Most of the grade 2 (significant) and grade 3 (localised) sources were focused around the headwaters of tributaries of the River Mease. It was noted from comparison of the mapped SCIMAP outputs with the walkover survey data that there does indeed appear to be a correlation between areas of modelled risk and pollution hot spots – particularly with the Tier 4 category pollution incidents (Tier 4 = risky practices found but no runoff observed during survey). However, this may be because a number of the sites identified as potential sources in the walkover were from the presence of field drain pipes which may act as sediment conduits to the channel (APEM, 2013).

Figure 21: Map showing observations from a sediment tracing walkover survey, which aimed at identifying sources of potential sources of sediment pollution to river channels in the Mease catchment (APEM, 2013).

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

1.12.4 Water quality sediment analysis Having identified where the greatest fine sediment erosion risk may be present in the Mease catchment, water quality monitoring data collected at strategic locations in the catchment were used to attempt to identify areas which were contributing the greatest amount of in-stream SSs.

43 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

The boxplot in Figure 22 shows the spatial variations in SS concentrations recorded by the Environment Agency between 2010 and 2013. Where sampling data was available, samples were taken at the outflow of sub-catchments with a monthly sampling frequency. Due to large diffuse pollution source areas and low sampling resolution in the water quality data, it was not possible to use the monitoring data to identify specific sources of sediment within sub-catchments. However, the monitoring data can be used to validate SCIMAP derived erosion risk maps and to identify sub- catchments which may be acting as significant sources of SS to the identified sites. The boxplots in Figure 22 indicate that the Mease at Measham and Gilwiskaw Brook had the greatest ranges and peak SS concentrations compared to the downstream sites. The larger ranges and peak concentrations in the upstream section of the Mease catchment may be due to the steeper slopes in the northeast of the catchment, and flashy runoff responses transporting more sediment to the river channel during peak rainfall. The sandy soil type which is prone to gullying, creating a conduit for SS, are dominant around Measham, and may also impact upon in-stream SS concentrations at monitoring site 3. The highest SS concentration average was observed at monitoring site 2, indicating additional sediment sources between monitoring site 3 and site 2. Higher concentrations at monitoring sites 2 and 3 may be related to the increased potential for fine sediment erosion and runoff in the south of the catchment and around the Mease source. Monitoring site 1 on the Mease at Croxall had the smallest mean and range in SS concentrations, possibly due to sediment settling out in the lower reaches of the River Mease where the river widens and has a less flashy rainfall runoff response. The SS monitoring data for the Mease catchment was both temporally and spatially limited making it difficult to use the data beyond gaining a coarse indication of SS concentrations and ranges at some key points. No SS data existed on many of the tributaries of the Mease catchment. In addition, the monthly sampling resolution does not capture the day to day and seasonal variability in SS concentrations throughout the year.

44 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 22: Boxplots showing variability in Suspended Solid (SS) concentrations (mg/l) in the River Mease catchment, using statutory Water Framework Directive (WFD) monitoring data from 2010 – 2013 inclusive (source: Environment Agency). Samples were taken at a frequency of around one per month. Sample numbers, locations and sub-catchments (WFD cycle 2, surface water) are shown on the inset map. Boxplots are coloured according to sub-catchment location of sampling point. Monitoring site names are shown on the x axis.

45 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

1.13 Phosphorus There are two principal measures of phosphorus in water: SRP (known as soluble reactive phosphorus, which is largely the same as and has historically been used inter-changeably with ortho-phosphate by the Environment Agency) and Total Phosphorus (TP). The soluble reactive form (SRP) is regarded as being biologically available and is the limiting nutrient that facilitates the growth of algae. The insoluble fraction of TP is often associated with sediment in the water and is often ignored, but it can rapidly become biologically active through decomposition or solubilisation and as such TP is the better or more complete measure of phosphorus load in rivers. There are five principal sources of phosphorus compounds in a river catchment: (1) agricultural sources (diffuse and point); (2) consented point sources (e.g. STWs); (3) other diffuse anthropogenic sources (e.g. septic tanks, urban run-off etc.); (4) SRP release from historic build-up in sediments; and (5) groundwater sources, although relatively little is known about the latter two sources, in the Mease catchment. The potential for phosphorus sources to generate nutrient pollution in the catchment are described in the following sections. 1.13.1 Phosphorus risk analysis The Phosphorus and Sediment Yield CHaracterisation In Catchments (PSYCHIC) model can be used to assess the distribution of phosphorus pollution risk across the catchments. PSYCHIC was developed by a consortium of academic and government organisations led by ADAS (Davison et al., 2008). PSYCHIC is a process-based model of phosphorus and suspended sediment mobilisation in land runoff and subsequent delivery to watercourses. Modelled transfer pathways include release of desirable soil phosphorus, detachment of sediment and associated particulate phosphorus, incidental losses from manure and fertiliser applications, losses from hard standings, the transport of all the above to watercourses in under-drainage (where present) and via surface pathways. The PSYCHIC model can be used at two spatial scales: the catchment scale, where it uses easily available national scale datasets to infer all necessary input data, and at the field scale, where the user is required to supply all necessary data. The model is sensitive to a number of crop and animal husbandry decisions, as well as to environmental factors such as soil type and field slope angle. The catchment-scale model, output which is used here, is designed to provide the first tier of a catchment characterisation study, and is intended to be used as a screening tool to identify areas within the catchment which may be at elevated risk of phosphorus loss. The PSYCHIC output in Figure 23 serves as an illustration rather than a tool in this report, as the data is from 2004.

46 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 23: Total Phosphorus (TP) baseline load risk map for the Mease catchment, derived from the PSYCHIC phosphorus risk model, 2004.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

1.13.2 Diffuse and point agricultural sources When manure, slurry or chemical phosphorus-containing fertiliser are applied to land prior to or following rainfall they can run-off into a watercourse. Intensive farming on heavy soils or the absence of cover crops during wet periods increases the likelihood of fine sediment and associated phosphorus mobilisation and transfer. The intensive farming practices undertaken across the Mease catchment result in a potential risk of phosphorus transfer to receiving waters. The land use data shown previously indicate that there are significant areas of improved/temporary grassland and arable production throughout the catchment which present a potential source risk. Point sources of nutrient pollution from agricultural sources include feeding areas and gateways locations; farm infrastructures designed to store and manage animal waste and other materials such as animal feed. Key infrastructure includes dung heaps, slurry and solid manure stores, silage clamps and effluent tanks, uncovered yards, feeding troughs and gateways. Animal access points to the watercourse lead to the direct delivery of phosphorus compounds to the water and to their mobilisation.

47 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

1.13.3 Consented & unconsented discharges Treated sewage effluent presents another significant source of readily bioavailable phosphorus delivered directly to the receiving water via an end-of-pipe discharge. The principal sources of SRP in sewage are human faeces, urine, food waste, detergents and industrial effluent which enter the sewer system and are conveyed to STWs. Typical water company STWs remove 15-40% of the phosphorus compounds present in raw sewage. Advanced/ tertiary treatment, usually in the form of chemical dosing with a precipitant (e.g. Iron or Aluminium Sulphate), can remove up to 95% of phosphorus compounds. In rural areas with a relatively small and dispersed population there are many smaller private sewage discharges (package treatment plants or septic tanks). Both in isolation and combined these can make a significant contribution to in river phosphorus loads and concentrations, both locally and to the overall catchment budget. As private sewage discharges are continuous, the relative contribution from these sources tends to increase during base/ low flow periods as a result of a lower dilution ratio. Consented sewage discharges have an environmental permit or discharge consent associated with them and many of these will contain numerical limits for SRP. However, there are still many small private package treatment plants and septic tanks which are not registered or consented and therefore do not have a numerical discharge limit. There is growing evidence suggesting that small domestic discharges (SDDs), in practice mainly septic tank systems, may pose a significant environmental risk to freshwater habitats in certain situations and under certain conditions (NE, 2014). Natural England recently carried out a desk study with the aim of developing a general methodology that could be used to estimate the number and location SDDs within the catchment of freshwater SSSIs and assess their relative likelihood (low, moderate, high) of causing phosphorus pollution. Level of risk was based on literature based value ranges: (1) distance to watercourse; (2) winter water table height; (3) soil percolation rate; and (4) slope. The Mease catchment was one of those included in the study, the outputs of which have been made available for this report. Figure 24 shows the output map for the Mease catchment, with unsewered addresses and risk zones. The main findings from the NE report were that 76 % of the Mease catchment was found to be low risk in terms of the location of SDDs, 8 % was found to be moderate risk and 17 % was found to be high risk. There were a total of 17,572 properties were located in the Mease catchment, of these, 15,602 properties were in sewered areas but at least 1,970 properties were likely to be unsewered with 184 properties in areas of high risk, 117 properties in areas of medium risk and 1669 properties in areas of low risk. The average density of SDDs across the catchment was estimated to be about 11.8 km2. Most of the likely unsewered properties, based in ‘high risk’ areas were focused around Measham and Netherseal just to the north of the River Mease.

48 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 24: Map from Natural England septic tank risk report (NE, 2014), showing (1) high, moderate and low risk zones for locating small domestic discharges(SDDs) and (2) likely locations of unsewered addresses and the level of risk that they may pose to SSSI water quality in the River Mease catchment.

49 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 25 shows discharge consents to rivers in the Mease catchment which were active in 2014. The data indicates that there were a total of 109 consented discharges to surface watercourses in the catchment, of which 45 were private sewage discharges and 44 were water company operated. Of the water company discharges 33 were intermittent and 11 were continuous. Most of the sewage discharges in the catchment were focused around the north of the catchment, particularly around Hooborough Brook and upper Gilwiskaw Brook. There were a number of sewage discharges focused near the River Mease between Harlaston and Clifton Campville. There were 19 trade discharge consents which mostly apply to site drainage, trade discharges were dispersed around the northeast of the catchment, possibly related to mining activities in the area.

