Britain’s inlandwaterways: Balancing the needsof navigation andaquatic wildlife

2

What is the Inland Waterways Advisory Council (IWAC)?IWAC is a public body which provides independent advice to

Government, navigation authorities and other interested

parties on matters it considers appropriate and relevant to

Britain’s inland waterways.

Created in April 2007 by the Natural Environment and

Rural Communities Act 2006, IWAC is supported by Defra

and the Scottish Government. It succeeded the former

Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, created

in 1968 to give advice on the amenity and recreational

use of canals and rivers managed by British Waterways.

What is IWAC’s role?

IWAC’s role is to ensure that the inland waterways are

sustainably developed to meet the needs of all who use

and enjoy them. Once used mainly for freight transport,

the waterways now have a strong recreational and

amenity use.

They act as an effective catalyst for the regeneration

of local economies, acting as a focus to bring economic,

social and environmental benefits to cities, towns and

rural communities.

In England and Wales, IWAC’s remit covers all of the

inland waterways such as:

• canals (including those managed by British Waterways,

canal companies, local authorities and smaller

independent bodies);

• rivers (including those the responsibility of the

Environment Agency, British Waterways and

port authorities);

• the Norfolk & Suffolk Broads, and

• the navigable drains of the Fens.

In Scotland, IWAC’s remit covers inland waterways that

are owned or managed by, or which receive technical

advice or assistance from, British Waterways.

IWAC has published reports which include: reducing

carbon dioxide emissions by moving more freight onto

inland waterways, the restoration priorities of disused

waterways, good practice guidance on promoting the

potential of the inland waterways through the planning

process, using the waterways to encourage social inclusion

and showing the contribution that waterways can make

to rural regeneration.

More about IWAC

For further information on IWAC and to see copies

of its reports, visit our website at www.iwac.org.uk

1 Summary 4

2 Introduction 7

3 Understanding the Waterways 11

4 Importance of Waterways for Nature Conservation 25

5 Non-Navigation Factors that affect Waterway Nature Conservation Value 35

6 Influence of Navigation on Aquatic Wildlife 41

7 Case Studies 51

8 Improving the Balance between Navigation and Nature Conservation 53

9 Conclusions and Recommendations 69

10 Glossary and list of Abbreviations 73

11 Bibliography 75

12 Acknowledgements 79

AppendicesAppendix 1 Summary of Main Legislation 81

Appendix 2 Important Protected Species & Habitats Associated with Navigable Waterways 86

Appendix 3 Guidance on Waterway Management for Important Species and Habitats 90

Appendix 4 Consensus Building Techniques - Supporting Information 96

Appendix 5 Case Studies: 106

- Ashby Canal 107

- The Broads 110

- Bude Canal 114

- Forth & Clyde Canal 118

- Grand Union Canal 122

- Great Ouse 126

- Lancaster Canal 130

- Montgomery Canal 134

- River Thames Navigation 138

- Rochdale Canal 142

3

Contents

SummaryUK Government policy is to promote the sustainableuse and development of all the inland waterways ofEngland and Wales and to maximise the contributionthey make to the needs of the nation and localcommunities. The Scottish Government has a similarpolicy for canals in Scotland.

The aim of this report is to help those involved with

non-tidal inland waterways to facilitate the use of the

waterways for sustainable navigation whilst protecting

and, where practicable, enhancing their biodiversity.

The Key Conclusions

As a whole, the inland waterways system in Britain makes

an important contribution to biodiversity and to aquatic

wildlife in particular. In the interests both of nature

conservation and of the continuing attractiveness of the

system to its users, this contribution needs to be

protected and, where practicable, enhanced.

The contribution of the system to wildlife conservation is

far from uniform: at one extreme there are internationally

and nationally important designated sites with legal

protection, notably the Broads and some peripheral

waterways (such as the Montgomery and Pocklington

Canals) undergoing, or with plans for, restoration of

navigation; at the other there are some stretches devoid

of much nature conservation interest.

The extremes constitute a small proportion of the whole

system. The vast majority of it is of modest conservation

interest and here the wildlife value and the attractiveness

for users can, and should, be affected directly by how

the waterways are managed and by other controls. With

appropriate management almost all waterways can deliver

some wildlife benefits compatible with other requirements

on them, including navigation, often without incurring

any significant additional costs. Clearly effort and any

additional expenditure must be balanced against the

wildlife benefits obtained and sustainability considerations

but, in many cases, improvements in wildlife conservation

value can be achieved at little or no additional cost by

ensuring that this aspect is considered at the planning

stage of waterway maintenance or restoration work.

The value of each part of the system for aquatic wildlife

conservation evolves over time and all nationally protected

sites (Sites of Special Scientific Interest or SSSIs) are

subject to continuing re-assessment by the statutory

agencies. Whilst both UK and Scottish Government policy

is to maintain or restore SSSIs to favourable conservation

status, a few SSSIs on very busy waterways have never

reached and are unlikely ever to reach favourable

conservation status even with large expenditure and

resource input and the best efforts of the waterway

managers. In such cases, it may be best to focus limited

4

available resources on SSSIs where achievement of

favourable status is a realistic proposition. Conversely,

other sites may grow in importance and may justify

legal protection in future.

Changes in wildlife value arise because a whole cocktail of

pressures, as well as navigation, affects waterway wildlife.

Physical alterations, such as the installation of weirs on

rivers and bank protection, affect habitat availability. Water

quality is important, especially nutrient pollution from both

point and diffuse sources. The Water Framework Directive

aims to address such issues by establishing programmes

of measures directed towards the achievement of

ecological quality targets in all surface water bodies and

should be a major stimulus to improving wildlife value

of the waterways system. Other factors affecting aquatic

wildlife value include hydrological impacts (e.g. water

diversion, abstraction and impoundment), fishery

management and invasive species.

Many non-tidal navigable inland waterways are already

managed to serve navigation demands, as required by

statute in many cases, in an appropriate balance with

other requirements including those of aquatic wildlife.

Such a management approach, both sustainable and

by consensus, is supported by the Inland Waterways

Advisory Council (IWAC); it should continue and be

extended to all waterways.

There are a small number of waterways, both in use for

navigation and with plans for restoration, where their

importance for aquatic wildlife should be given extra

consideration in their design and management, even

as far as limitations on boat movements, boat speed

or the type of vessels allowed.

Achieving a sustainable balance between navigation and

aquatic wildlife conservation does not necessarily cost

more, but where it involves significant additional costs

these should be shared between those who benefit.

Across the system, navigation and wildlife bodies need

to be actively engaged at all levels of management and

consultation, to decide on shared objectives, to agree

on approaches to impact assessment, to ascertain the

optimum balance for future management, to develop

good practice methods and to monitor outcomes, if the

country is to get the best value out of its inland waterways.

The Key Recommendations

Navigation authorities/bodies should:

• develop consistent and appropriate procedures to assess

ecological impact in advance of works that may affect

aquatic wildlife, at a level of detail commensurate with

the risks to or benefits for wildlife in each case; for works

requiring consent from the environment agencies or other

bodies, these should be consistent with existing procedures

and guidance used by the consenting authorities;

• in consultation with wildlife bodies, develop waterway

based local biodiversity action plans tailored specifically

to contribute to decisions on waterway maintenance and

management; these may be very brief or more complex,

depending on the activities being undertaken;

• bring together engineers (civil or marine), the waterway

industry, environmental professionals (including ecologists)

and navigation experts, including those within statutory

agencies, to develop and implement appropriate mitigation

and enhancement measures for waterway wildlife, while

ensuring that essential works to the waterway are not

prevented by excessive mitigation costs;

• produce Waterway Conservation Management Plans (CMPs)

for the limited number of waterways (active navigations and

those under restoration or proposed for restoration) with

significant nature conservation interest and review existing

waterway CMPs;

• seek to engage local stakeholders and statutory

environment and nature conservation agencies, to foster

mutual understanding on matters relating to navigation

and wildlife and to work in partnership to develop and

implement good practice;

• be active partners (directly or through the Association of

Inland Navigation Authorities AINA) in contributing to the

development and implementation on their waterways of

the River Basin Management Plans required by the Water

Framework Directive, to ensure that navigational waterway

interests are taken fully into account.

AINA should provide a forum for, and actively encourage,

dissemination of the considerable experience of larger

navigation authorities on management of waterways for

navigation and wildlife to the smaller navigation authorities.

Development agencies, English regional bodies and all local

authorities throughout Britain should:

• take an interest in developing the full potential of inland

waterways in their areas for navigation users, wildlife

and for the community as a whole;

• engage with navigation authorities, statutory conservation

and environment agencies, landowners and the voluntary

sector to agree future development and conservation plans

for these waterways;

• ensure that appropriate protection and development

provisions are included in regional spatial strategies

and local development plans.

Voluntary sector organisations should:

• develop a more effective dialogue on navigation and nature

conservation issues to share experience, develop best

practice and to address issues such as coordinating the

use of volunteers.

There is a particular need for wildlife non-governmental

organisations (NGOs) to participate in the local and national

consultation and liaison arrangements of navigation

authorities, as well as responding positively to requests

for involvement in waterway restoration projects.

Government and regulatory bodies should:

• recognise fully the value of navigable inland waterways

in River Basin Management Plans established under the

Water Framework Directive, making full use of provisions

for the designation of artificial and heavily modified water

bodies and setting alternative objectives as appropriate,

thus ensuring that navigation authorities are not subjected

to disproportionate costs.

Waterway related businesses should:

• contribute to the protection of the waterway environment

by adopting good practices which avoid damage to wildlife

and minimise water pollution, and by encouraging their

customers to do the same.

IWAC will:

• keep this matter under regular review to identify changes

and, where possible, anticipate problems.

5

6

7

This report identifies the wildlife potential of different

types of navigable waterway and how this can be affected

by a range of factors including the waterway’s management

and use for navigation.

The background to the study

The nature conservation value of our canals and navigable

rivers is increasingly important to the many waterway

users who enjoy the natural world and are interested

in wildlife. International and national law, regulatory

frameworks and planning policies recognise the

importance of biodiversity in sustainable development.

Regeneration of waterways relies on their environmental

quality and attractiveness, as well as on social and

economic factors.

Over the last five years our understanding of the

relationship between navigation and aquatic wildlife

conservation on non-tidal waterways has changed

significantly as a result of hydrodynamic and ecological

research. A broad portfolio of mitigation and enhancement

techniques has been developed, ranging from management

of navigation activity to soft bank protection, as well as

experimental methods such as creation of off-channel

reserves in an attempt to protect rare plant species in

formerly derelict canals restored for navigation.

Recent years have also seen a rise in the use of

consensus-building techniques which, by involving

stakeholders at all stages of waterway restoration,

have encouraged more open and positive dialogue

between parties involved in waterway management

and the definition and achievement of shared objectives.

Aims of the study

This study, funded by the Department for Environment,

Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), aims to promote

understanding of the relationship between navigation

and aquatic wildlife and to recommend best practice

methods that will help encourage the sustainable use

of the waterways.

The report brings together engineering, social and

ecological expertise. It aims to be concise and readable,

give practical guidance and provide signposting to sources

of further information.