Figure 25: Map showing active discharge consents with riverine receiving waters within the Mease catchment.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

1.13.4 Groundwater and in-stream sources As phosphorus is often bound with particulate matter and is not highly soluble, as with nitrates, groundwater is not generally considered to be a significant source of phosphorus. However, it is possible that some discrete areas of permeable bedrock may release higher levels of phosphorus compared with expected low-level background concentrations. Furthermore, re-release of historic anthropogenic phosphorus pollution originating from in-stream riverbed features, channel margins and groundwater aquifers can contribute to in-channel SRP concentrations. Cycling of in-stream

50 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

and groundwater associated phosphorus are mediated by a range of biogeochemical and physical processes. It may be possible to identify areas with a potential risk of sediment-bound phosphorus release to the channel as bioavailable SRP through an understanding of phosphorus cycling and biological/ physicochemical catchment characteristics. For instance, physical factors such as, residence times and physical transport of phosphorus via advection and diffusion can affect phosphorus release and storage within the water column and sediments. In addition, turbulence or increased advection within the water column may increase the sorption of phosphorus to sediments, or release porewater phosphorus into the water column. As only a small portion of the river flow in the Mease catchment are from the groundwater, it is unlikely that groundwater provides a significant source of phosphorus to the Mease river system. 1.13.5 Phosphorus source apportionment There are a number of models available that can be used to estimate the relative contribution to in river phosphorus loads and concentrations from different sources/ sectors. Source apportionment estimates help to put the different diffuse source contributions in context with that of point sources and are thus useful in targeting measures at the dominant sources/ sectors. In many cases it may be a combination of measures across multiple sources that are required to meet a conservation objective. The National Source Apportionment GIS developed through ongoing UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR) represents the most consistent modelling framework and has been adopted by both the Environment Agency and water industry for catchment planning purposes.  Source Apportionment GIS (SAGIS) is a high level modelling framework based on the best available datasets with National coverage. SAGIS has predominantly been used for strategic planning, for example to inform policy decisions or run scenarios at the National or regional scale. The detailed outputs used this report are based on national calibrated outputs from SAGIS produced for a recent UKWIR funded project (WW02B207), supported by Natural England. This project led to a number of improvements to SAGIS including: (1) better representation of headwater defaults; (2) improved application of regionally defined default values for effluent quality in the absence of observed data; (3) updated point source and agricultural census data; and (4) the application of non-parametric files to better define the relationship between catchment inputs of chemicals and river flow. Outputs are based on an automated calibration methodology based on optimising model fit in relation to observed data by adjusting diffuse inputs. An automated calibration methodology was applied to each of the 18 regional models, which was based on optimising model fit in relation to observed data by adjusting diffuse inputs. The modelling period was 2010 – 2012. As part of the rapid calibration, the report notes that no local quality assurance of the model inputs was undertaken such as water industry and industrial point source discharges as well as the model watercourse structure. Experience of SAGIS modelling in the South East has shown there can be significant local features that require altering (characterisation /addition / removal) to gain confidence on the source apportionment and forecasting of suitable measures. However, SAGIS represents the best available, and certainly most consistent, estimate of the relative contribution of different sector sources to instream loads/ concentrations. It is a robust and powerful modelling framework, however in the absence of a detailed audit of the underlying data

51 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

and applicability of the underlying assumptions, its predictive skill at the local/ catchment scale remains uncertain. National outputs at the catchment scale should therefore be treated with caution as they provide an indication of the relative contribution rather than absolutes. Detailed SAGIS outputs were provided in a spreadsheet based format, which does enable high-level scenario testing without the need to re-run SAGIS. The detailed outputs from the national model provided are based on the following principles: o Sector contributions to river concentrations are provided for all locations. o For each location SAGIS estimates the contribution of each individual point source to the point sources sector concentrations (i.e. all upstream STWs, industrial discharges, mines and intermittent discharges). o For each location, SAGIS models the contribution of each upstream waterbody to the relevant diffuse source sector. o The relationship between the scale of the input and the consequent downstream concentration is assumed linear; for example if an input from a point or diffuse source is halved the associated downstream concentration will also be halved. Based on the simple framework described, at any point in the river, concentrations can be separated into their individual component sector sources. Component sectors can then be modified, based on a change in an individual point source or a diffuse source within a specific waterbody, and instream concentrations recalculated. The recalculation exercise provides the basis for assessing the impact of catchment management measures or changes to point source discharges/ consents on downstream concentrations and loads. Figure 26 shows the chainage plot for SAGIS derived SRP (mg/l) downstream along the River Mease SAC/SSSI with sector apportionment and observed monitoring data concentrations. Locations for features in the chainage plot are shown in Figure 27. Figure 28 illustrates the relative contribution from different sector sources to instream concentrations produced by the SAGIS model. Figure 29 shows the SAGIS derived mean in-channel SRP concentrations for the River Mease catchment. It should be noted that the contributions from STWs and storm overflows (intermittent discharges) were altered in the SAGIS scenario tester to account for recent updates and stakeholder inputs. The source apportionment assigned to storm overflows was queried, as being too high, given that storm overflow discharges occur infrequently, and only during storm conditions when sewage is dilute and river flows are elevated. Furthermore, recent SAGIS model results provided by the Environment Agency in 2014 suggested negligible SRP load input from storm overflows. In addition, the source apportionment assigned to STWs was queried as all of the STWs within the catchment (except for the small works at Smisby and Chilcote) have been upgraded to include SRP removal. The majority of SRP removal improvements were commissioned in 2012 and 2013, and were therefore not reflected in the modelling period used for this report (2010 – 2012). To account for the queries relating to the storm overflow and STW source apportionment, the following updates were made in the SAGIS scenario tester: 1. Inputs from storm overflows were reduced by 50%. However, the input from storm overflows may still be less than the reduction estimate used in this report. Therefore, storm overflow inputs presented here should be reviewed with caution. It is recommended that storm inputs are re-assessed in any future SAGIS modelling for the Mease catchment.

52 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

2. SRP stripping can remove up to 95% of SRP from STW wastewater effluents. SRP inputs assigned to individual STWs where SRP removal improvements were commissioned in 2012 and 2013 were adjusted down by 95% in the SAGIS scenario tester. It should be noted that a 95% reduction presents the best scenario for STWs with recent SRP removal improvements. The STWs which were adjusted down by 95% include: Packington STW; Norton Juxta Twycross STW; Annwell Place STW; Overseal STW; Netherseal STW; and Clifton Campville STW. Overall SRP concentrations before STW and storm overflow reductions in the SAGIS scenario tester are shown in Figure 26 along with adjusted values. The SAGIS source apportionment charts in Figure 28 show the adjusted source apportionment inputs from STWs and storm overflows described in points 1 and 2 above. In Figure 26, derived SRP concentrations were shown to be above the CSM target for the Mease across all plot points. The major downstream step change in SRP concentrations occurred as a result of inputs from Smisby STW. However, inputs from Smisby STW were only shown to significantly increase SRP concentrations in the Gilwiskaw Brook upstream of Packington STW. While SAGIS modelling suggests that Smisby STW is not a significant driver for failure in the River Mease, SRP inputs from Smisby might prevent a small part of the River Mease SAC/ SSSI from achieving favourable condition in the upper Gilwiskaw Brook reaches above Packington STW. To assess the impact from Smisby STW in the Gilwiskaw Brook, further investigations would be required at the STW along with better understanding of flow rates associated with the STWs. Along the River Mease, combined inputs from arable farming and livestock are indicated as having the greatest impact on SRP concentrations. Urban run-off was also indicated as a potentially important sector contributing to SRP concentrations in the River Mease. Septic tanks were shown to have only a small impact on SRP concentrations along the River Mease in Figure 26.

53 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 26: Chainage plot showing SAGIS derived Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) (mg/l) downstream along the River Mease SAC/SSSI with sector apportionment. The observed SRP concentrations and confidence limits are shown. Features contributing to step changes are shown in the x axis. The most recent (2014) Common Standards Monitoring (CSM) SRP targets for the River Mease SAC/SSSI are shown. Inputs from Sewage Treatment Works (STWs) and storm overflows were reduced in the SAGIS scenario tester (see details in preceding text). The locations of features in the Chainage plot are shown in Figure 27.

Abbreviations: EPP – Extra plot point; FS – Flow monitoring station; WQ – Water quality monitoring point; and CSO – Combined Sewage Overflow.

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 27: Location map for chainage plot (Figure 26) showing feature locations for SAGIS modelling, along the River Mease SAC/SSSI.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 28: Map showing SAGIS derived Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) source apportionment for the River Mease catchment. Derived results relate to the exit point of each waterbody. Piecharts have been placed in the centre of each waterbody for presentation purposes. Inputs from Sewage Treatment Works (STWs) and storm overflows were reduced in the SAGIS scenario tester (see details in preceding text).

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

56 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Table 2: Summary of SAGIS derived Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) source apportionment for the Mease catchment, shown in Figure 28.

Waterbody ID SRP source apportionment (%) Concentration (mg/l)

STWs SO Ls Ar UR Hw STs

Gilwiskaw Brook 11.0 16.2 31.1 13.2 22.6 0.6 5.3 0.081

Upper Mease 3.0 1.5 56.9 34.3 0.2 0.0 4.2 0.087

Mid Mease 8.3 11.6 32.2 16.9 24.8 0.7 5.5 0.082

Hooborough Brook 2.2 8.9 42.7 10.1 28.1 0.0 8.0 0.088

Lower Mease 9.0 7.6 37.8 20.7 17.7 0.4 6.7 0.082

*Abbreviations: STW – Sewage Treatments Works; SO – Storm Overflows; In – Industrial; Ls – Livestock; Ar – Arable; UR – Urban Runoff; Hw – Highways; and STs – Septic Tanks.

Figure 29: Map showing SAGIS derived mean in-channel Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) concentrations for the River Mease and its tributaries.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

57 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS SOURCE APPORTIONMENT Figure 28 shows the TP source apportionment from the sediment fingerprinting study (Figure 19) carried out by ADAS in 2012. TP source apportionment was carried out for The Upper Mease and Harlaston Brook, and the findings were coincident with those found for sediment apportionment. The TP source apportionment results both the Harlaston Brook and the Upper Mease were as follows: Upper Mease - in the order: grassland surface soils (25 %) > arable surface soils (22 %) > farm track surfaces (17 %) > agricultural field drains (12 %) > damaged road verges / urban street dust (8 %) > channel banks/subsurface sources (6 %) > and reclaimed mine spoil (2 %). Harlaston Brook - grassland surface soils (41 %) > farm track surfaces (20 %) > agricultural field drains (14 %) > urban street dust (11 %) > damaged road verges (6 %) > arable surface soils (5 %) > and channel banks/subsurface sources (3 %). Grassland surface soils were indicated as the main TP source in both the Upper Mease and Harlaston Brook, with farm tracks and arable field drains are also indicated as important sources in both sub-catchments. Arable surface soils were found to be more important in the Upper Mease along with reclaimed mine spoil, which was not found to be present in the Harlaston Brook.

Figure 28: Map showing total phosphorus (TP) load and source apportionment fingerprinting results (ADAS, 2012). The study measured and compared TP loads from sediment samples (30 samples/ site) at 2 sites (Upper Mease and Harlaston Brook, located on the exit point of tributaries to the main River Mease channel.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™ © Environment Agency

58 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

1.13.6 Surface water quality phosphorus analysis The boxplots in Figures 30 and 31 show the spatial variations in SRP and TP concentrations respectively, recorded by the Environment Agency over a 4 year period between 2010 and 2013. Where sampling data was available, samples were taken at the outflow of sub-catchments with a monthly sampling frequency. Due to large catchment areas and low sampling resolution in the water quality data it was not possible to use monitoring data to identify specific sources of SRP within sub-catchments. However, the monitoring data can be used to validate SAGIS outputs and to identify sub-catchments which may be acting as significant sources of SRP to the identified site(s). In Figure 30, the greatest average SRP averages and ranges for 2010 – 2013 were observed in the Mease at Croxhall and at Stretton Bridge.

Figure 30: Boxplots showing variability in Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) concentrations (mg/l) across the River Mease catchment, using statutory Water Framework Directive (WFD) monitoring data from 2010 – 2013 (source: Environment Agency). Boxplots are shown for sites with sampling covering at least one year. Samples were taken at a monthly frequency. Sample numbers, locations and sub-catchments (WFD cycle 2, surface water) are shown in the inset map. Boxplots are coloured according to sub-catchment location of sampling points. Sample sites are not shown where data was insufficient or unavailable for SRP.

59 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

In Figure 31, the greatest average TP averages and ranges for 2010 – 2013 were observed in the Mease at Croxhall and at Measham.

Figure 31: Boxplots showing variability in total phosphorus (TP) concentrations (mg/l) across the River Mease catchment, using statutory Water Framework Directive (WFD) monitoring data from 2010 – 2013 (source: Environment Agency). Boxplots are shown for sites with sampling covering at least one year. Samples were taken at a monthly frequency. Sample numbers, locations and sub-catchments (WFD cycle 2, surface water) are shown in the inset map. Boxplots are coloured according to sub-catchment location of sampling points.

60 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

1.14 Additional pollution risks to the SAC/SSSI 1.14.1 Pollution incidents Pollution incidents can be very diverse, ranging from large fires and chemical releases to farm slurry spills, odours from waste sites and faulty sewerage systems. They may be caused by accidents or deliberate acts, but all have the potential to damage the environment. Serious pollution incidents can pose a risk to habitats, drinking water, and the environment. Smaller, but still significant, pollution incidents can also damage the environment at a local scale. Spilled chemicals and effluent incidents can have devastating impacts on ecosystems and wildlife. For instance, pesticide and fungicide spillages from crop sprayers can result in the death of many thousands of fish and impacted on other wildlife. In this section, the sector sources for Category 3 (Figure 32) and Category 4 (Figure 33) water pollution incidents in the Mease catchment which occurred between Jan 2001 and Sept 2014 were mapped (Environment Agency, 2014).Category descriptions are as follows: Category 3: pollution confirmed – local impact Category 4: event reported but no damage can be confirmed Figure 32 indicates that the water industry were the main source of category 3 pollution incidents in the Mease catchment between 2001 and 2014. Water industry pollution sources, particularly if derived from the sewerage system, are likely to provide a source of nutrients and other potentially damaging chemicals to the watercourse, providing a risk to the River Mease SAC/SSSI. A majority of category 3 pollution incidents occurred in the Gilwiskaw Brook sub- catchment between 2001 and 2014, with the water industry forming the main source of the pollution incidents (38%). The mid River Mease also had one of the highest numbers of category 3 pollution incidents, with the water industry contributing to 44% of recorded cases. Pollution sources from agriculture were potentially important in the lower River Mease (14%) sub- catchment. Pollution sources from agriculture are likely to contain a wide range of organic matter and chemicals which could pose short-term and/ or long-term threats to the SAC/ SSSI.

61 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 32: Map showing Category 3 (pollution confirmed – local impact) water pollution incidents by sector, which occurred in the Mease catchment between Jan 2001 and Sept 2014 (Environment Agency, 2014). Piecharts are shown in the middle of each waterbody.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

Figure 33 indicates that the water industry, agriculture and waste management sectors provided the majority of known sources of category 4 pollution incidents in the Mease catchment between 2001 and 2014; although there were a large number of contributing sub- sector sources in all areas. A majority of category 4 pollution incidents occurred in the Hooborough Brook sub-catchment between 2001 and 2014, with the waste management sub- sector forming the main source of the pollution incidents (37%). Sources of pollution from water management can include: fires; chemical releases; farm slurry spills; and odour from waste sites, damaged sewer systems and composting organic waste. On farm and point source management practices are likely to reduce the number and severity of pollution incidents within the catchment. For instance, increasing storage in appropriately designed facilities for waste chemicals will reduce the risk of spillages.

62 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 33: Map showing Category 4 (event reported but no damage can be confirmed) water pollution incidents by sector, which occurred in the Mease catchment between Jan 2001 and Sept 2014 (Environment Agency, 2014). Piecharts are shown in the middle of each waterbody.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

63 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Intervention strategy development To develop a catchment management programme to mitigate against sediment and phosphorus pollution risks to the River Mease SAC/ SSSI, precise and detailed evidence of what plans are already in place and what interventions have already been delivered across the catchment are needed. 1.15 Prior interventions 1.15.1 Natural habitats & designated sites Natural habitats play a key structural and functional role in the ability of ecosystems to provide the services on which we all depend; including the protection of clean, fresh water in our rivers and streams, the mitigation of flood risk and the prevention of erosion. Extending and increasing the connectivity of existing natural habitats across catchments, in addition to the creation of new riparian wetlands to disconnect hydrological pollution pathways, are some of the key methods used in catchment management and natural resource protection. Figure 34 shows important habitats in the Mease catchment. Only 4 important habitat types were identified in the Mease catchment from the Natural England Habitats Map. Habitats in the Mease catchment included: 25 Ha of floodplain grazing habitat focused around exit of the River Mease near Croxall; 16 Ha of Lowland Heath in the Hooborough Brook catchment near Moira; and 3.5 Ha of undetermined grassland near the upper-reaches of Gilwiskaw Brook and Saltersford Brook. Woodland was shown to be the most important habitat in the catchment, with National Forestry Inventory data indicating that there were 2210 Ha of woodland in the Mease catchment. Figure 34 also shows the distribution of designated land across the Mease catchment. Aside from the River Mease SSSI, the Ashby Canal which runs south adjacent to the River Mease source is the only other SSSI in the catchment. There were 5 scheduled monuments and 5 listed buildings in the Mease catchment, mostly focused around urban settlements. One of the scheduled monuments is a moated fishpond structure in Appleby Magna. Whilst scheduled monuments and listed buildings are not always directly linked with watercourses, their existence may affect land management plans in the area, particularly if they form barriers within watercourses. There were two Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) in the catchment, located next to watercourses. The first being Moira Junction on the Hooborough Brook and the second being Saltersford Wood crossing Saltersford Brook. There were also 74 Ha of ancient woodland in the Mease catchment mostly formed of Grange and Potters Wood at the source of Seal Brook and a number of small fragments around the catchment. The ancient woodland and LNRs in the Mease catchment may offer some opportunities for synergistic management strategies due to their close proximity to watercourses.

64 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 34: Map showing designated sites and important natural habitats in the Mease catchment.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

1.15.2 Previous on-farm interventions Agri-environment schemes provide funding to farmers and land managers to farm in a way that supports biodiversity, enhances the landscape, and improves the quality of water, air and soil. The following maps and text provide an overview of key agri-environment schemes in the Mease catchment. ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP SCHEMES

The Environmental Stewardship (ES) Scheme (2006 – 2016), incorporating the Entry Level Scheme (ELS), Organic Entry Level Scheme (OELS), and Higher Level Scheme (HLS), provided payments to farmers to undertake specific management practices or capital works that protect and enhance the environment and wildlife.

65 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

The ES was offered to farmers on a voluntary basis and was promoted as multi-objective scheme covering a range of biodiversity, heritage and natural resource protection objectives, including soil and water protection.

ELS and OELS were non-competitive schemes are open to all farmers whilst the HLS was a competitive scheme within which farmers effectively bid for a share of a limited budget.

As of early 2015, ES and Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF) will fall under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, which has a greater focus on water and reducing water quality issues to meet WFD objectives. Payments will still be made for ongoing HLS agreements and live ELS.

Countryside Stewardship will have 3 main elements:

1) Higher-tier (can include capital grants)

2) Mid-tier (can include capital grants)

3) Stand-alone capital grants

Countryside Stewardship will give access to funding and/or capital grants for an agreed range of environmental management actions (‘options’). A potential limitation of Countryside Stewardship is that HLS will continue until the end of the agreement date, and many ELS agreements won’t be going into Countryside Stewardship. Therefore, there is a possibility of loss of many options that have been reducing diffuse water pollution. Therefore there will be less Countryside Stewardship agreements and subsequently less spatial coverage than in the previous ES scheme. But there are opportunities to get more schemes for water protection on Countryside Stewardship agreements that do go forward.