Our hope is that this report will encourage the

consideration of the needs of navigation and aquatic

wildlife in waterway planning and management and

the application of good practice so that:

• overall, the aquatic wildlife conservation value

of waterways is protected and, where practicable,

enhanced;

• navigation on currently navigable waterways is not

unreasonably limited by nature conservation constraints;

• restoration to navigation of currently un-navigable

waterways is facilitated while taking full account

of nature conservation and sustainability;

• bodies responsible for, or interested in, either navigation

or nature conservation are informed and empowered

to reach agreements rather than allowing conflict

to develop.

IntroductionThe non-tidal navigable inland waterways of Britainare a valued resource receiving well over 350 millionvisits by users of different kinds every year. Thenavigable channels of these waterways are used by pleasure craft and, to a limited extent, for carriageof freight and can, with appropriate management, also contribute to aquatic wildlife conservation.

8

Scope of the report

The study:

1. summarises the biodiversity value of the waterway

channel and its current use by boat traffic;

2. examines the relationships between boat use and

aquatic wildlife;

3. examines case studies of, and other evidence on,

ways of balancing the requirements of navigation

and aquatic wildlife;

4. recommends best practice that can provide an

improved, more consensual, way ahead. However,

the study does not set out to provide a detailed

technical manual of good practice.

The study considers only the relationship between

navigation and aquatic wildlife in the main waterway

channel and waterbodies directly connected with it,

such as backwaters, weir streams and by-washes.

The main focus is on the impact of motorised vessels

and on ways in which they can best be accommodated.

In terms of geographical coverage, the study covers

England, Wales and Scotland. It includes solely the canals

of Scotland, all non-tidal waterways of England and Wales

plus the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads, which are partially

tidal. Other navigable tidal rivers and estuaries are also

an important component of the inland waterways network,

many with significant wildlife interest, but are outside

the scope of this report which considers only freshwater

or slightly brackish systems.

Although important for nature conservation and sometimes

directly affected by waterway use, the following are also

not covered by the study:

• areas adjacent to waterways, such as river floodplains,

non-navigable canal feeders and reservoirs, towpaths

and hedgerows;

• lakes, except where they are an integral part of the

waterway (e.g. Scottish lochs forming part of the

Caledonian canal), because they have a very

different ecology;

• disturbance of wildlife by activities on board moored

boats - these effects are similar to those arising from

recreational use of the waterway banks generally.

Inland Waterways Advisory Council (IWAC)

IWAC’s predecessor organisation, the Inland Waterways

Amenity Advisory Council, was a statutory body set up

by the 1968 Transport Act to advise UK Government and

British Waterways (BW) on strategic policy for the use

and development of the 2000 miles of inland waterways

managed by BW.

Under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities

Act 2006, the Council became the Inland Waterways

Advisory Council on 1 April 2007. Its remit in England

and Wales was widened to cover the strategic use of

all inland waterways; in Scotland it continues to cover

those waterways which BW manage or in which BW

has an interest.

Maryhill Locks, Forth & Clyde Canal Resolfen, Neath Canal

9

Association of Inland Navigation Authorities (AINA): www.aina.org.uk

British Waterways (BW): www.britishwaterways.co.uk

British Waterways Scotland (BWS): www.britishwaterways.co.uk/scotland/scot_home/index.html

Broads Authority (BA): www.broads-authority.gov.uk

Countryside Council for Wales (CCW): www.ccw.gov.uk

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra): www.defra.gov.uk

Environment Agency (EA): www.environment-agency.gov.uk

Inland Waterways Advisory Council (IWAC): www.iwac.org.uk

Inland Waterways Association (IWA): www.waterways.org.uk

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC): www.jncc.gov.uk

Natural England (NE): www.naturalengland.org.uk

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA): www.sepa.org

Scottish Government: www.scotland.gov.uk

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH): www.snh.gov.uk

Sea and Water: www.seaandwater.org

The Waterways Trust: www.thewaterwaystrust.co.uk

The Wildlife Trusts: www.wildlifetrusts.org

Welsh Assembly Government: www.wales.gov.uk

Key web resources

The Target audience

The report will be of relevance to a wide range

of bodies, particularly:

• individual navigation authorities, the Association

of Inland Navigation Authorities (AINA) and

The Waterways Trust;

• other waterway interest bodies, including the voluntary

sector (e.g. the Inland Waterways Association, other

national groups and individual waterway societies);

• UK Government departments such as the Department

for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra),

Department for Transport (DfT), Department for

Communities and Local Government (DCLG),

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS);

• the Scottish Government (SG) and Welsh Assembly

Government (WAG);

• local authority planning and countryside officers;

• statutory bodies such as Natural England (NE), Scottish

Natural Heritage (SNH), Countryside Council for Wales

(CCW), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC),

Environment Agency (EA), Scottish Environment

Protection Agency (SEPA);

• voluntary nature conservation organisations

(e.g. The Wildlife Trusts);

• landowners and others with rights over waterways

and related land.

We hope that the report will also prove of interest to

individual waterway users, particularly boaters, anglers,

walkers and naturalists, and to other stakeholders,

including waterway related businesses.

10

11

Some have been important for navigation for many

centuries, while man-made waterways expanded rapidly

from the 17th century onwards, initially for agricultural

drainage purposes and then to satisfy the transport needs

of the industrial revolution. Each type of waterway has

its own special characteristics and historical background.

On most waterways, navigation authorities have a statutory

duty to maintain navigation.

UK Government policy promotes the sustainable

development of the navigable inland waterway system

and recognises its role in a number of fields, including

recreation, transport, regeneration, water management

and conservation of the built and natural heritage.

The Scottish Government has a similar policy for canals

in Scotland.

The inland waterways resource

There are over 6000km of currently navigable inland

waterways in England and Wales, about 1500km of which

are tidal. In addition, there are about 900km of managed,

un-navigable waterways and a further 2000km of

abandoned un-navigable waterways. There are some

225km of canals in Scotland, as well as navigable sea

lochs and tidal rivers. (Map 3.1).

The development of inland waterway navigation in Britain

began with the use by vessels of naturally navigable

estuaries and rivers. Navigation was gradually improved

by installation of weirs and locks on rivers, by artificial

‘cuts’ by-passing difficult river sections and later by

completely man-made canals, often crossing river basin

boundaries. Some channelised rivers and new water

bodies built primarily for land drainage purposes were

also used for navigation.

The legacy of this development is a wide variety

of waterway types (Map 3.1) including:

• narrow, broad and ship canals;

• navigable rivers (ranging from fairly natural to heavily

modified);

• the rivers and shallow lakes of the Norfolk and Suffolk

Broads (‘Broadland’), which are partially tidal;

• navigable drains, mainly in the Fens of eastern England;

• navigable lakes and lochs (e.g. Loch Lomond,

Loch Ness, Llyn Tegid and Windermere);

• tidal rivers and estuaries (not considered in this report

except for the Broads).

These waterway types each have their distinctive

environmental characteristics and often support different

types of wildlife (Chapter 4).

Understanding the waterways

Some sections of river navigations were later

by-passed by canals, as on the Aire & Calder

Vessels have used the River Ouse wharves such

as King’s Staith in York from Roman times

The non-tidal inland waterway system of Britain isextraordinarily diverse. It includes navigable rivers,some with locks, and artificial waterways rangingfrom the narrow canals of the English Midlands to ship canals, as well as many navigable fenlanddrains and broads.

12

RiverTees

Lancaster

DriffieldNavigation

River Derwent

SwaleNavigation(unfinished)

RiponCanal

UreNavigation

Ri O

River DerwentNavigation

Other river

National boundary

Broad Canal (over 7ft wide)

Navigable

No longer navigable

Under restoration

(max 7ft wide)

Navigable

No longer navigable

Under restoration

Narrow Canal

Other Navigation

Proposed navigation

Canal with lock size unknown

River Navigation

Navigable

No longer navigable

Under restoration

Tidal River Navigation

Navigable

No longer navigable

Under restoration

Built-up area

Navigable lake

CrinanCanal

CaledonianCanal

LochNess

LochLochy

LochOich

LochDochfour

BurnturkCanals

UnionCanal

Forth & ClydeCanal

MonklandCanal

Aberdeenshire Canal

Loch Lomond

River Tyne

River WearCarlisleCanal

RiverDee

Loch Ken

River Clyde

RiverTay

River Earn

RiverForth

ABERDEEN

GLASGOWEDINBURGH

Fig

ure

3.1

Ma

p o

f wa

terw

ay

typ

es

13

LEEDS

MANCHESTER

BIRMINGHAM

CARDIFF

LONDON

0 50 10025 Kilometres

0 30 6015 Miles

© GEOprojects 2003

ExeterShip

Canal

RiverDart

RiverPlym

RiverTamar

TavistockCanal

Bude Canal

RiverTorridge

CanalLeeds &Liverpool

Canal

PocklingtonCanal

MarketWeighton

Canal

RiverAncholmeNavigation

FossdykeNavigation

RiverWelland

NavigationRiverGlen

ChesterfieldCanal

River StourNavigation

Chelmer &BlackwaterNavigation

BasingstokeCanal

Wey &ArunCanal

Wey &ArunCanal

RiverWey

River OuseNavigation

RiverHull

RiverTrent Louth

Navigation

WithamNavigableDrains

River Nar

River Wissey

Little OuseRiver

River Lark

River CamGreat OuseNavigation

SleafordNavigation

Middle LevelNavigations

Old WestRiver

River MedwayRiver Stour

Rye Harbour

River OuseRiver Adur

SouthwickCanal

BaybridgeCanal

RiverArun

Portsmouth &Arundel Canal

River Rother(Western)NavigationRiver

Itchen

AndoverCanal

AvonNavigation

Grand WesternCanal

Bridgwater &Taunton Canal

ChardCanal

River ParrettGlastonbury Canal

AvonNavigation

Dorset &Somerset

Canal

Kennet & Avon Canal

Wiltshire &Berkshire Canal

River Thames

LeeNavigation

Stort Navigation

CroydonCanal

Regent'sCanal

Grand UnionCanal

WendoverArm

AylesburyArm

BuckinghamArm

Bedford Link

SheffordCanal

OxfordCanal

River NeneNavigation

Thames &Severn Canal

StroudwaterNavigation

Gloucester &Sharpness Canal

Upper AvonNavigation

Lower AvonNavigation

RiverSevern

River SevernNavigation

Herefordshire &Gloucestershire

Canal

River Wye

Leominster Canal

Monmouthshire &Brecon Canal

GlamorganshireCanal

CrumlinBranch

NeathCanal

Swansea Canal

Grand UnionCanal

Stratford-Upon-AvonCanal

Worcester &BirminghamCanal

Droitwich Canals

Staffordshire &WorcestershireCanal

CoventryCanal Ashby

Canal

Birmingham & Fazeley Canal

BirminghamCanal

Navigations

LichfieldCanal

ShropshireUnionCanal

LlangollenCanal

MontgomeryCanal

CaldonCanalTrent &

MerseyCanal

MacclesfieldCanal

Peak ForestCanal

Derby Canal

HuddersfieldNarrow Canal

HuddersfieldBroad Canal

BridgewaterCanal

WeaverNavigation

St Helens(Sankey)

Canal

TrentNavigation

ErewashCanal

GranthamCanal

Leicestershire &Northamptonshire

Union Canal

MarketHarboroughArm

The Broads

RochdaleCanal

Waterbody size and type %

Narrow canals

Broad and ship canals

Non-tidal natural or modified

rivers (including lochs on

linear waterways)

Land drainage channels

Broadland rivers and Broads

Tidal waterways

18

26

23

5

3

25

Extent of each type of waterway as a

proportion of the total length of currently

navigable* inland waterway in Great Britain

* - navigable by motorised craft

14

Figure 3.1

Shows typical river characteristics.