Figure 35 shows the distribution of farm holdings engaged in an ES across the Mease catchment between 2006 and 2016. The data indicates that there were 94 farms signed up to an ELS scheme, out of 230 farms in the catchment. There were only 2 farms in the catchment in Organic Entry Level or Organic Higher Level Environmental Stewardship schemes, and 4 farms in HLS, the remaining 88 farms, were in ELS. HLS target areas shown in Figure 35 are historic, but have been shown here for context.

66 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 35: Map showing distribution of farms signed up to Environmental Stewardship schemes (ESS) (2014) in the Mease catchment along with historic Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) target areas.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

Figure 36 shows the distribution of the options provided under ES in the Mease catchment which can provide water quality improvements. ES options with potential for water quality benefits were divided into 6 categories following the methodology set out in a 2005 Rivers Trust publication; see Appendix 2 for the list of options included in each category. Figure 36 indicates that only 17% of the total farm area for farms signed up to ES, had options which could have benefits for water quality in the catchment. ‘Buffer strips and in field margin options’ and ‘options to improve nutrient inputs’ were the most frequently applied ES option within the catchment.

67 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 36: Map showing distribution of Environmental Stewardship schemes (ESS) options with associated water quality benefits provided in the Mease catchment between 2006 and 2015.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

Figure 37 shows the distribution of the options provided under ES in the Mease catchment which can provide potentially significant benefits to water quality. The data indicates that only a small percentage (2.7 %) of the total farm area for farms signed up to ES, and 10 % of ES options applied in the catchments had options which could have potentially significant benefits for water quality in the catchment. The majority of ES options with water quality benefits were focused around Gilwiskaw Brook, mid-reaches of the River Mease, the Meadow Brook and small tributaries of the lower River Mease. ‘In-field management to reduce/ prevent erosion/ run-off’ was the ES option covering the greatest total area within the catchments (71 Ha); focused mainly around the River Mease.

68 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 37: Map showing distribution of Environmental Stewardship schemes (ESS) options with associated water quality benefits provided in the Mease catchment between 2006 and 2015.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

CATCHMENT SENSITIVE FARMING Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF) is a scheme run by Natural England in partnership with the Environment Agency and The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It raises awareness of diffuse water pollution from agriculture by giving free training and advice to farmers in selected areas in England. The selected areas are called ‘priority catchments’. The aim of the advice is to improve the environmental performance of farms though provision of grants and advice. CSF has been in place in England since 2006. In 2015, CSF will remain as a separate project to Countryside Stewardship, but will be providing more advice on Countryside Stewardship, particularly the middle tier and administering water grants for 2015/ 16. CSF began in the Mease catchment in 2011 with delivery starting in 2012. Figure 38 shows all CSF advice delivery in the Mease catchment between 2011 and 2014 with farms colour ramped to show the number of visits made during this period. Some form of advice was delivered on 45 out of 162 farms in the catchment, but most of the delivery advice was focused on the larger >100 Ha farms. The main type of advice given was for farm infrastructure and soil and fertiliser

69 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

management, covering 24.4 %, 29.9 % and 29.2 % of farms respectively. Most farms received <5 visits. Figure 39 shows CSF capital grant scheme option delivery from 2012 – 2014 in the Mease catchment. Most of the capital grant scheme options were located around the upper River Mease and Gilwiskaw Brook. Grants for management of runoff and drainage were provided for all 26 farms with some form of grant. Fencing and gate scheme options were delivered on 3 farms to reduce livestock access to watercourses. Grants for water provision for grazing and livestock were provided in 6 farms to provide alternative drinking sources to watercourses.

70 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 38: Continued next page. Map showing Catchment Sensitive Farming advice delivery areas for 2011 – 2014 inclusive in the Mease catchment by advice type. The numbers of visits on each farm are also shown.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

71 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 38: …continued. Map showing Catchment Sensitive Farming advice delivery areas for 2011 – 2014 inclusive in the Mease catchment by advice type. The numbers of visits on each farm are also shown.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

72 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 39: Map showing Catchment Sensitive Farming capital grant scheme option delivered from 2012 – 2014 in the Mease catchment.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

© Environment Agency THE ENGLISH WOODLAND GRANT SCHEME The English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) was operated The Forestry Commission under the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE). The purpose of the scheme was to develop the co-ordinated delivery of public benefits from England’s woodlands. The grant scheme had a national framework but funding was allocated and grants targeted at regional level. The overarching objectives for EWGS were: 1. To sustain and increase the public benefits derived from existing woodlands in England. 2. To invest in the creation of new woodlands in England of a size, type and location that most effectively deliver public benefits. The component grant types of EWGS had their own objectives. Some grants were focused regionally to meet the priorities of Regional Forestry Framework action plans, and the objectives were specified more closely to suit specific areas. In 2015, EWGS was incorporated into the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Figure 40 shows areas signed up to EWGS between 2006 and 2014 in the Mease catchment.

73 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 40: Map showing areas signed up to the English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) in the Mease catchment between 2006 and 2014.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™ © Environment Agency

74 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

1.16 Targeting delivery – FARMSCOPER modelling areas The significance of the contributions from different sub-catchments and the apportionment of different sources of sediment and phosphorus vary greatly from location to location. Therefore, the sources of pollution within catchments and their component sub-catchments must be assessed on an individual basis if appropriate and effective management strategies are to be applied. Areas selected for FARMSCOPER modelling were based on the modelling and monitoring evidence analysed within this report. For sediment delivery targeting, a series of maps are presented to show priority sub-catchments based on water quality monitoring and SCIMAP modelling outputs. For phosphorus pollution delivery targeting, the SAGIS outputs produced for this report were used to summarise sub-catchments where there may be potential for diffuse phosphorus management, and point sources which require further investigation. Not all areas identified as having a relatively high risk of diffuse sediment or phosphorus pollution were modelled in FARMSCOPER. FARMSCOPER modelled sub-catchments were selected as a representative guideline for characteristically similar high risk sub-catchments in their vicinity. Further selections of modelled areas were based on distance from the River Mease and sub- catchment size. Where possible, smaller sub-catchments were prioritised as FARMSCOPER has fewer limitations at smaller scales. SEDIMENT Figure 41 shows the delivery targeting results for sediment and the selected areas for FARMSCOPER modelling in the Mease catchment. As water quality monitoring results for SS were spatially limited in the Mease catchment, the SCIMAP derived in-channel concentration risk was used to select FARMSCOPER modelling areas in smaller sub-catchments. In Figure 41 B, sub-catchments to the south of the River Mease, including the Mease Source, Meadow Brook, Chilcote Brook and Harlaston Brook, were identified as areas with a potentially high risk of fine sediment erosion. The aforementioned areas were also identified in 2012 ADAS sediment fingerprinting study presented earlier, however, there were no long-term fine-scale water quality monitoring sites for sediment in the areas selected areas.

75 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 41: Maps showing the target areas for Suspended Solids (SS) in the River Mease catchment. A: highlights sub-catchments which have a high SS risk to the River Mease based on water quality monitoring results for the exit point of the waterbody (Environment Agency, 2010 – 2013); B: highlights sub-catchments which have a high derived in-channel SS risk based on SCIMAP outputs.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

PHOSPHORUS In the SAGIS modelling and water quality monitoring used in this report, derived SRP concentrations were shown to be above the CSM target throughout the River Mease. Point source inputs from Smisby STW may be important in a small section of the Gilwiskaw Brook section of the River Mease SAC/ SSSI, and requires further investigation. Urban run-off was also indicated as a potentially important sector contributing to SRP concentrations in the River Mease. Septic tanks were shown to have a relatively small impact on SRP concentrations along the River Mease. The greatest impact on SRP concentrations in the SAGIS model outputs were as a result of combined inputs from arable farming and livestock in the Mease catchment. All sub-catchments within the Mease catchment were shown to exceed CSM SRP targets; therefore management should be targeted across the whole catchment. However, it should be

76 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

noted that any reductions from agricultural sources will only apply to their percentage contribution to SRP loads. SUMMARY AREAS SELECTED FOR FARMSCOPER MODELLING Figure 42 shows the areas selected for modelling in FARMSCOPER in the Mease catchment. FARMSCOPER outputs for the selected areas are provided in the next section. Figure 42: Summary of selected FARMSCOPER modelling target areas for catchment management of sediment and phosphorus in the Mease catchment.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

77 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Assessment of outcomes

1.16.1 FARMSCOPER analysis There are a number of mathematical water quality models that can predict the cumulative effects of implementing on-farm Best Farming Practice (BFP) measures at a catchment or sub catchment scale. In this section, the results of the FARM Scale Optimisation of Pollutant Emission Reductions (FARMSCOPER) model, which was used to assess potential nutrient and sediment reduction scenarios in the catchment, along with guidelines for post implementation assessments are described. FARMSCOPER is a decision support tool which can be used to assess diffuse agricultural pollutant loads on a farm and quantify the impacts of farm pollutant control options on these pollutants (Zhang et al., 2012). FARMSCOPER allows for the creation of unique farming systems, based on combinations of livestock, cropping and manure management practices. The pollutant losses and the impact of mitigation scenarios can then be assessed for the selected farming systems. FARMSCOPER uses input farm data and representative farm types to provide a baseline for diffuse agricultural pollutant emissions. The effect of potential mitigation methods are expressed as a percentage reduction in the agricultural pollutant loss from specific sources, areas or pathways. Once the input data and selections are entered, FARMSCOPER gives a baseline load for agricultural pollutants (nitrate, phosphorus, ammonia, sediment, methane and nitrous oxide) and units or scores for secondary impacts (pesticides, biodiversity, water use and energy use). The effects of selected interventions are then set against these baselines in FARMSCOPER. The effectiveness of mitigation methods are characterised as a percentage reduction against the pollutant loss from a set of loss coordinates. The effectiveness values were based on a number of existing literature reviews, field data and expert judgement. Effectiveness values for mitigation are allowed to take negative values, which represent ‘pollutant swapping’, where a reduction in one pollutant is associated with an increase in another. METHOD In this report, FARMSCOPER was used to identify optimal mitigation scenarios to quantify the potential reductions for agricultural phosphorus and sediment pollution for waterbodies identified in the intervention targeting section. In this study, waterbodies were run as one farm; unless they showed significant (>10%) variability in rainfall, dominant ‘farm type’ or soil type, in these cases FARMSCOPER was run for individual areas. The data input methods used for FARMSCOPER analysis in this report were: 1. Agricultural Census data from 2010 was used to create a farm for each catchment in FARMSCOPER. AgCensus data was checked with local contacts and amended where more accurate local knowledge was available. 2. Woodland cover was calculated using Forestry Commission data from the national forest inventory as woodland data was not provided with AgCensus 2010 data. 3. NatMap soil mapping data was used to characterise drainage within the catchment, which can be entered as ‘free draining’ or ‘other’ (low permeability soils). The soil characteristic selection can have a significant effect on outputs from FARMSCOPER as it changes pollutant baseline loads and pathways.

78 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

4. Where a catchment had a more than 10% split in dominant soil types, farm types or rainfall, FARMSCOPER analysis was carried-out for each type with a final calculation to represent a proportional catchment pollutant load. FARMSCOPER was used to test 3 different scenarios and estimate pollutant loads. The scenarios tested were: Scenario 1: Quantifying baseline multi-pollutant losses for target areas. Scenario 2: Estimate of the reductions achieved by the current uptake of agri-environment schemes. Scenario 3: The ‘maximum’ potential reduction estimates (from the current uptake estimates from scenario 2) based on 80% uptake of methods. An 80% uptake of methods was selected to estimate ‘maximum’ potential reductions to represent a more realistic scenario compared to 100% uptake of measures. Each applicable mitigation method used to derive potential scenario 3 reductions in phosphorus and sediment losses are summarised in Appendix 1. In addition, the built-in optimisation method was used in FARMSCOPER to identify where a select few methods could be applied to achieve a majority of the potential reductions presented in scenario 3.

Key limitations and assumptions in the FARMSCOPER analysis are summarised below: o Cost estimates in FARMSCOPER are derived from a wide range of sources, specifically previous research projects, resulting in a number of assumptions. For this reason, in-built FARMSCOPER cost estimates have not been presented here. Instead, high level cost assessment based on average costs for farm plans and intervention strategies have been used. o The AgCensus data was collected 4 years ago, livestock and cropping statistics may have changed significantly during this time. To attempt to address this, input data was ground- truthed with local contacts, specifically CaBA hosts to identify significant discrepancies. o AgCensus data is provided at an averaged 2 km resolution, thus, farm scale land-use variability cannot be assessed. o The level of prior implementation of mitigation methods used in scenario 2 has been estimated from current interventions presented in this report and stakeholder feedback. o Selected overall farm type, rainfall and soil characterisations at catchment and sub- catchment scale, can overlook smaller scale variability, leading to potential over and under estimations of pollutant emissions. FARMSCOPER INPUT DATA During local stakeholder meetings, it was noted that the 2010 AgCensus data seemed to be a poor representation of what was on the ground in the Mease catchment. Below is a summary of the additional information/ amendments around the 2010 AgCensus data which was gathered during stakeholder engagements. Where appropriate, the data was amended before being used in the FARMSCOPER analysis: o Dairy cow numbers were too high in all areas. o Sheep numbers also appeared to be too high, but it is harder to estimate the actual numbers.

79 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

o Pig numbers were too high and stakeholders were only aware of one pig unit in the whole of the catchment, located in the Lower Mease. o Poultry numbers appeared very high as there were no poultry farms in the catchment. However, it was noted that one farm was due to come “on-line” in May 2015, with 120,000 housed birds in the Lower Mease. The only current poultry were small quantities of broilers dotted across the catchment. o There was a large soft fruit business in the Lower Mease (approx. 170 Ha) which was not captured in the AgCensus data for 2010. Based on the above comments and stakeholder recommendations the following amendments were made to the AgCensus data input for FARMSCOPER: (1) total dairy cow numbers were reduced by 30% in all areas; (2) total sheep numbers were reduced by 10% in all areas; (3) total pig numbers were reduced to zero for all areas in the catchment, except for the Lower Mease where they remained the same; (4) poultry data was removed from the input data; and (5) the soft fruit farm was added to the data for the Lower Mease. The amended AgCensus data which was used for the FARMSCOPER analysis is summarised in Figure 43. It should be noted that livestock are lumped together as dairy, sheep and pigs. However, the input data used for FARMSCOPER does differentiate between factors such as indoor or outdoor pigs and dairy or beef. Figure 43: Map summarising farming practice inputs for the FARMSCOPER analysis in target areas for the River Mease catchment, using corrected 2010 Agricultural Census data. Agricultural census data was altered to represent additional information on current farming practices obtained through local CSF officer consultation.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

80 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

RESULTS Scenario 1 Scenario 1 presents baseline losses (kg/ yr) in phosphorus and sediment derived using FARMSCOPER for each sub-catchment in the River Mease catchment. FARMSCOPER estimates the baseline losses using the input farm practice data and information on soil type and rainfall (Table 3). The baseline losses for phosphorus across the Mease catchment ranged from 128 to 1,475.7 kg/ yr. The baseline losses for sediment across the Mease catchment ranged from 14,461 to 283,834 kg/ yr. Maximum baseline losses were predicted in FARMSCOPER for the Gilwiskaw Brook and Lower River Mease sub-catchments.

Table 3: FARMSCOPER modelled baseline phosphorus and sediment losses (kg/ yr). The baseline represents estimated losses if no mitigation options were in place.

Catchment Loss kg/ yr Target area area (Ha) Phosphorus Sediment

1. Lower River Mease 7150 1475 283834

2. Mid River Mease 4850 417 89949

3. Hooborough Brook 2050 131 19038 4. Gilwiskaw Brook 2880 706 214504

5. Upper River Mease 2610 619 147935

6. Harlaston Brook 2410 581 225632

2020 7. Chilcote Brook 183 16651 8. Meadow Brook 1880 128 14461

Scenario 2 Scenario 2 presents baseline phosphorus and sediment losses which take current delivery into account (Table 4). The percentages for current mitigation for each method in FARMSCOPER were based on delivery through agri-environment schemes (ESS and CSF) from 2006 to 2014 inclusive and additional information from local stakeholder meetings. Based on estimates of current delivery in the Mease catchment, the reduction in phosphorus percentages from baseline values were estimated as ranging from 7 to 10 % across sub- catchments modelled in FARMSCOPER. Sediment reductions from the baseline based on current delivery estimates ranged from 0 to 5 %.

81 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Table 4: FARMSCOPER derived reductions phosphorus and sediment losses (%) in the River Mease catchment based on current delivery estimates. Values shown are kg/ yr loss for the target area, representing pollutant loss estimates based on the current level of mitigation delivery in modelled. Percentage reductions represent the reduction in pollutant losses from the baseline, based on current delivery.

Catchment Phosphorus Sediment Target area area (Ha) kg / yr % reduction kg/ yr % reduction

1. Lower River Mease 7150 1366 7 268695 5

2. Mid River Mease 4850 375 10 87266 3

3. Hooborough Brook 2050 129 2 18949 0

4. Gilwiskaw Brook 2880 665 6 210848 2

5. Upper River Mease 2610 609 2 147509 0

6. Harlaston Brook 2410 556 4 223789 1

7. Chilcote Brook 2020 178 3 16204 3

8. Meadow Brook 1880 121 6 14125 2

Scenario 3 Scenario 3 presents ‘maximum’ potential reduction estimates for agricultural phosphorus and sediment pollution based on an 80% uptake of all relevant methods (Table 5a). The reductions presented in this scenario are further reductions from the values presented in scenario 2, which take current delivery into account, rather that the baseline values in scenario 1. It should be noted that the reductions presented in Tables 5a and 5b are only attributable to agricultural sources. Scenario 3 estimates are based on an 80% uptake of all methods in FARMSCOPER, which in reality is very optimistic. The ‘maximum’ potential reduction in phosphorus estimated in FARMSCOPER ranged from 9 to 46 % across sub-catchments modelled in FARMSCOPER (Table 5a). However, if the percentage contribution for agricultural sources derived from SAGIS is taken into account for each sub- catchment, the percentage reductions in phosphorus range from 13 to 36 %. The ‘maximum’ potential reduction in sediment estimated in FARMSCOPER ranged from 11 to 59 % across sub- catchments modelled in FARMSCOPER. Based on percentage reduction of phosphorus from catchment-wide pollutant loss modelling in FARMSCOPER (Table 5b), the ‘maximum’ potential reduction ranged from 2.5 to 30.1 % across sub-catchments modelled in FARMSCOPER. The ‘maximum’ potential reduction based on catchment-wide loss for sediment ranged from 0.7 to 26.7 % across modelled sub-catchments.

82 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Table 5a: FARMSCOPER derived ‘maximum’ potential reductions phosphorus and sediment losses (%) in the River Mease catchment based on an 80% uptake of applicable mitigation methods. Values shown are kg/ yr loss for the target area; percentage reductions in parentheses show corrected reductions based on diffuse apportionment from SAGIS. Percentage reduction represents the reduction in pollutant losses from the current level of delivery (scenario 2).

No. of Phosphorus Sediment Target area methods kg / yr % reduction kg / yr % reduction

1. Lower River Mease 120 831 39 (23) 220051 18

2. Mid River Mease 120 248 34 (17) 69992 20

3. Hooborough Brook 120 70 46 (24) 14693 22

4. Gilwiskaw Brook 120 475 29 (13) 183401 13

5. Upper River Mease 120 370 39 (36) 122771 17

6. Harlaston Brook 120 508 9 199818 11

7. Chilcote Brook 120 157 12 6686 59

8. Meadow Brook 120 104 14 5879 58

*% reduction for the sub-catchment corrected with SAGIS modelled phosphorus inputs from agriculture. Table 5b: FARMSCOPER derived ‘maximum’ potential reductions phosphorus and sediment losses (%) in selected sub-catchments in the River Mease catchment; based on an 80% uptake of applicable mitigation methods. Percentage reduction values represent the estimated reduction potential for each selected sub-catchment from the total catchment pollutant load estimates.