Some rivers are naturally navigable but the

majority of non-tidal navigable rivers have been

regulated by the construction of locks and weirs.

In some cases substantial sections have been

by-passed by artificial cuts (canal sections).

Although some rivers have been heavily canalised

(e.g. the River Lee), most have few navigation

related engineering works between locks and

retain predominantly natural banks. Water supply

is usually based on the natural river flow. Water

flow velocities are usually higher than in canals

and flooding may occur frequently. Dredging may

be required to remove shallow spots in the

navigation but the need is usually quite localised.

Lakes and broads (shallow lakes of The Broads)

are natural or man-made waterbodies that vary

greatly in depth and rarely have any engineering

works carried out on their banks.

Some rivers in fenland areas were built for land

drainage but are also used for navigation. These

have some similarities to canals. Water flows

in summer may be very low but much higher

in winter. Managed water levels often vary greatly,

typically with high levels in summer to maintain

supplies to agriculture and low levels in winter

to assist land drainage.

Figure 3.2

Shows typical canal characteristics.

Canals are man-made watercourses typically with

reservoirs and feeders to supply them with water.

They usually have a generally saucer-shaped

cross-section but often with deeper water on

the towpath side. Banks may be protected from

erosion, for example by the use of piling. Where

the water must be retained above the natural

water table, the canal is normally lined with

puddled clay. Water flow velocities are typically

low, water levels closely controlled and flooding

is rare.

Changes in level are accomplished by locks, which

are often grouped in ‘flights’ for ease of operation

and management.

Sizes vary from the narrow canals of the English

Midlands, with channels typically 8-15m wide and

less than 2m deep and lock sizes limiting boat

widths to just over 2m, to ship canals over 50m

wide and up to 10m deep (e.g. Manchester Ship

Canal). Periodic dredging is usually required

to maintain navigable depth. The aquatic habitat

of canals often differs from that of surrounding

natural water bodies and their uniform cross-

sections offer lower habitat diversity than most

lowland rivers (see Chapter 4).

Some Fenland drains have been made navigable;

this is Cowbridge Lock near Boston

Many canals in England were built to take

‘narrow boats’ only 2.13m (7 feet) wide

Weirs and locks were built on rivers such as the Thames

to improve navigation

Some canals, such as the Forth & Clyde, were built

to allow seagoing vessels to cross the country

15

Fig

ure

3.1

16Fig

ure

3.2

The origins, uses and value of the waterwaysRivers in Britain were used for navigation from the earliest times. From the medieval period onwards, manywere substantially modified to make them better suited to navigation. Between the 14th century and the start of the main canal building era of the mid/late 18th century,river engineering more than doubled the 1000km of non-tidal British rivers which were navigable in their naturalstate. The waterways system expanded rapidly from thelate 18th century with the construction of numerousartificial canals reaching its zenith in the mid-19th century, when over 6400 km of non-tidal canals and rivernavigations, many interconnecting, were in use (Map 3.1).

The driving force for the construction and improvement

of most waterways, both rivers and canals, was the desire

of entrepreneurs and investors to create a more efficient

method of transport to facilitate trade and commerce.

In doing so they created a transport system which made

a vital contribution to the Industrial Revolution.

As rail and road transport came to dominate, the

original transport and communication function of the

inland waterways largely disappeared from all but a few

large waterways. Now, many of the non-tidal waterways

see relatively little freight traffic. Instead, they have become

a multi-functional resource of value both to the country

as a whole and to local communities.

The principal components of this value are:

• a leisure and tourism resource - the system is used

by over 60,000 licensed privately owned craft, together

with some 2,500 boats available for holidays through

hire, timeshare and hotel boat arrangements and

a further 200 boats offering day trips to the public.

The banks and towpaths of BW-managed waterways

receive over 300 million visits each year by walkers,

cyclists, anglers and sightseers. BW estimates that

visitor spend is at least £1.5 billion per year for its

own waterways.

The EA estimates that the non-tidal River Thames alone

generates 14 million day visits annually and 28 million

casual visits, contributing around £200 million to local

communities. Tens of millions more use the remaining

waterways in some way;

• support, in whole or in part, for a significant number

of businesses; including boat hire yards, marinas, boat

builders, equipment manufacturers, chandleries, angling

equipment suppliers; together with local shops, pubs,

restaurants, visitor centres and so on;

• freight use - around 50 million tonnes of freight are

carried on UK waterways annually of which about 7%

are entirely internal traffics, mainly on the larger inland

waterways based on the Thames, Humber, Mersey and

Severn river systems (the rest being seagoing traffic

that penetrates the larger, mainly tidal, waterways).

It is both UK and Scottish Government policy to increase

the use of the waterways for freight and appropriate

traffics in England and Wales have been identified

by UK Government sponsored working groups and

AINA reports;

17

Canal sites such as Stoke Bruerne are major visitor attractions,

as well as popular stops for boaters

Inland waterway marinas support a wide

range of small businesses

The former Clarence Dock in Leeds is the focus for major

waterside redevelopment

Community boats encourage access to waterways and

their wildlife by a wide range of social groups

Carriage of aggregates by barge can reduce road traffic Many waterway structures are listed, including this cottage

and split lock bridge on the Stratford Canal

• a focus for urban and rural regeneration schemes.

There are striking examples in cities, such as

Birmingham (Brindley Place), Glasgow (Port Dundas),

Manchester (Castlefield), Leeds (Clarence Dock) and

London Docklands, as well as in a range of smaller

towns (such as Market Harborough and Devizes) and

at rural sites. Much of the rural potential is still

largely unexploited;

• a route for telecommunications - by use of canal

towpaths as routes for fibre-optic cables;

• a significant role in water management (and locally in

water transfer for public supply, as with the Llangollen

and the Gloucester & Sharpness Canals), as well as in

flood defence;

• a heritage resource - much of the canal system, in

particular, has outstanding heritage value with entire

canals or specific lengths and structures recognised as

being of national and international importance. BW is

the third largest owner of listed buildings and structures

in the country;

• a community resource which helps to support national

policies for improving the quality of life, for example

through education and training, volunteering, health and

well-being, sustainable transport routes for walking and

cycling, and outdoor access for those with disabilities;

• an ecological resource - the waterways have long been

known for their nature conservation value. Nearly all

waterways have some value for wildlife and this

component is an important part of the attraction of

waterways to the public. As with the built heritage, some

lengths have been recognised as being of national or

international importance for wildlife. This is described

in more detail in the next chapter.

18

19

Vessels on the inland waterways

In the early days of the waterways, vessels were towed

from the bank by men or horses, propelled by use of a

barge pole (shaft or quant), or relied on natural elements

such as the wind or current. Steering was facilitated by

use of a large rudder and devices such as leeboards.

From late in the 19th Century, vessels driven by steam

engines via a propeller (or very occasionally paddles)

became widespread on larger waterways. These were

followed early in the 20th century by boats fitted with

internal combustion engines, which rapidly became

almost universal. Steering is achieved by a rudder onto

which the propeller jet is directed or by use of drive units

such as outboard motors or other omni-directional

drives, where the propeller shaft itself can be rotated

in a horizontal plane.

Devices such as bow-thrusters are sometimes used on

modern freight barges, allowing larger vessels to navigate

safely in confined waters. These have also become more

popular on smaller pleasure craft, particularly canal

narrow boats.

The change from early methods of propulsion to propeller

driven craft has greatly increased the interaction between

the vessel and the waterway channel environment

(Chapter 6).

Navigation authorities

Just over half of the navigable largely non-tidal system

(by length) is owned or managed by British Waterways

(BW), nearly a fifth by the Environment Agency (EA),

with the rest being the responsibility of over 20 other

navigation authorities and bodies. The largest of these is

the Broads Authority (BA); others include local authorities,

trusts and private sector companies (Map 3.2).

Waterway legislation

While some inland waterways are largely natural, most

non-tidal navigable waterways were constructed or

improved under powers granted by Acts of Parliament.

These allowed the promoters, usually private companies,

to construct and operate their waterways and to

charge tolls.

Many of these Acts still apply, making matters very complex

for navigation authorities; for example, there are over 370

Acts relating to waterways managed by British Waterways,

the earliest being the Lee Improvement Act passed in 1424

(and written in the court language of the time - Norman

French). These Acts often provide navigation authorities

with many of their operational powers and determine their

relationships with landowners and their powers to make

charges for uses of the waterway. On many waterways,

they place a duty upon the navigation authority to maintain

provision for navigation. In some cases, the complexity and

antiquity of the legislation creates barriers to efficient

management of waterways and there is a need for

modernisation and rationalisation.

The construction of canals and artificial sections of river

navigations, such as locks and lock cuts, usually involved

purchase of the land by the navigation company. Thus

these sections of waterway are generally still owned by

the navigation authority, giving them significant powers

to carry out works for the benefit of both navigation and

other requirements such as nature conservation.

Propeller driven vessels under power create turbulent

water flows at the stern

Thames sailing barges were very efficient, with over 300 square

metres of sail often operated by a crew of only two

However, many sections of riverbed and most banks and

some weirs on navigable rivers remain the property of the

riparian landowners, although the navigation authority may

have powers to carry out certain management activities, such

as dredging. Thus, a partnership approach may be essential

to implement management measures for the benefit of wildlife.

Many of Britain’s waterways were nationalised in 1948,

becoming the responsibility of the British Transport

Commission. These waterways were eventually passed

in 1962 to British Waterways (see Map 3.2), whose principal

duties are set out in the 1962 and 1968 Transport Acts.

These include duties to maintain navigation for certain

types of vessel on different waterways.

Similarly, a number of important river navigations in England

and Wales which had come under the control of navigation

conservancy bodies or drainage commissioners were taken

over by water authorities in 1974. On privatisation of the water

industry in 1989, these became the responsibility of the

National Rivers Authority and later (in 1996) the Environment

Agency (see Map 3.2). The Agency is currently attempting

to rationalise the varied waterway legislation under which

they must operate.

There are still a significant number of waterways, both large

and small, which are the responsibility of private companies,

local authorities, drainage boards or charitable trusts,

operating under a very wide variety of legislation, much

of it anachronistic.

The public navigation authorities have had statutory duties

to further wildlife conservation for some time. The Natural

Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 extended

to all public bodies a duty to conserve biodiversity in the

exercise of their functions, including restoring and

enhancing species populations and habitats.

A summary of legislation relevant to inland navigation and

wildlife is given in Appendix 1.

UK and Scottish Government policies for the waterways

The UK and Scottish Governments have recognised the inland

waterways of England and Wales, and the canals of Scotland,

as a national asset that contributes to social and economic

success at a local, regional and national level.