Phosphorus Sediment Target area % reduction of catchment kg/yr loss 1. Lower River Mease 30.1 26.7

2. Mid River Mease 9.0 8.5

3. Hooborough Brook 2.5 1.8

4. Gilwiskaw Brook 17.2 22.3

5. Upper River Mease 13.4 14.9

6. Harlaston Brook 18.4 24.3

7. Chilcote Brook 5.7 0.8

8. Meadow Brook 3.8 0.7

SECONDARY BENEFITS Alongside phosphorus and sediment reductions, the selected implementation methods can also benefit a number of other environmental factors. Figure 44 summarises FARMSCOPER derived secondary benefits associated with the ‘maximum’ reductions in phosphorus and sediment presented in Table 5a. Figure 44 shows that the methods used in FARMSCOPER under scenario 3 would also have potential positive effects for nitrate, pesticides, nitrous oxide and biodiversity in the target areas. Negative impacts were given for ammonia gas, water use and energy use. The negative

83 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

values for resource use are due to selection of multiple mitigation methods in FARMSCOPER which require additional water use. The increases in ammonia gas are often attributed to increased slurry storage which can lead to release and build-up of ammonia gas.

Figure 44: Infographic summarising the potential secondary benefits associated with ‘maximum’ (scenario 3) phosphorus and sediment reduction for each target area in the Mease catchment.

OPTIMISING THE SELECTION OF MITIGATION MEASURES FOR REDUCING ‘BASELINE SCENARIO’ POLLUTANT EMISSIONS In ‘Scenario 3’ (potential for ‘maximum’ reductions in pollutants based on 80% uptake of methods) all applicable mitigation methods were applied for each target area. However, in many cases, a select few mitigation methods account for a majority of the estimated pollutant reductions. To investigate this, the optimisation feature in FARMSCOPER was used to identify a set of mitigation methods which consistently provided greatest reductions in target pollutants out of 50 iterations. FARMSCOPER optimisation was run for the Lower Mease sub-catchment. Graphs showing mitigation methods selected >50% of the time during the optimisation procedure the frequency percentage that each method was selected across all the solutions are shown in Appendix 1 with mitigation method descriptions. Only 1 method was selected 100 % of the time for the ‘free draining’ soil type segment of the Lower Mease catchment compared to 4 methods for the ‘other’ (low-permeability) soil type segment of the sub-catchment. This indicates that there were a smaller number of methods which could be used to effect potentially significant sediment and phosphorus concentrations with ‘free draining’ soil types. The small number of methods for ‘free draining’ soils is likely due

84 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

to the fact that FARMSCOPER methods and estimates are more equipped for estimating pollution losses and reductions from ‘other’ or less permeable soils. Tables 6 shows the potential reductions estimated in FARMSCOPER for phosphorus and sediment in the Lower Mease sub-catchment based on a select few methods identified in using FARMSCOPER optimisation. Results are shown for both ‘free-draining’ and ‘other’ soil types which were represented in the Lower Mease. Table 6 indicates that based on findings from FARMSCOPER optimisation, more than 50% of the reductions estimated in scenario 3 could be achieved for the Lower Mease catchment using a total of 21 methods compared with 120 methods used in scenario 3.

Table 6: FARMSCOPER derived potential reductions for a reduced number of methods optimised for phosphorus and sediment losses (%) in the River Mease catchment based on an 80% uptake of applicable mitigation methods. Values shown are kg/ yr loss for the target area, representing pollutant loss estimates based on an 80% uptake of applicable mitigation methods in modelled areas. Percentage reductions represent the reduction in pollutant losses from the current level of delivery (scenario 2).

No. of Phosphorus Sediment Target area methods kg / yr % reduction kg / yr % reduction

‘Other’ soil type 12 593 6 190052 10

‘Free draining’ soil type 9 549 25 50497 12

TOTAL 21 1142 31 240549 22

PHOSPHORUS REDUCTION SCENARIO TESTING To translate the FARMSCOPER estimated pollution reductions in phosphorus in the modelled target areas to concentrations; the ‘maximum’ potential reductions in phosphorus shown in Table 4 were used to reduce contributions from livestock and arable phosphorus sources in the SAGIS scenario tester. In order to split the overall reduction estimates for phosphorus across arable and livestock, methods were split into arable or livestock based on assumptions for these categories used in PSYCHIC, which fed into the SAGIS model. The reductions applicable to individual FARMSCOPER methods for arable or livestock were then added to find the overall reduction scenario factor for arable and livestock in SAGIS. Figure 45 shows the chainage plot for SAGIS derived SRP concentrations (mg/l) in the River Mease with FARMSCOPER derived ‘maximum’ (scenario 3 - Table 4) reductions entered to adjust livestock and arable sector apportionments to represent the potential reductions in in-stream SRP concentrations. Percentage reductions were input for each modelled waterbody. Values from the analysis are summarised in Table 7. The ‘original concentration’ represents the original modelling results without adjustments of livestock and arable factors based on FARMSCOPER reductions. Inputs from Sewage Treatment Works (STWs) and storm overflows were reduced in the SAGIS scenario tester (see details Section 5.2.5). Figure 45 indicates that if it were possible to achieve the levels of reduction in phosphorus modelled in FARMSCOPER scenario 3, SRP in concentrations could be reduced by 0.03 to 0.05 mg/l along the River Mease. Whilst these reductions could contribute towards reducing SRP concentrations in the catchment, additional reductions of around 0.04 mg/l would be needed to meet the CSM targets through much of the River Mease SAC/ SSSI. In order to bring SRP concentrations within the CSM targets of 0.04 to 0.05 mg/l for the River Mease SAC/SSSI, the

85 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

SAGIS model suggests that further reductions from urban runoff, STWs and storm overflows would be required.

86 Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 45: Chainage plot showing SAGIS derived Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) (mg/l) downstream along the River Mease SAC/SSSI with sector apportionment, based on % reductions for diffuse phosphorus sources modelled in FARMSCOPER. The observed SRP concentrations and confidence limits are shown along with SRP concentration before FARMSCOPER reductions were entered. Features contributing to step changes are shown in the x axis. Inputs from Sewage Treatment Works (STWs) and storm overflows were reduced in the SAGIS scenario tester (see details in section 5.2.5). The most recent (2014) Common Standards Monitoring (CSM) SRP targets for the River Mease SAC/SSSI are shown.

Abbreviations: EPP – Extra plot point; FS – Flow monitoring station; WQ – Water quality monitoring point; and CSO – Combined Sewage Overflow.

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Table 7: Summary of original and revised livestock (Ls) and arable (Ar) sector apportionment for SRP in the Mease catchment derived from SAGIS. Revised or reduced values are the new values based on ‘maximum scenario 3 FARMSCOPER reductions modelled for each waterbody. The concentration reduction represents the potential mg/l or percentage reduction in SRP for each waterbody based on FARMSCOPER estimates.

SRP source SRP source Combined conc. SRP conc. (mg/l) SRP conc. (mg/l) Waterbody apportionment apportionment reduction original reduced (%) original (%) reduced

Ls Ar Ls Ar Ls Ar Ls Ar mg/l %

Gilwiskaw Brook 31.1 13.2 0.03 0.01 19.0 8.1 0.012 0.006 0.018 27.0

Upper Mease 56.9 34.3 0.05 0.03 37.6 22.6 0.020 0.013 0.033 60.2

Mid Mease 32.2 16.9 0.03 0.01 17.4 9.1 0.011 0.005 0.016 26.5

Hooborough Brook 42.7 10.1 0.04 0.01 30.3 7.2 - - - -

Lower Mease 37.8 20.7 0.03 0.02 23.1 12.6 0.012 0.006 0.018 35.7

1.17 Deliverables and costs for proposed plan Table 8 provides cost estimates to for key deliverables, based on previous on-farm interventions and monitoring delivered on projects in the southwest; these costs are approximate and for guidance only.

Table 8: Guidance costs for management where cost estimates were available.

Advice and testing Unit Cost (£000)

- Soil tests 0.5 including full soil assessment on each farm according to Environment Agency standard, documentation and follow-up - Water chemistry monitoring 0.125 weekly or bi-weekly samples at 6 locations for 2 years (yrs. 1 & 5)

Investments Unit Cost (£000)

- Fencing 5 riparian corridor fencing (kms)

- Farm infrastructure 25 slurry storage, tracks and crossing points, major clean & dirty water separation, roofing etc.

- Minor infrastructure 1.0 alternative drinking, troughs, pumps, clean and dirty water separation etc.

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

1.18 Increasing STW load risk In addition to the assessment of current risks to the River Mease SAC/ SSSI, it is important to consider potential future risks relating to increased flow volumes to STWs and subsequent effluent returns. To assess this, key factors such as future population growth estimates relating to individual STWs should be used to estimate any potential increases in effluent volumes. Spatially explicit population growth and STW headroom data was not available and this approach is therefore beyond the scope of this project. However, a high level assessment can be undertaken based on SAGIS by increasing the observed/ measured effluent volumes up to the permitted flow at each STW. Thus providing an illustration of the potential or allowable increase in the STW load up to the consent conditions, above which a review would be triggered. This is a high-level assessment based on the following principles: o The original mean effluent flows used in SAGIS are based of those observed through MCerts monitoring. The mean permitted flow is estimated based on 1.3 * Dry Weather Flow (DWF). This assumption is reasonable at the catchment scale but will vary at individual works as it will be influenced by the degree of infiltration to sewer systems. DWF is currently defined in UK practice as the mean effluent flow during a 7-day period of dry weather, as defined by stringent rainfall limits. o In some instances the observed flows (MCerts) used by SAGIS are at or above permitted mean flow estimates. If observed flows were within 5% of permitted mean flows, it was assumed that there was no headroom and flows were not adjusted. Therefore, increases in effluent volumes from STWs which were already within 5% of permitted mean flows were not shown in this assessment. Where through growth, flows are anticipated to exceed the consent it is likely that new conditions would need to be negotiated with the Environment Agency to effectively achieve load standstill, thus requiring tertiary treatment to improve effluent quality. o If the difference between observed MCerts flows and permitted mean flow estimates was greater than 5% the flows were adjusted in SAGIS up to the estimated permitted mean flow. o Effluent quality and the coefficient of variance for effluent flow were not changed. Figure 46 shows the mean permitted effluent flow risk from STW discharges to the River Mease respectively. The mean permitted effluent flow risk from STW discharges is shown as ‘STW growth risk’ superimposed on current modelled sector concentration apportionment. Figure 46 suggests that the risk of increasing STW effluent volumes to those permitted would have a have a relatively small impact on SRP concentrations along the River Mease. SRP concentrations already exceed CSM targets and could increase further by up to 0.01 mg/l in the Lower Mease if STW effluent volumes reached their permits.

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Figure 46: Chainage plot showing SAGIS derived Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) (mg/l) downstream along the River Mease SAC/ SSSI; with sector apportionment with STW contribution increases based on maximum permit discharges from STWs.

Abbreviations: EPP – Extra plot point; FS – Flow monitoring station; WQ – Water quality monitoring point; and CSO – Combined Sewage Overflow.

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Conclusion SEDIMENT POLLUTION Limited evidence exists on the extent of sediment pollution in the River Mease. Spatially and temporally limited local evidence and knowledge which does exist suggests that sedimentation is an issue in at least some parts of the identified sites and the wider catchment. The lack of evidence regarding sediment issues in the River Mease presents an evidence gap. Preliminary studies such as river habitat surveys can be used to identify areas of where sediment is presenting as a risk to the SAC/SSSI. The outputs presented in this report can then be used to target delivery in sub-catchments upstream of areas where sediment is identified as a water quality and/ or ecological pressure. Whilst statutory monitoring data was limited for the Mease catchment, there was a coarse agreement with SCIMAP outputs, with higher SS concentrations at exit points of sub- catchments shown as having a relatively high potential for sediment erosion risk. The SCIMAP outputs produced for this report can be used to identify areas for further investigations, strategic sampling and targeted delivery. To fill evidence gaps for targeting sediment pollution management, SCIMAP can be used to target areas for walkover surveys. Where high risk areas are confirmed as sediment pollution sources and pathways, further work can be under taken to target delivery in these areas. Where possible, strategic water quality monitoring programmes should be employed to enable post project appraisals of interventions. Figure 47 shows relative sediment pollution risk in the Mease catchment based on ranked in-channel SS concentration risk from the SCIMAP modelling produced for this report. In addition, farm areas without ES agreements and farm areas signed up to ES but which have not had grants with significant potential benefits watercourses are shown. The farm areas highlight potential areas for targeting delivery within each sub-catchment. The following areas were identified in SCIMAP as having a high potential sediment erosion risk in the Mease catchment: (1) the upper Mease; (2) Harlaston Brook; (3) Chilcote Brook; and (4) Meadow Brook. Management in the upper Mease, Chilcote Brook and Meadow Brook may have a greater potential for sediment reductions in the River Mease based on their levels of current delivery, FARMSCOPER reduction estimates, proximity to the identified site, relative size and upstream locations. Figure 47: Map showing target sub-catchments in the Mease catchment which have a high derived in-channel sediment risk based on SCIMAP outputs. Farm areas are shown for additional targeting (including farms signed up to Environmental Stewardship (ESS) with no significant river protection options applied, and farms with significant ES options applied under ESS).

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

© Natural England [2015] reproduced with the permission of Natural England, http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/copyright/. © Crown Copyright and database right [2014]. Ordnance Survey licence number 100022021’.

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

Figure 48 shows relative FARMSCOPER maximum ‘scenario 3’ reduction estimates for selected target sub-catchment. Percentages are the reductions from catchment-wide baseline sediment loss (kg/ yr) estimates, shown in Table 5b. Based on percentage reduction of sediment from catchment-wide pollutant loss modelling in FARMSCOPER (Table 5b), sub-catchments which had the greatest potential for catchment management of sediment pollution were: the lower River Mease (26.7 % reduction estimated); Harlaston Brook (24.3 % reduction estimated); Gilwiskaw Brook (22.3 % reduction estimated); and the upper River Mease (14.9 % reduction estimated). As FARMSCOPER does have limitations in estimating pollutant reductions, sub-catchments modelled in SCIMAP as having a high sediment source risk (Figure 47) should be investigated and considered as potential priority target areas. Figure 48: Map showing relative FARMSCOPER maximum ‘scenario 3’ reduction estimates for selected target sub-catchment. Percentages are the reductions from catchment-wide baseline sediment loss (kg/ yr) estimates, shown in Table 5b.

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

© Environment Agency The most effective methods identified in FARMSCOPER which usually deliver at least 10 – 50% reductions in sediment pollution include:  Cultivating compacted tillage soils  Cultivating and drilling across the slope  Managing over-winter tramlines  Establishing in-field grass buffer strips  Loosening compacted soil layers in grassland fields  Planting areas of farm with wild bird seed / nectar flower mixtures  Early harvesting and establishment of crops in the autumn  Adopting reduced cultivation systems  Establishing riparian buffer strips  Management of in-field ponds  Establishing cover crops in the autumn  Undersowing spring cereals

PHOSPHORUS POLLUTION SAGIS outputs provided for this report indicate that both point and diffuse sources need to be managed in order to meet CSM targets for SRP in the River Mease. Recent SRP removal improvements at STWs in the Mease catchment are likely to have significantly improved SRP concentrations within the identified site; additional long-term data can be used to update the 93

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

DWPP with evidence of improvements in the River Mease. The SAGIS outputs indicate that further investigation and information on flow rates are required further assess the impact of Smisby STW on the upper part of the River Mease on the Gilwiskaw Brook. Throughout the River Mease SAC/ SSSI, combined inputs from arable farming and livestock are indicated as having the greatest impact on SRP concentrations. Urban run-off was also indicated as a potentially important sector contributing to SRP concentrations in the River Mease. Septic tanks were shown to have only a small impact on SRP concentrations along the River Mease. Recommendations for improvements to future SAGIS modelling include:  SAGIS model structure and key inputs should be interrogated locally and adjusted accordingly; including using Natural England’s methodology of quantifying septic tank contribution.  Work should be undertaken to quality assure outputs within the catchment partnership.  Further investigations and model reviews are required to further evaluate inputs from storm overflows. The entire Mease catchment should be targeted for management of phosphorus pollution from agricultural sources. Areas where there is most potential for phosphorus management include areas where sediment management is taking place, as many mitigation methods for sediment co-benefit phosphorus management. Figure 49 shows relative FARMSCOPER maximum ‘scenario 3’ reduction estimates for selected target sub-catchment. Percentages are the reductions from catchment-wide baseline phosphorus loss (kg/ yr) estimates, shown in Table 5b. Based on percentage reduction of phosphorus from catchment-wide pollutant loss modelling in FARMSCOPER (Table 5b), sub-catchments which had the greatest potential for catchment management of phosphorus pollution were: the lower River Mease (30.1% reduction estimated); Harlaston Brook (18.4 % reduction estimated); Gilwiskaw Brook (17.2 % reduction estimated); and upper River Mease (13.4 % reduction estimated).

Figure 49: Map showing relative FARMSCOPER maximum ‘scenario 3’ reduction estimates for selected target sub-catchment. Percentages are the reductions from catchment-wide baseline phosphorus loss (kg/ yr) estimates, shown in Table 5b.

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Natural England for PGA, through Next Perspectives™

© Environment Agency The most effective methods identified in FARMSCOPER which usually deliver at least 10 – 50% reductions in phosphorus pollution include:  Establish riparian buffer strips  Do not apply manufactured fertiliser to high-risk areas  Do not apply phosphorus fertilisers to high phosphorus index soils  Use poultry litter additives  Do not apply manure to high-risk areas  Do not spread slurry or poultry manure at high-risk times  Do not spread FYM to fields at high-risk times  Store solid manure heaps on an impermeable base and collect effluent  Use slurry injection application techniques  Establish and maintain artificial wetlands - steading runoff  Use dry-cleaning techniques to remove solid waste from yards prior to cleaning  Fence off rivers and streams from livestock, where adjacent land is intensively used for livestock.  Construct bridges for livestock crossing rivers/streams (though this can be an expensive option)  Capture of dirty water in a dirty water store

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

1.19 Delivery challenges One of the key challenges facing delivery of pollution mitigation and river habitat improvement in the Mease catchment is the complexity of its administrative framework. Although the Mease is a relatively small catchment it is covered by four county councils and four district authorities which means there are a lot of different partners to engage with to achieve delivery or influence planning. The catchment was only relatively recently notified as a SSSI and SAC in 2000 and 2005 respectively. Prior to this it was regularly stocked with fish, dredged and treated as a land drain. There is therefore a considerable challenge to engage people and change perceptions and attitudes. In comparison with catchments nationally there are a low proportion of riparian buffers currently in place. This was felt to be one of the key interventions required to reduce pollution risk in the catchment, together with floodplain reversion from arable to grassland/woodland and riparian woodland planting. In addition, the Mease is not a well-known river and has relatively few points of access for the public which makes engagement more difficult. A website focussing on the River Mease is being developed which may help raise awareness. FUTURE LANDUSE CHANGES AND POLLUTION RISK Likely future changes in landuse that may alter pollution risk in the Mease catchment include: o A further increase in maize production, particularly in the Lower Mease and Upper Mease waterbodies, due to the development of Anaerobic Digestion plants for energy production. There are currently two planning applications for plants one at Measham and one in the upper catchment. Advice on the management of maize and measures to limit its pollution impact will therefore be required to help mitigate this risk. o An increase in production of peas and beans is also likely over the next few years due to incentives which are available for these crops. o A potential future risk is the building of a chicken broiler unit in the catchment near Haunton.