Both Governments have set out their proposals to encourage

a modern, integrated and sustainable approach to their use

and to enable them to fulfil their economic, social and

environmental potential. These policies are set out in

Waterways for Tomorrow (2000), which applies to the waterways

in England and Wales, and in Scotland’s Canals: An asset

For the Future (2002) which applies to BW’s canals in Scotland.

The Governments’ policies seek to protect, conserve and

enhance all of the inland waterways of England and Wales,

and the canals of Scotland, as an important part of the

national heritage (built and natural) while, at the same time,

to maximise the opportunities that they offer for:

• leisure, recreation, tourism and sport;

• urban and rural regeneration;

• education and social inclusion;

• freight transport;

• water transfer;

• innovative uses such as telecommunications routes.

These aims are to be achieved by:

• improving the quality of the infrastructure;

• encouraging partnership with the public, private and

voluntary sectors, which can offer new skills and sources

of funding;

• encouraging cooperation between navigation authorities;

• encouraging viable waterway restoration and development

projects to extend the navigable system;

• integrating policy for the waterways more effectively

into other Government policies.

20

Marginal wetland plants such as the yellow flag can add to the

attractiveness of a waterway and provide habitat for dragonflies

and juvenile fish

Waterway restoration provides opportunities for volunteers

to learn practical skills and to provide benefits for the wider

community

IWAC’s publication The Inland Waterways of England and Wales

in 2007 has also advised the UK Government that an update

to its policy for the inland waterways is needed, giving due

attention to climate change, environmental improvement,

public health and community cohesion.

Navigation remains central to national policies for the

waterways and both BW, via the UK and Scottish Governments,

and EA, via the UK Government, have received substantial

direct public investment over the years to help them tackle

their safety and asset maintenance backlogs. However, many

smaller navigation authorities struggle to make ends

meet financially.

This financial assistance underpins a buoyant recreation and

tourism market for leisure boating, which generates substantial

income for some navigation authorities and for associated

businesses. An actively used waterway is often the focus for

public and private sector interest in both the channel and the

towpath, as well as in developing waterside land. BW in

particular, but also privately owned waterways, has benefited

significantly from partnership development deals with local

authorities and the private sector. All of these projects are

focussed on a vibrant waterway channel used by boats.

The challenge, as the UK and Scottish Governments have

recognised, is to maximise the range of benefits which the

canals of Scotland and all the inland waterways of England

and Wales can offer without damaging their inherent value.

The protection of their nature conservation interest contributes

to this value. Protecting and enhancing wildlife is therefore

an integral part of the national policy framework for the

waterways and wildlife needs to be considered as part

of the whole range of benefits which waterways can deliver.

Identifying this contribution and balancing the demands

of navigation and nature conservation are the central

themes of this report.

21

AINA (2004) Demonstrating the value of waterways: A good practice guide to the appraisal of restoration

and regeneration projects

AINA (2005) New Channels, New Challenges: Action Plan 2005/6 – 2007/8

British Waterways (2005) Our Plan for the Future 2005-2009

Broads Authority (2004) The Broads Plan 2004: A strategic plan to manage the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads

Defra (2000) Waterways for Tomorrow

Environment Agency (2005) Your Rivers for Life: a Strategy for the Development of Navigable Rivers 2004-2007

IWAAC (2001) Planning a Future for the Inland Waterways

IWAC (2007) The Inland Waterways of England and Wales in 2007

Scottish Executive (now Scottish Government) (2002) Scotland’s Canals: An asset for the Future

Key information sources

22

RiverTees

River DerwentBassenthwaite

Ullswater

CrinanCanal

CaledonianCanal

LochNess

LochLochy

LochOich

LochDochfour

BurnturkCanals

UnionCanal

Forth & ClydeCanal

MonklandCanal

RiverTees

Aberdeenshire Canal

Loch Lomond

River Tyne

River Wear

River Derwent

CarlisleCanal

RiverDee

Loch Ken

River Clyde

RiverTay

River Earn

RiverForth

Other river

National boundary

Managed by British Waterways

Other Navigations

Built-up area

Managed by Environment Agency

Waterway restoration & constructionunder planning or consideration

Managed by Broads Authority

ABERDEEN

GLASGOWEDINBURGH

Fig

ure

3.2

Ma

p o

f wa

terw

ay

au

tho

rities

23

ExeterShip

Canal

RiverDart

RiverPlym

RiverTamar

TavistockCanal

Bude Canal

RiverTorridge

LancasterCanal

Leeds &Liverpool

Canal

PocklingtonCanal

MarketWeighton

Canal

DriffieldNavigation

RiverAncholmeNavigation

FossdykeNavigation

RiverWelland

NavigationRiverGlen

ChesterfieldCanal

River StourNavigation

Chelmer &BlackwaterNavigation

BasingstokeCanal

Wey &ArunCanal

Wey &ArunCanal

RiverWey

Windermere SwaleNavigation(unfinished)

RiponCanal

UreNavigation

River OuseNavigation

River DerwentNavigation

RiverHull

RiverTrent Louth

Navigation

WithamNavigableDrains

River Nar

River Wissey

Little OuseRiver

River Lark

River CamGreat OuseNavigation

SleafordNavigation

Middle LevelNavigations

Old WestRiver

River MedwayRiver Stour

Rye Harbour

River OuseRiver Adur

SouthwickCanal

BaybridgeCanal

RiverArun

Portsmouth &Arundel Canal

River Rother(Western)NavigationRiver

Itchen

AndoverCanal

AvonNavigation

Grand WesternCanal

Bridgwater &Taunton Canal

ChardCanal

River ParrettGlastonbury Canal

AvonNavigation

Dorset &Somerset

Canal

Kennet & Avon Canal

Wiltshire &Berkshire Canal

River Thames

LeeNavigation

Stort Navigation

CroydonCanal

Regent'sCanal

Grand UnionCanal

WendoverArm

AylesburyArm

BuckinghamArm

Bedford Link

SheffordCanal

OxfordCanal

River NeneNavigation

Thames &Severn Canal

StroudwaterNavigation

Gloucester &Sharpness Canal

Upper AvonNavigation

Lower AvonNavigation

RiverSevern

River SevernNavigation

Herefordshire &Gloucestershire

Canal

River Wye

Leominster Canal

Monmouthshire &Brecon Canal

GlamorganshireCanal

CrumlinBranch

NeathCanal

Swansea Canal

Grand UnionCanal

Stratford-Upon-AvonCanal

Worcester &BirminghamCanal

Droitwich Canals

Staffordshire &WorcestershireCanal

CoventryCanal Ashby

Canal

Birmingham & Fazeley Canal

BirminghamCanal

Navigations

LichfieldCanal

ShropshireUnionCanal

LlangollenCanal

MontgomeryCanal

CaldonCanalTrent &

MerseyCanal

MacclesfieldCanal

Peak ForestCanal

Derby Canal

HuddersfieldNarrow Canal

HuddersfieldBroad Canal

BridgewaterCanal

WeaverNavigation

St Helens(Sankey)

Canal

TrentNavigation

ErewashCanal

GranthamCanal

Leicestershire &Northamptonshire

Union Canal

MarketHarboroughArm

The Broads

RochdaleCanal

LEEDS

MANCHESTER

BIRMINGHAM

CARDIFF

LONDON

0 50 10025 Kilometres

0 30 6015 Miles

24

The River Wye navigation retains many natural features and

is of international wildlife value

Agricultural drainage, urban flood defence measures and

sewage, agricultural and industrial pollution have contributed

greatly to a steep decline in the extent and quality of natural

wetland habitats in Britain since the early 20th Century.

Meanwhile, man-made developments have also created

new habitats; the canal system is a prime example. With

sensitive management, most navigable inland waterways

can deliver some wildlife value while fulfilling their

function as a recreational boating or transport resource;

a small proportion have become sufficiently important

for wildlife to warrant formal protection.

The waterways and nature conservation

The non-tidal navigable inland waterway system is home

to a wide range of valued wildlife, from native crayfish and

water voles to kingfishers and rare water plants. Individual

waterways differ widely in their conservation value

(Box 4.1).

While some waterways are of low wildlife conservation

value, dominated by a few common pollution-tolerant

species and with little opportunity for this to be changed,

most are of moderate value and present opportunities

for wildlife conservation and enhancement.

A small proportion (less than 10% by channel length) of the

national non-tidal inland waterway system comprises

waterways where the channel is so rich in plants and

animals, or supports species that may be so uncommon

or rare, that it is included in a site designated as being

of national or international importance for nature

conservation (Map 4.1).

Importance of waterwaysfor nature conservation

Box 4.1

What is nature conservation value?

This is the value society places on wildlife and the

natural environment. Rare species and habitats are

especially highly regarded. Sites that are unusually

species-rich are also valued, because human

influences such as pollution and habitat destruction

typically result in species loss – making highly

biodiverse sites a rare occurrence. The naturalness

of a site is also a criterion used in evaluating

its wildlife value. The exceptional value placed

on critically threatened species and on the best

wildlife sites is recognised by giving them special

protection under national and international policy

or legislation.

Nature conservation value at a local level is also

recognised in local biodiversity action plans

(LBAPs), county wildlife sites and local nature

reserves.

Nature conservation value includes more than

just formally protected sites and species however.

Even on waterways of low or moderate value,

common species such as mute swan and heron,

or widespread groups such as dragonflies and

kingfishers, can be a significant attraction for

leisure users and give them much pleasure.

As agricultural, industrial and urban development has proceeded apace over the last century or so, the natural environment and its wildlife have comeunder increasing pressure.

25

26

There are four key factors that both influence the value

of any waterway for wildlife and determine why some

sections are of particular importance. These are:

1. the natural habitat type;

2. water chemistry and quantity;

3. bank and channel structure;

4. boat pressure.

The first of these factors is reviewed briefly below. A more

detailed analysis of the others is given in Chapter 5 and

Chapter 6.

Waterway habitats

Many large navigable rivers of Britain retain their

importance for wildlife, despite construction of headwater

reservoirs and flood defences, as well as alterations in

their catchment run-off characteristics due to agricultural

and urban development.

But, in reality, whether a waterbody is valuable as a wildlife

habitat is little affected by its origin.

Canals, for example, are man-made channels, most no

more than a few hundred years old. For wildlife, however,

their value is that they help recreate an ancient habitat

now largely lost from lowland Britain. In the past, 2000

years and more ago, Britain’s lowland rivers were often

multi-threaded, sprawling across their floodplains to

provide a maze of slowly flowing channels with partly

connected backwaters and cut-off pools. Despite being

artificially constructed clay-lined channels, modern canals,

especially those that are abandoned or little used by boats,

happen to recreate this now uncommon slow-flowing river

habitat type very closely, even to the extent that canal

dredging mimics the natural, periodic channel scouring

of river floods.

This explains why canals with good water quality can be

so important for freshwater plants and animals. Drainage,

modern agricultural practices and flood prevention

measures have changed flood plains in much of Britain

beyond recognition. Most lowland rivers are now deeper,

faster-flowing and confined to a single channel; their wide

range of floodplain channels, backwaters and pools have

been irrevocably lost. As these habitats have disappeared,

the plants and animals that evolved to use them have

become rare. This is exacerbated by the pervasive spread

of water pollution, particularly inputs of plant nutrients.

The narrow canal system, built mainly in the 18th and

19th Centuries, was probably at its richest ecologically

in the early 20th Century, after the decline of heavy

freight traffic and before the more recent increase

in use by pleasure craft.

There is a paradox then, that when man created canals

he created a refuge for species orphaned from the range

of wild river habitats that we have all but destroyed in

many parts of Britain.

Sometimes even habitats that have long been thought

of as quintessentially natural have turned out to be far

from it. Until the 1950s it was assumed that the Norfolk

Broads were natural lakes but it is now known that they

too are man-made, created by medieval peat digging

in the 12th-14th centuries and flooded at the end of that

time. Today, despite their artificial origin and modern day

problems with nutrient enrichment, these sometimes

navigable shallow lakes are unique with some supporting

a range of uncommon water plants of international

importance seen nowhere else in Britain.

The wildlife of waterway channels is reviewed in Box 4.2.

Otters benefit from waterway connectivity

The Basingstoke Canal showing

a diverse marginal plant community

Hickling Broad is an internationally important wildlife site

and is also a navigation resource (Photo: Shorebase)

27

The waterways as wildlife corridors

The waterways are wet corridors along which many

species move, sometimes aided inadvertently by boats

and anglers or even deliberately introduced.

Some effects of this connectivity are positive: dredged

sections of river and canal re-colonise quickly with plants

and animals; species affected by pollution or loss of

habitat can spread easily into new areas as water and

habitat quality improves.

It does, however, have a negative side, as it provides a rapid

dispersal route for less desirable non-native invasive

species, such as signal crayfish and floating pennywort,

which can pose real threats to native wildlife. Invasive plant

species, such as floating pennywort, can also interfere with

boat traffic by fouling propellers or even physically blocking

the waterway.

Succession

A shallow body of standing water left to its own devices will

become colonised by submerged and emergent vegetation.

With time, emergent species such as reeds and rushes

will extend across the whole water body; in the absence

of a continuing supply of water, over a longer period,

silt and decaying vegetation may replace the open water,

sometimes leading to the creation of valued habitats of fen

and wet woodland, often dominated by alder. Other trees

can eventually take over and the wet habitat may ultimately

be lost. This process is known as succession.

In most river navigations, even those no longer used

by boats, the process of colonisation by reeds is limited

by flow velocities and no specific management is needed

to maintain open water habitat.

However, canals, drainage channels and shallow lakes

often have low flow velocities and boat movement. This

means that weed cutting or dredging may be needed to

prevent loss of open water habitat through encroachment

of emergent plants, such as reeds, across the whole

channel width. Such management may be necessary

to maintain navigation but may also be important for

maintenance of biodiversity.

Canals are generally artificially lined, with artificially

constructed water feeders, so they are isolated to a large

degree from the surrounding hydrology. Therefore, on

derelict canals where water supply is not maintained,

succession often does result in loss of all aquatic and

wetland habitat, with the canal bed ending up full of trees.

Active management of canals is therefore often necessary

to maintain the aquatic and associated wetland wildlife

interest, even on disused waterways.

Without management, open water and eventually

all aquatic habitat may progressively be lost

in disused canals

28

Box 4.2 - Waterways are important for a wide range of plants, invertebrate animals and fish, as well as water dependant mammals

Wetland plantsFor convenience, plants that grow in wetplaces are usually divided into three groupsthat describe their preferred position in thewater: submerged, floating-leaved andemergent.

Emergent plants often dominate waterbodyedges. They include rushes, reeds, sedges,reed grasses and the many floweringplants that thrive in wet ground.

Submerged plants grow mainly underwater. They include pondweeds, stoneworts,water-buttercups and water-milfoil species.

Floating plants like duckweeds and water-lilies have leaves that float on the surface.

The last two of these categories are oftencombined to create a fourth: aquatic plants.

Aquatic plantsThere are about 70 aquatic plant speciesfound on the inland waterways. Becausethese plants mostly grow submerged, manyneed clear water conditions to give themenough light to survive, although floatingleaved plants are more tolerant.

On navigable waterways, one of the mostimportant groups is the true pondweeds(Potamogeton species). A few high qualitycanal sections are particularly importantfor these plants and some pondweedswould be very rare indeed were it not forcanals such as the Rochdale, Montgomeryand Pocklington.

Another important group is the stoneworts,or charophytes. These are very ancientplants, part way between algae and higherplants. They are particularly sensitive tonutrient pollution, so many species arerare. Norfolk Broads such as Hickling and Martham are critical for these plants,which can also be found in canals.Stoneworts often occur in the early stagesof succession after waterbody creation or in undisturbed waters.

One plant, floating water plantain, isprotected by European legislation on threecanals – the Montgomery, Rochdale andCannock Extension.

Protection of rare submerged plants canconflict with pressures for greater boattraffic but areas of friction are uncommon.Many waterways, especially smaller canals,support few submerged plant species, as the water is too polluted or disturbed by boats. Here only a few tolerant speciesmay survive, including floating leavedplants such as water lily and aliens such as Nuttall’s pondweed.

On waterways which are wide and deepcompared with the size of boats usingthem, as on many river navigations, or where boat traffic is light, waterwaysections sometimes occur with clear water.Here, if pollution levels are low and thewater is not too overgrown by emergentplants, submerged species often thrive,giving communities that are sometimes of exceptional value. Such waterwaysinclude some of the navigable NorfolkBroads, some river navigations (e.g. theWye, Ure, Derwent) and a number of little-or non-navigated canals, often locatedaround the periphery of the canal system,such as the Basingstoke Canal, which, in the early 1990s supported almost halfthe UK’s native aquatic plant species.

However, while the effects of organicpollution have been reduced over recentyears in many of our navigable rivers, mostare still affected by excessively high levelsof plant nutrients derived from treatedsewage discharges and agricultural run-off. This tends to lead to dominance by afew tolerant plant species, including algae,which limits the development of diverseaquatic plant communities.

Emergent plantsFortunately, most marginal wetland plantssuch as reeds, rushes and sedges aremore tolerant of water pollution than theirsubmerged cousins. Some tall mat-formingspecies like reed sweet-grass are alsorobust enough to withstand considerableboat wash.

But even for marginal plants, the bank typeis important. Waterway edges with verticalsteel piling obviously have reducedpotential for marginal plant development.

But the natural earth banks of rivers, lakesand many canals, and even decaying stone-reinforced banks, can provide a foothold forthese edge-loving species. In higher qualitysections of canals more uncommonmarginal plants are sometimes found, such as tubular water-dropwort, tastelesswater-pepper and narrow small-reed.

There are few protected marginal plantsparticularly associated with navigablewaterways. The main exception is cutgrass, a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)priority species1 that grows locally alongcanals such as the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal.

Aquatic invertebratesAquatic invertebrates include waterbeetles, water bugs, larvae and nymphs of dragonflies, mayflies, caddis flies,stoneflies, alderflies, true flies, leeches,flatworms, snails, mussels, shrimps,crayfish, and many more.

Aquatic invertebrates of waterwaysCanals and navigable rivers contrast in the habitats they provide for invertebrates.In still or very slowly flowing canals thegreatest variety of invertebrates is usuallyfound at the channel margin and amongstsubmerged or marginal plants.

Few animals live in the fine, easilydisturbed sediments of the channel centreof a typical clay lined canal. In contrast,areas of pebbles, sand and gravel in thebottom sediments of navigable rivers arean important invertebrate habitat, althougheven here more species live near thechannel margin than in the centre.

In both types of waterway, plants areimportant for many different kinds ofinvertebrates, providing shelter or food; so waterways with abundant and diversevegetation are also likely to be rich ininvertebrates.

Protected species and habitats - The principal protected species and habitats associated with navigable waterways are listed in Appendix 2.

29

and birds.

Invertebrates of river navigationsThe large navigable rivers, such as theThames, Severn and Nene, support richinvertebrate communities, often includingspecies found only in the biggest rivers.Special animals like the club-tail dragonflyand rare species of mayfly, snail and caddisfly live in the silts and fine sands andamong tree roots on the channel margin.

Of the navigable rivers, the Wye is ratherunusual: faster flowing with shingle bars. Its special invertebrate community isassociated with exposed pebbles andshingle along its margins, especiallycraneflies and water beetles.

Canal invertebratesThe central areas of canals are usually poor for invertebrates and, unless there are aquatic plants there to provide shelter,most have few animals except fly larvae and worms. The margins are usually richer,and their value increases for aquatic species(particularly dragonflies, waterbugs, beetles,snails and caddis-flies) as banks becomemore natural and more vegetated. The dampedges are also important for terrestrial and semi-terrestrial animals. Along theBasingstoke Canal alone about eighty-fivespecies of hoverfly have been recorded and here and elsewhere a wide range ofuncommon beetles, bugs and flying insectslive in or use the damp ground and plants on the waterway edge. Some canals alsosupport populations of protected species,such as the native freshwater crayfish(Austropotamobius pallipes) and thedepressed river mussel (Pseudanadontacomplanata).

Invertebrates of navigable lakes and broadsThe navigable lakes and broads resemblecanals in having rich invertebrateassemblages on the lake margins andwhere water plants are abundant, withgenerally fewer species amongst the finebottom sediments. In the open water,microscopic water fleas and otherCrustacea (zooplankton) often play an important role in keeping the waterclear by filtering algae from the water.

Protected invertebratesMost sections of protected waterways arenotified for a range of components of thehabitat, often focussing on aquatic plants,rather than their invertebrate communitiesspecifically. However, in some canal SSSIs,invertebrates make a significant contributionto their interest. For example, the SSSInotifications of the Ashby and Pocklingtoncanals refer specifically to invertebrateassemblages.

Navigable rivers, lakes, broads and canalsalso support a number of invertebratespecies that are sufficiently endangered to be protected under legislation or policy.

FishMost of the navigable waterway systemsupports fish populations. Some rivernavigations, such as the River Wye, RiverSevern and River Dee, are good salmon and trout fisheries and support rare species such as lampreys and, in the Wye and Severn, twaite shad.

In many river navigations, including fendrains, non-migratory coarse fish dominate.Species commonly found include barbel,bream, carp, chub, gudgeon, perch, roachtench and stickleback, with some rivers alsosupporting eels, pike, grayling and browntrout. Less common fish such as bleak,bullhead and ruffe also occur, while theprotected spined loach is present in a fewfenland navigations.

Most canals also support coarse fishpopulations, including the same coarse fish species as the river navigations, withthe general exception of barbel. A fewcanals also support populations of spinedloach. The Caledonian Canal and someother upland canals support thrivingsalmonid fish populations.

Overall, coarse fish populations have beenincreasing in the rivers of England andWales as water quality has improved; it is not known whether there has been a similar general trend in the canals.

In urban areas, fish populations in the rivers and canals are often poor, limited by a lack of physical habitats, andsometimes by pollution incidents.

In the waterway system, most protectedfish species are found only in a fewnavigable rivers. However, eels, which are probably quite widespread across all the navigable waterways, weredesignated a Biodiversity Action Planspecies in 2007, reflecting the large decline that has occurred in eelpopulations over recent years.

MammalsThe navigable waterways are an importantpart of the habitat of two protected aquaticmammals, otters and water voles. In addition, many bats (all of which areprotected) feed over water, including thenavigable waterways.