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

References Environment Agency, 2013. Pollution Incidents Report. Jacobs, 2012. River Mease SSSI/SAC Restoration Plan - Technical Report. JNCC, 2014. Common Standards Monitoring Guidance. Lane S N, Brookes C J, Heathwaite A L and Reaney S M 2006: Surveillant science: challenges for the management of rural environments emerging from the new generation diffuse pollution models; Journal of Agricultural Economics. vol. 57 no. 2 pp 239 – 257. Natural England website 2010. http://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteUnitList.aspx?SiteCode=S2000416&SiteN ame=mease&countyCode=&responsiblePerson= [Accessed 10 Jan 2015). Natural England, 2013. National Area Character Profile, 72 – Mease/ Sence Lowlands. Natural England, 2014. Septic Tank Risk Assessment report. Rivers Trust, 2005. Making The Most Out Of Cross Compliance And Environmental Stewardship To Protect Water Courses - An Association of Rivers Trusts Guide for Rivers Trusts operating in England. South Derbyshire District Council, 2014. Habitat Regulations – Screening Report, Part 1. Zhang, Y., Collins, A. L., & Gooday, R. D. (2012). Application of the FARMSCOPER tool for assessing agricultural diffuse pollution mitigation methods across the Hampshire Avon Demonstration Test Catchment , UK. Environmental Science and Policy, 24, 120–131. APEM, 2014. Phosphorus speciation and bioavailability in channel sediments of the River Mease catchment. ADAS, 2012. Fine-grained sediment and particulate phosphorus sources in the River Mease SSSI/SAC - a reconnaissance survey using geochemical and radiometric fingerprints APEM, 2014. River Mease sediment fingerprinting: an evaluation of sediment sources and pathways in the River Mease.

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Further information & contacts

Angela Bartlett, Data and Evidence Officer, BSc. MSc. Email: [email protected] Angela is an environmental scientist who specialises in GIS, environmental modelling, data analysis, data visualisation and report writing support the technical delivery of strategic catchment management projects and water quality risk assessments.

Dr Russell Smith, Consultancy Director, BSc. MSc. PhD. Russell is a Chartered Scientist and Environmentalist and Consultancy Director for Westcountry Rivers Ltd. Russell has over 12 years' experience in catchment management/planning and environmental monitoring working in the public and private sector and has considerable experience in directing and managing diverse multi-discipline projects. Russell has been involved in the application and development of farm, catchment to national scale models and decision support tools since the late 1990’s in both research and consultancy. His experience in integrated catchment modelling is complemented by his experience in monitoring and his detailed understanding of the relationship between temporally and spatially variable catchment processes. Email: [email protected]

Dr Nick Paling, Head of GIS, Evidence and Communications, BSc. MSc. PhD. Nick is an applied ecologist and conservation biologist with 8 years of experience using spatial techniques to inform conservation strategy development and catchment management. He provides data, mapping & modelling support for all Trust projects and coordinates and manages a number of large-scale monitoring programmes currently being undertaken by the Trust. Email: [email protected]

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Appendix 1: Summary of optimisation and mitigation methods. Graphical display of the FARMSCOPER optimisation output for intervention target areas in the Mease catchment. Method selected which were selected <90% of the time out of 50 iterations are shown. The selection frequencies for each method are shown on the first y axis. The % reductions associated with each method are shown on a secondary y axis.

FARMSCOPER mitigation method descriptions.

ID Method Name 4 Establish cover crops in the autumn 5 Early harvesting and establishment of crops in the autumn 6 Cultivate land for crops in spring rather than autumn 7 Adopt reduced cultivation systems 8 Cultivate compacted tillage soils 9 Cultivate and drill across the slope 10 Leave autumn seedbeds rough 11 Manage over-winter tramlines 13 Establish in-field grass buffer strips 14 Establish riparian buffer strips 15 Loosen compacted soil layers in grassland fields 16 Allow field drainage systems to deteriorate 180 Intensive ditch management on arable land 181 Intensive ditch management on grassland 19 Make use of improved genetic resources in livestock 20 Use plants with improved nitrogen use efficiency 21 Fertiliser spreader calibration

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

22 Use a fertiliser recommendation system 23 Integrate fertiliser and manure nutrient supply 25 Do not apply manufactured fertiliser to high-risk areas 26 Avoid spreading manufactured fertiliser to fields at high-risk times 27 Use manufactured fertiliser placement technologies 290 Replace urea fertiliser to grassland with another form 291 Replace urea fertiliser to arable land with another form 300 Incorporate a urease inhibitor into urea fertilisers for grassland 301 Incorporate a urease inhibitor into urea fertilisers for arable land 31 Use clover in place of fertiliser nitrogen 32 Do not apply P fertilisers to highphosphorusindex soils 331 Reduce dietary N and P intakes: Dairy 332 Reduce dietary N and P intakes: Pigs and Poultry 34 Adopt phase feeding of livestock 35 Reduce the length of the grazing day/grazing season 36 Extend the grazing season for cattle 37 Reduce field stocking rates when soils are wet 38 Move feeders at regular intervals 39 Construct troughs with concrete base 42 Increase scraping frequency in dairy cow cubicle housing 43 Additional targeted bedding for straw-bedded cattle housing 44 Washing down of dairy cow collecting yards 46 Frequent removal of slurry from beneath-slat storage in pig housing 47 Part-slatted floor design for pig buildings 48 Install air-scrubbers or bio trickling filters in mechanically ventilated pig housing 49 Convert caged laying hen housing from deep-pit storage to belt manure removal 50 More frequent manure removal from laying hen housing with manure belt systems 51 In-house poultry manure drying 52 Increase the capacity of farm slurry stores to improve timing of slurry applications 53 Adopt batch storage of slurry 54 Install covers to slurry stores 55 Allow cattle slurry stores to develop a natural crust 570 Minimise the volume of dirty water produced (sent to dirty water store) 571 Minimise the volume of dirty water produced (sent to slurry store) 59 Compost solid manure 60 Site solid manure heaps away from watercourses/field drains 61 Store solid manure heaps on an impermeable base and collect effluent 62 Cover solid manure stores with sheeting 63 Use liquid/solid manure separation techniques 64 Use poultry litter additives 67 Manure Spreader Calibration 68 Do not apply manure to high-risk areas 69 Do not spread slurry or poultry manure at high-risk times 70 Use slurry band spreading application techniques 71 Use slurry injection application techniques 72 Do not spread FYM to fields at high-risk times 73 Incorporate manure into the soil 76 Fence off rivers and streams from livestock 100

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

77 Construct bridges for livestock crossing rivers/streams 78 Re-site gateways away from high-risk areas 79 Farm track management 80 Establish new hedges 81 Establish and maintain artificial wetlands - steading runoff 82 Irrigate crops to achieve maximum yield 83 Establish tree shelter belts around livestock housing 90 Calibration of sprayer 91 Fill/Mix/Clean sprayer in field 92 Avoid PPP application at high risk timings 94 Drift reduction methods 95 PPP substitution 96 Construct bunded impermeable PPP filling/mixing/cleaning area 97 Treatment of PPP washings through disposal, activated carbon or biobeds 101 Protection of in-field trees 102 Management of woodland edges 103 Management of in-field ponds 1040 Unintensive hedge and ditch management on arable land 1041 Unintensive hedge and ditch management on grassland 105 Management of field corners 106 Plant areas of farm with wild bird seed / nectar flower mixtures 107 Beetle banks 108 Uncropped cultivated margins 109 Skylark plots 110 Uncropped cultivated areas 111 Unfertilised cereal headlands 112 Unharvested cereal headlands 113 Undersown spring cereals 114 Take field corners out of management 115 Leave over winter stubbles 116 Leave residual levels of non-aggressive weeds in crops 117 Use correctly-inflated low ground pressure tyres on machinery 118 Locate out-wintered stock away from watercourses 119 Use dry-cleaning techniques to remove solid waste from yards prior to cleaning 120 Capture of dirty water in a dirty water store 121 Irrigation/water supply equipment is maintained and leaks repaired 122 Avoid irrigating at high risk times 123 Use efficient irrigation techniques (boom trickle, self-closing nozzles)

101

Natural England Pollution Risk Assessment & Source Apportionment: River Mease Catchment

Appendix 2: List of Environmental Stewardship Scheme options with water quality benefits included in each category. Methodology taken from Rivers Trust 2005 publication. Linked with Figure 36.

Ditch management options EB6 Ditch Management EB7 Half Ditch Management EB8,9 & 10 Combined Hedge & Ditch Management

Buffer strip and field margin options EE1 2m buffer strips on cultivated land EE2 4m buffer strips on cultivated land EE3 6m buffer strips on cultivated land EE4 2m buffer strips on intensive grassland EE5 4m buffer strips on intensive grassland EE6 6m buffer strips on intensive grassland EF9 conservation headlands in cereal fields EF10 conservation headlands in cereal fields with no fertilisers/manure EF11 6m uncropped, cultivated margins on arable land

Soil stability options EF6 over wintered stubbles EF7 Beetle Banks EG1 under sown spring cereals EG4 cereals for whole crop silage followed by over wintered stubbles

Options for changing cropping regimes and timing of operations EJ1 management of high erosion risk cultivated land EJ2 management of maize crops to reduce soil erosion

Options to reduce nutrient inputs EK2 permanent grassland with low inputs EK3 permananet grassland with very low inputs EK4 management of rush pastures (outside the LFA) EL2 manage permanent in bye grassland with low inputs EL3 manage in bye pasture and meadows with very low inputs EL4 management of rush pastures (LFA Land)

Management Plan options EM1 Soil Management Plan EM2 Nutrient Management Plan EM3 Manure Management Plan EM4 Crop Protection Management Plan

102