Other widespread mammals using thenavigable waterways include the watershrew and, less welcome, the Americanmink, an escapee from fur farms, whichhas helped to decimate water volepopulations in many areas of Britain.

BirdsBirds are some of the most visible animalson the waterway system. The most commonlyseen are waterbirds such as herons, muteswans, mallards, coots and moorhens,while sedge warblers and the elusivekingfisher are also widespread on thenavigable waterways in England. However,a variety of other species breed in somelocations including little and great-crestedgrebes and grey wagtails.

The Broads are particularly important for over-wintering waterfowl, several of its shallow lakes being designated under national or European legislation.

With the exception of game birds and somewaterfowl outside the closed season, andspecies covered by open general licencesissued for control of nuisance species,British birds are protected under nationallegislation. In addition, the kingfisher is specially protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act,making it an offence to disturb this species during the breeding season.

More information on their status, ecology and management requirements is given in Appendix 3.

30

Designation Acronym Designation under/by Relevance to waterway management

InternationalRamsar site

Special Area for

Conservation

Special Protection

Area

SAC

SPA

The Convention on Wetlands of International

Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat

(Ramsar, Iran, 1971, as amended). Sites

are listed by UK Government to protect

valued wetlands.

EU Habitats Directive (79/409/EEC). Sites

are recommended by the UK Government

and designated by the EC to protect habitats

and (non-bird) species listed in Annex I and

Annex II of the Directive.

EU Birds Directive (92/43/EEC as amended).

Sites are classified by UK Government on

the basis of agreed criteria on their bird

populations.

These sites are protected under the Habitats Regulations (S.I.

1994:2716, as amended). This means that before permitting

any plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect

on the site and is not directly connected with or necessary

to the management of the site, the competent authority must

carry out an ‘appropriate assessment’ of the implications for

the site. Plans or projects which will have an adverse effect

on the conservation objectives may only be allowed where

there is no alternative and there are ‘imperative reasons

of overriding public interest (IROPI).

Note that these inland sites are all also sites of special

scientific interest (SSSIs) and also receive the protection

detailed below.

National

Site of Special

Scientific Interest

National Park

National Nature

Reserve

Areas of Outstanding

Natural

Beauty/National

Scenic Areas

(Scotland)

SSSI

NP

NNR

AONB/NSA

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

(as amended by the Countryside and Rights

of Way (CROW) Act 2000 (in England and

Wales) and the Nature Conservation

(Scotland) Act 2004 (in Scotland)). Sites are

notified by Natural England, Scottish Natural

Heritage or the Countryside Council for

Wales on the basis of published criteria

(NCC, 1989), using county-level areas

of search.

National Parks and Access to the

Countryside Act 1949, National Parks

(Scotland) Act 2000. National Parks are

designated by the UK and Scottish

Governments.

National Parks and Access to the

Countryside Act 1949 or Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981. Declared by the UK

and Scottish Governments, where SSSI are

regarded as being of national importance.

National Parks and Access to the

Countryside Act 1949 (in England and

Wales) (as amended by the Environment

Act 1995 and the CROW Act 2000). Scottish

Development Department Circular 20/1980

(in Scotland).

Sites (based on biological or geological interest) are notified

by the statutory nature conservation agency (Natural England,

CCW, and SNH). Protection is mainly through a requirement

to obtain consent for any of the ‘operations likely to damage’

(OLD) listed in the citation. Certain statutory bodies do not

require consent but must consult the conservation agency

and request assent.

National Parks are designated for the conservation and

enhancement of the natural beauty and cultural heritage

and promotion of public enjoyment of the area, while having

regard for the social and economic wellbeing of the local

population. This is reflected in the application of planning

policies. Several waterways run through National Parks.

NNRs are managed primarily for nature conservation,

usually by the statutory nature conservation agency

(NE, CCW, and SNH). A few canals and a number

or river navigations lie within NNRs.

AONB and NSA are designated on account of their

outstanding natural beauty and this is protected through

policy and the planning system. Where an AONB has

a Conservation Board, the Board has an additional purpose

to increase public understanding and enjoyment of the

special qualities of the area. Several waterways run

through AONB but there is little interaction with NSA.

Local

Local Nature Reserve

County Wildlife Site

LNR

Various -

CWS, SINC,

SNCI

National Parks and Access to the

Countryside Act 1949. Sites are designated

by local authorities after consultation with

the statutory nature conservation agency.

Local planning authority Local Plan policies.

Sites are identified by local authorities,

often on the advice of local wildlife trusts.

Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) are places with wildlife

or geological features that are of special interest locally.

A key feature is that they offer people special opportunities

to study or learn about nature or simply to enjoy it.

Many waterways are identified as County Wildlife Sites;

the protection of the wildlife interest of these sites must be

taken into account by planning authorities in their decisions.

Table 4.1 Wildlife site designations

31

the nature conservation value of the channel itself, or for

associated features including the floodplain of navigable

rivers and, for the canal system, feeder reservoirs and

bat roosts.

Overall, only a very small proportion (about 8.5%, of which

1.5% relates to the River Wye alone) of the navigable

channels of the currently navigable non-tidal or partially

tidal waterway system is included in sites designated as

being of national or international importance for wildlife.

However, this is not a constant picture. Occasionally,

waterway SSSIs lose their special interest, for example

reed warblers on the River Avon (Warwickshire), and

are recommended for denotification.

UK and Scottish Government policy is to maintain or,

where necessary, restore SSSIs to favourable conservation

status. However, a few SSSIs on very busy waterways have

never reached and are unlikely ever to reach favourable

conservation status for all their cited features, having been

notified before this concept was formalised. IWAC supports

the continuing review of such sites by the conservation

agencies and exploration of all options for achieving the

intended nature conservation benefits, with denotification

if there is no realistic prospect of realising such benefits.

In Britain, the navigable (or partially navigable) waterway

system currently has (Map 4.1):

• 26 sites of international importance (SAC, SPA and

Ramsar), which include the navigable channel; and

• about 48 biological sites of special scientific interest

(SSSIs) which are notified at least partly because of the

value of the navigable channel or its wet margins.

There are many additional sites notified as SSSIs alongside

waterways, some managed by navigation authorities, which

are not considered here because they do not include the

waterway channel or are notified solely for their geological

interest.

Sites may also have quasi-legal protection if they are

identified by local planning authorities as being of local

nature conservation importance (e.g. County Wildlife Sites),

and this may be material to decisions on individual

planning applications. A range of non-statutory nature

reserves is also established and managed by non-

governmental organisations such as The Wildlife Trusts.

Further detail on legislation is given in Appendix 1.

Statutory obligations and policy

As part of their statutory obligations all public bodies,

including the EA, Broads Authority and BW, have a

responsibility to further nature conservation in carrying

out their own functions. For waterway-associated bodies,

these duties need, however, to be balanced with duties

relating to navigation.

The ratification by the UK of the Convention on Biological

Diversity in 1994 placed a duty on the UK Government

to promote sustainable development and encouraged

the development of national biodiversity action plans.

This led to the development of national species and habitat

action plans under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, as well

as local Biodiversity Action Plans. In line with this aim,

BW is currently aiming to develop Biodiversity and Heritage

Action Plans for all their waterways, to help evaluate and

manage the natural and cultural resources of their inland

waterways in a consistent manner. For the navigable rivers,

the relevant national and local habitat and species action

plans (HAPs and SAPs) are applied.

The recently published Planning Policy Statement 9:

Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9) in England

takes this one step further by recognising the importance

of biodiversity in sustainable development and in the

context of rural renewal and urban renaissance. PPS9

is particularly relevant to waterway restoration.

Nature conservation: policies and legislation

Sections of waterways which support critically important

habitats, communities or species can be protected by

statutory and non-statutory designations as described

in Table 4.1. Waterways may receive this protection for

32

LEEDS

MANCHESTER

RiverDerwent

DerwentIngs

LowerDerwentValley

River Hull Headwaters

Leven Canal

ChesterfieldCanal

Leeds-LiverpoolCanal

RochdaleCanal

HuddersfieldNarrow Canal

HollinwoodBranch Canal

Pocklington Canal

Melbourne &Thornton Ings

Waterway

National boundary

Built-up area

Internationally designatedsite - RAMSAR, SAC, SPA

Nationally designatedsite - SSSI

ABERDEEN

GLASGOW EDINBURGH

TorveanLandforms

DullaturMarsh

South Laggan Fen

Ma

p 4

.1In

tern

atio

na

lly a

nd

na

tion

ally

pro

tec

ted

site

s o

f the

inla

nd

wa

terw

ay

s

33

BIRMINGHAM

CARDIFF

LONDON

Fenland

Exe Estuary

OuseWashes

WallandMarsh

Broadland

River Wye / Afon Gwy

The Broads

Nene Washes(Whittlesey)

River Dee &Bala Lake

River Kennet

FenlandStallode Wash

River Dee (England)

BasingstokeCanal

CattawadeMarshes

AlvecotePools

MontgomeryCanal

Dunsdon Farm

Coombe HillCanal

Kilby-Foxton CanalWadenhoe

Marsh

ChasewaterHeaths Ashby Canal

Cromford Canal

Grantham CanalNewportCanal

CannockExtension

Canal

Old River Severn,Upper Lode

Prees BranchCanal

Montgomery Canal, Aston Locks-

Keeper's Bridge

KinoultonMarsh & Canal

WickenFen

Cam Wash

ThatchamReed Beds

0 50 10025 Kilometres

0 30 6015 Miles

a. Broad Fen, Dilham (North Walsham & Dilham Canal) b. Ant Broads and Marshes c. Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes d. Bure Broads and Marshes e. Yare Broads and Marshes f. Breydon Water

© GEOprojects 2003

Biological SSSIs which include the navigationchannel (or a section of it) of a non-tidal orpartially tidal inland waterway

Dullatur Marsh SSSI (Forth & Clyde Canal)

Pocklington Canal SSSI

Melbourne & Thornton Ings SSSI (PocklingtonCanal)

Derwent Ings SSSI (Pocklington Canal and River Derwent)

River Derwent SSSI (River Derwent and Pocklington Canal)

River Hull Headwaters SSSI (Driffield Navigation)

Leven Canal SSSI

Leeds& Liverpool Canal SSSI

Rochdale Canal SSSI

Huddersfield Narrow Canal SSSI (HuddersfieldNarrow and Ashton Canals)

Hollinwood Branch Canal SSSI

(Ashton Canal)

Chesterfield Canal SSSI

River Dee SSSI

Cromford Canal SSSI

Prees Branch Canal SSSI (Ellesmere (Llangollen) Canal)

Fenn’s, Whixall, Bettisfield, Wem and CadneyMosses (Ellesmere (Llangollen) Canal)

Montgomery Canal Aston Locks to Keeper’sBridge SSSI

Montgomery Canal SSSI

Newport Canal SSSI (Shropshire UnionNewport Branch Canal)

Grantham Canal SSSI

Kinoulton Marsh & Canal SSSI (GranthamCanal)

Cannock Extension Canal SSSI

Chasewater Heaths SSSI

(Wyrley & Essington Canal)

Alvecote Pools SSSI (Coventry Canal)

Ashby Canal SSSI

Kilby to Foxton Canal SSSI (Grand Union Canal)

Broad Fen, Dilham SSSI (North Walsham & Dilham Canal)

Ant Broads and Marshes SSSI

Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes SSSI

Bure Broads and Marshes SSSI

Yare Broads and Marshes SSSI

Breydon Water SSSI

Wadenhoe Marsh & Achurch Meadow SSSI(River Nene)

Nene Washes Whittlesey SSSI (River Nene)

Ouse Washes SSSI (Old Bedford River)

Stallode Wash, Lakenheath SSSI (River Little Ouse0

Cam Washes SSSI

Wicken Fen SSSI (Wicken Lode)

Cattawade Marshes SSSI (River Stour)

River Wye SSSI

Old River Severn Upper Lode SSSI

Coombe Hill Canal SSSI

River Kennet SSSI

Thatcham Reed Beds SSSI (Kennet & Avon Canal)

Basingstoke Canal SSSI

Walland Marsh SSSI (Royal Military Canal)

Dunsdon Farm SSSI (Bude Canal)

Exe Estuary SSSI (Exeter Ship Canal)

Non-tidal or partially tidal inland waterwayswhere the navigation channel (or a section ofit) is part of one or more European WildlifeSites

Pocklington Canal (SAC, SPA/Ramsar)

River Derwent (Yorkshire) (SAC, SPA/Ramsar)

Rochdale Canal (SAC)

River Dee (Cheshire) (SAC)

SUC Welsh Branch (Llangollen Canal) (SAC,Ramsar)

Montgomery Canal (Wales) (SAC)

Cannock Extension Canal (SAC)

Rivers Wye and Lugg (SAC)

River Ant and Broads (The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA/Ramsar)

Broads associated with Rivers Yare, Bure,Thurne (The Broads SAC, Broadland SPA/Ramsar)

Breydon Water (River Yare) (SPA/Ramsar)

River Nene (SPA/Ramsar)

Old Bedford River (SAC, SPA/Ramsar)

Wicken Lode (SAC, Ramsar)

River Stour (Essex) (SPA/Ramsar)

Bude Canal (SAC)

34

Nature conservation in the context of waterway

restoration and development

Reviews of major waterway restoration projects in England,

Scotland and Wales were carried out by IWAAC in 1998

and 2001 and a further update was published in 2007.

In total, more than 100 waterways restoration and

development projects were identified as in progress

or recently completed in Britain, ranging from the repair

of specific heritage structures such as the Anderton

Boat Lift (Cheshire) to the restoration of major lengths

of derelict canals and the development of wholly new

waterways.

Conflicts with nature conservation are often most acute

in restoration schemes, both as a result of the restoration

works and the subsequent use of the waterway, as many

derelict waterways have developed valued aquatic

biological communities. Mitigation measures aimed

at reducing adverse impacts on wildlife can sometimes

limit the use of the waterway for recreation and amenity

purposes. In other cases, restoration projects may benefit

both navigation and wildlife, as in the restoration and

agreed management of Barton Broad.

As with most types of development, the recent strengthening

of nature conservation and water environment legislation

has had major implications for waterway restoration and

development. This is particularly so for those waterways

designated under national and EU legislation and for

undesignated lengths which support protected species,

where the need to comply with wildlife legislation may

impose additional requirements on restoration or

management proposals.

Examples of waterways where nature conservation has

been or is a key consideration for restoration or waterway

management include:

• Basingstoke Canal (SSSI);

• Montgomery Canal (SAC and SSSI);

• Rochdale Canal (SAC and SSSI);

• The Broads (Ramsar, SAC, SPA and SSSIs);

(see Appendix 5, Case Studies, for more details).

The development of local Biodiversity Action Plans,

Biodiversity and Heritage Action Plans and of web based

information on species and habitats (e.g. NBN Gateway

and FreshwaterLife websites), together with the availability

of more general information on how to develop restoration

projects in partnership with local wildlife organisations,

now provides a good framework for future waterway

project promoters.

The increased level of protection for wildlife and the

recognition of the wider benefits of creating a waterway

that supports a diverse ecology mean that it is more

important now that waterway restoration scheme

promoters should:

• include environmental and biodiversity issues from

the start of project planning;

• consult widely at an early stage with statutory and

non-statutory nature conservation organisations

and stakeholders.

35

Hydrology, channel characteristics, water quality, fish

stocking, tree shade and the presence of alien species

are all important, and may be dominant in shaping aquatic

wildlife communities. These factors must be taken into

account in determining how best to balance the needs

of navigation and wildlife on a particular waterway.

The wider context

It can be difficult to determine any causal relationships

between navigation and wildlife on a waterway without

first understanding the wider context of the waterway’s

geography, its hydrological catchment and other uses

for which it is managed. Many other factors, natural and

anthropogenic (man-made), can affect the aquatic biological

communities that are supported and their nature

conservation value, including the physical and hydrological

characteristics of the waterway, the quality of the water,

fisheries management and presence of invasive plants.

In many cases, the influence on wildlife of these factors

may be similar to the effects of boat use and this must be

recognised when determining the main factors influencing

the waterway’s ecological status.

Hydrology

The natural hydrology of rivers and lakes determines the

type of plant and animal communities they support. Faster

flowing water supports species with higher demands for

oxygen, a need for substrates with a high proportion of sand,

gravel and boulders, and a natural tolerance of physical

disturbance from floods.

Flood flows can be an important part of the natural annual

cycle in river navigations, sweeping away much of the aquatic

vegetation each winter. Floods scour soft sediment from

the river bed, tending to restore a more natural channel.

This is a process which may be beneficial to navigation and

wildlife, although heavy rain also washes soil into rivers.

However, flood flows also erode banks, which may not

be so welcome to navigation users or riparian landowners;

floods can also leave sand and silt bars across the exits

from lock cuts, which may hinder navigation.

Flooding on some rivers is important for maintenance of

nature conservation interest in floodplain water meadows

and some riverside pits, a number of which are SSSIs.

However, these areas are not usually affected by navigation,

so are not considered further in this report.

Canals are hydrologically similar to natural slow flowing

floodplain river channels. A major difference is that such

river channels are part of the same hydrological system

as the main river, being linked through surface connections

or through shallow groundwaters in gravels or chalk.

In contrast, canals are usually lined with clay and supplied

with water from specific (sometimes remote) sources,

although most do receive local drainage inputs as well.

In canals, plants and animals present depend less on high

oxygen concentrations but need still or slowly moving water

through their main growing seasons.

Lakes lie somewhere between these two hydrological

extremes for rivers and canals. Wind and wave action create

well-oxygenated water and wave effects on shorelines which

may produce clean sands and gravels at the lake margin,

whilst silty substrates dominate in deeper areas.

Changes to hydrology which alter natural patterns, such

as over-abstraction or impoundment of rivers, may change

the nature conservation value of rivers.

Non-navigation factorsthat affect waterwaynature conservation valueThe influence of navigation on the nature conservation value of waterways is considered in the next chapter.However, boat use and waterway management fornavigation are not the only factors that can affect this value.

36

Successful waterway management which maximises benefits

to wildlife depends on a good hydrological understanding of

the waterway and, in the case of a canal, its water feeders.

Maintaining a sufficient supply of water for navigation and

wildlife is a problem on some waterways, particularly canals.

Under the Water Act 2003 and the Water Environment and

Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003, some water abstractions

for waterways are now covered by the licensing regimes

operated by EA and SEPA; stricter regulation may ensue

in areas where natural rivers are deemed to be

over-abstracted.

Physical habitat modifications

A range of activities not related to navigation affects the

physical habitat quality of rivers, canals and lakes. Some

of these activities reduce their nature conservation value.

On rivers, the most significant early influence was typically

impoundment by weirs to power mills. On navigable

waterways, most such impoundments became part of the

waterway infrastructure and this aspect is dealt with in the

next chapter.

Many rivers have also been physically modified by drainage

works and flood defence engineering, undertaken to drain

agricultural land and protect property from flooding. The

effect has been to turn some rivers into drains: straightened,

over-deepened channels, in which natural blockages such

as debris dams (which help diversify the shape and

hydrodynamics of natural channels) are rigorously

removed. In urban areas, river-banks are often almost

entirely artificial, with little natural vegetation.

Canals are, of course, man-made waterways, with their

physical characteristics largely determined during their

construction. The typical canal pattern with a towpath

bordering one margin often leaves a more natural off-side

bank which may be reed-fringed, cattle poached or

occasionally graded into wet woodland. In urban areas,

canal edges are often reinforced by less sympathetic

vertical stone or brick walls and the offside is often

bordered directly by buildings.

Navigable lakes, because of their size, generally suffer

fewer physical manipulations than other waterways.

However, where they border urban areas, these too often

have bank areas that are highly modified and sometimes

artificially reinforced.

Water and sediment quality

Natural waters exhibit a variety of water chemistry ranging

from the ‘hard’ waters of chalk and limestone catchments

to the softer waters of igneous, sandstone and organic

catchments. The water quality of rivers is largely a function

of the geology of the natural catchment, on which is

superimposed the influence of pollutants, mainly of human

origin.

In contrast, the basic water chemistry of canals is

determined by the sources and the amount of feed water

taken, which may be from outside the surrounding natural

catchment or via pumped groundwater. Thus canal water

quality can be influenced by the way its water resources

are managed, so the water quality in a canal may be

markedly different from the water quality in surrounding

natural watercourses, although it can also be affected

significantly by land drainage inputs. Again the effects

of pollution entering the canal are superimposed on other

factors which determine the basic water quality.

Sediments, particularly fine organic silts typical of canals

and slow flowing waterways, can act as a sink for

pollutants. These can have direct effects on animals

living in the sediment and, if conditions change, may

be re-released into the water column.

Along with hydrological, physical and climatic factors, the

basic water chemistry is highly important in determining

the type of ecological communities expected to be present

in a waterway in the absence of pollution or disturbance

by boats.

Flood flows in rivers can result in transport of large quantities of silt, as evidenced by the high levels

of turbidity seen here in the River Avon at Warwick

37

The ecological quality of much of the waterway system is

degraded by pollutants. Boat movements can add to these

water quality problems (see below), but if boat traffic were

to cease, all but a small minority of waterways would still

show some evidence of ecological damage as a result of

poor water quality. Waterway pollutants derive from many

sources and have a wide range of biological effects which

are summarised, in very general terms, in Table 5.1.

The adverse effects of nutrient pollution (eutrophication)

are particularly pervasive across the waterway system

contributing, for example, to widespread loss of submerged

plant communities in navigable lakes such as the Norfolk

Broads. Eutrophication is rarely mentioned as an issue

in large navigable rivers but historic records for nutrient-

intolerant plant species in rivers, such as the Thames, and

results of routine nutrient monitoring by the Environment

Agency suggest that most large navigable rivers in England

are widely degraded as a result of nutrient enrichment.

It is estimated that over two thirds of lowland streams and

rivers have phosphate levels above the thresholds likely

to cause ecological damage (Defra 2003,

Table 5.1).

While there are currently no comprehensive data that describe

the extent of eutrophication effects in British canals, reference

to phosphate monitoring by the environment agencies (EA and

SEPA) shows that canals exhibit a wide range of nutrient levels.

While a few canals which receive treated sewage effluent are

categorised as having excessively high phosphorus levels, many

are categorised as having low concentrations. In lowland and

urban areas, canals are often less polluted by nutrients than

the surrounding natural watercourses.

The sources of nutrient pollution are relatively well known with

approximately 50% of phosphorus and 70% of nitrogen derived

from farming and the remainder from industry and human and

household wastes, mainly the treated effluents from sewage

works. Overall, both phosphorus and nitrogen levels in water

have continued to increase over the last 30 years (Eaton 1989

et al, Defra 2003). In some locations, such as the Broads,

the introduction of phosphate stripping at sewage works and

other measures has helped to reduce input levels.

A second major contaminant of navigable rivers, canals and

lakes is organic matter derived mainly from treated domestic

sewage and some industrial effluents. As it decomposes in the

water, organic matter uses up oxygen and produces ammonia.

In extreme situations this can result in fish and invertebrate

kills. At lower levels it reduces invertebrate diversity, particularly

in rivers where the invertebrate and fish fauna are adapted

to naturally higher levels of oxygen.

Pollutant Source Biological Impact

Nutrients (especially

nitrogen and phosphorus)

Heavy metals and other

toxic chemical

compounds

Organic matter

Silt

Oils, petroleum

Agriculture (livestock,

inorganic fertilisers),

treated sewage effluent,

septic tanks, detergents,

industrial discharges.

Urban: industrial effluent,

urban run-off, sewage

effluent.

Rural: mining and farming

including agricultural run-

off, pesticides and

veterinary medicines.

Sewage works, septic tanks,

livestock waste, sediments

from agriculture and urban

areas, algal blooms from

eutrophicated waters.

Agriculture (e.g. ploughing,

over grazing), channel bank

erosion.

Urban, road and industrial

run-off, boat fuel spills and

bilge water discharge.

High levels of nutrients in water can lead to eutrophication, a condition

where a few tolerant species of plant produce excessive growth and

reach nuisance proportions but where species diversity is greatly reduced.

Ultimately higher (flowering) aquatic plants are lost completely with

knock-on effects for the many animal species that depend on them

for food and habitat. As these plants are lost, algae begin to dominate

waterways (typically filamentous species in flowing water and planktonic

species in still water). This can create water quality problems for fish

and other animals if algal blooms deoxygenate the water and cause

fluctuations in its pH. In general, annual mean phosphorus levels in the

waterways should not exceed 100 μgl-1 total phosphorus (TP) for naturally

eutrophic systems and 35 μgl-1 TP for mesotrophic systems. Above these

levels, biological damage becomes progressively more likely.

Such toxins produce a wide range of lethal and chronic effects on fish,

invertebrates and, in some cases, plants. These include death of sensitive

species, adverse behavioural changes, deformity, loss of reproductive

ability and reduced viability of young.

Reduction in oxygen levels and an increase in ammonia concentrations

can cause fish deaths and reduce the diversity and abundance of fish and

invertebrate communities, particularly in running waters, where biological

communities have a requirement for higher natural oxygen levels.

Increased water turbidity can cause declines in aquatic plants.

Sedimentation can swamp fish spawning grounds and habitats for

juveniles along lake edges and in river gravels. Sediments can also

carry nutrients, especially phosphorus.

Oils can be harmful to fish and some invertebrates. This is most likely

to be an issue in enclosed marinas and on urban canals.

Table 5.1 Major pollutant types impacting navigable waterways

Roughly 25% of the river system as a whole has levels of

organic matter (sanitary) pollution likely to cause harm to

aquatic life (Defra 2003). Navigable rivers in England and

Wales range in organic water quality from very good (for

example, in the Rivers Wye, Ure and Derwent) to poor in several

fenland waterways, according to the Environment Agency’s

general quality assessment. Canals show a slightly worse

range of quality from good to poor, although the Caledonian

Canal and its lakes show excellent quality throughout.

Urban waterways have long been subject to particular pollution

pressures. Before the 20th century this was principally from

untreated sewage and industrial sources, followed over the last

200 years by a vast range of chemicals associated with modern

living. Today, with better pollution control, these waterways

are slowly improving in quality. But many still receive inputs

that range from the controlled discharges of industrial waste

products to the everyday water that runs off the streets. These

carry a cocktail of materials from our urban and transport

infrastructure: metals, nutrients, pesticides, oils, organic

matter and pathogens, a mixture that together can be as

polluting as untreated sewage (Table 5.1).

Water quality is therefore a major factor influencing the wildlife

value of waterways. Nutrient pollution is probably the most

important issue. On canals, there are sometimes opportunities

to improve water quality by better management of the water

sources used, although availability of alternative sources is

often very limited.

It is therefore essential to ensure that adequate data are

available on water quality and that this information is taken into

account in developing management prescriptions to achieve the

best balance between navigation and wildlife interests.

The Water Framework Directive, currently being implemented,

will for the first time set ecological quality targets for all

surface water bodies and will define programmes of measures

to achieve these. A partnership approach will be essential

for successful delivery. Implementation will require greater

consideration of ecological quality and collection of better

data than hitherto. While there are still issues to be resolved

regarding setting objectives on navigable waterways and

concerns about implications for waterway restoration,

the Directive should contribute towards reduction of adverse

effects of nutrient pollution and other factors on the wildlife

conservation value of our waterways, and will deliver benefits

for all.

Fishery management

As well as effects from water pollution and physical changes

to habitat, such as weirs blocking the movement of migratory

fish, natural fish populations are sometimes heavily modified

by artificial stocking for angling purposes. Increased

populations of fish, particularly non-indigenous species, can

have a significant impact on other elements of the ecosystem

by increases in the predation on other fish and invertebrates,

the grazing of aquatic plants and bed disturbance. The

introduction of bottom-feeding fish such as carp can result

in increases in suspended silt and uprooting of vegetation.

The practice of angling can also result in direct effects on flora

and fauna as a result of pike removal, ground baiting and

clearing of swims and bankside vegetation for ease of access.

Invasive species

A number of invasive alien plant and animal species can

cause problems for native wildlife on navigated waterways.

Amongst the most easily visible are floating plants such

as least duckweed, floating pennywort, parrot’s feather

and water fern. These surface-covering plants can spread

over the water, shading out the submerged plants beneath

and reducing the waterway value for invertebrates, fish

and birds and sometimes almost blocking the waterway

to navigation. Other alien plants such as New Zealand

pygmyweed (Crassula helmsii) cause problems by

squeezing-out native plants both along damp edges

and in the water.

38

Urban waterways often have highly reinforced banks and some are

impacted by a cocktail of pollutants. Both reduce their ability to

support rich wildlife communities

The alien floating pennywort can out-compete other species

and almost block waterways, as here on the Chelmer and

Blackwater Navigation

39

Once established, all these nuisance plants can be difficult

to eradicate and British Waterways and others have spent

much time and effort seeking to reduce their abundance.

With other alien species the negative impact may be less

visible to the naked eye but can be just as pervasive. On all

but a few waterways our native white-clawed crayfish has

now been eliminated by the spread of non-native crayfish -

particularly signal crayfish which carry a highly virulent

fungal disease, crayfish plague. Mink have helped to

sharply reduce native water vole populations, whilst on

turbid, heavily trafficked canals the highly predaceous

zander (pike-perch) can have a significant negative impact

on the populations of small fish, such as roach and

gudgeon.

The interconnectivity of the waterway system provides

routes by which alien species can spread, either naturally

or assisted by operational use such as water transfer and

boat movement. For example, the spread of the zebra

mussel, which is a major nuisance in water supply

systems, has been linked to boat movements. Other

invasive and harmful animal species on our waterways

include red-eared terrapins, which take waterfowl eggs

and are a nuisance locally, and the Chinese mitten crab,

which migrates into freshwater areas and damages banks.

Trees and shade

Current attitudes to trees and shade from both trees and

buildings) often differ between canal and river managers.

On canals and some lowland rivers, tree shade is often

viewed as a problem. In high quality canals like the

Basingstoke Canal, trees have shaded-out the margins

and central water areas, leading to the decline of

important aquatic and marginal plant communities and

their associated invertebrate fauna. The loss of marginal

reeds by over-shading can also reduce the potential for

these plant fringes to give natural bank protection from

boat traffic, thus adding to overall levels of stress on the

aquatic biota. Although it is recognised that trees are

a valued part of the landscape and offer refuge and shade

for fish in hot weather, the accumulation of dead leaves

may also partly deoxygenate the water column and add

to siltation rates (Eaton 1996).

In rivers, and some navigable lakes, trees are generally

viewed more positively. Their shade usually only extends

across a small proportion of the channel width and again

creates shelter for fish and a source of leaf detritus food

for many invertebrate species and their fish predators;

however, it can cause the decline of marginal plants.

Trees also provide a means of increasing bank stability

in floods through the binding power of tree roots and,

in some cases, a source of wood for natural debris

dams in the channel, providing an important habitat

for invertebrates and a refuge and food resource for fish

(Gregory et al. 2003). However, tree growth in engineered

structures such as embankments and masonry may also

cause damage and potentially failure of the structure.

Overhanging trees can represent a serious hazard for boat

users and can reduce the value of waterways used for

sailing by blocking the wind.

Responsibility for management of trees overhanging

waterways usually lies with the riparian owner, which

may not be the navigation authority. This sometimes

imposes a limitation on the deliverability of wildlife

or navigation benefits.

Trees can be a mixed blessing: they can create cool areas

for fish and habitats for white-clawed crayfish but they can

also shade out water plants

40

Waterbody location and history

It is worth noting that the conservation value of artificial

waterways in particular depends, in part, on accidents

of location. The best-known example of this is the

Basingstoke Canal, which partly owes its exceptional

biological diversity to the occurrence of an unusual pH

gradient along the canal, from alkaline to acid as it flows

downstream, giving water conditions suitable for a wide

range of species.

The potential for colonisation from other wetlands can also

be fundamental to waterway value. The Basingstoke Canal,

for example, has benefited from the proximity of both the

acid pools and wetlands of the Surrey and Hampshire

heaths and the lime rich springs emerging from below

the chalk in the Greywell area. Similarly, genetic studies

suggest that populations of the rare floating water plantain

spread eastwards though the canal system in the

nineteenth century from its ‘core’ natural habitat in the

lakes of Snowdonia and mid-Wales. The Norfolk Broads,

created by peat digging in the 12th to 14th centuries, owe

much of their exceptional value to their location within the

ancient coastal wetland expanses of Norfolk and Suffolk.

Floating water plantain spread eastwards though the canal

system in the 19th Century from its ‘core’ natural habitat

in the lakes of Snowdonia and mid-Wales

Floating water plantain spread eastwards through the canal

system in the 19th Century from its 'core' natural habitat

in the lakes of Snowdonia and mid-Wales

EA website (What's in my backyard?):

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/maps/

SEPA website:

http://www.sepa.org.uk/

WFD website:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/wfd/

Key information sources

Climate change

There are clear indications that the climate is changing,

with temperatures increasing, sea levels rising and a trend

towards greater storminess and higher winter rainfall all

leading to more frequent floods. Drier summers, combined

with an increasing demand for water generally, may reduce

summer flows in navigable rivers, especially in the south

and east. This can affect aquatic ecology through lowering

of water levels, where these are not retained by weirs, by

reducing water velocities and by reducing dilution available

for effluent discharges. Lower river flows may also result

in less water being available to supply canals.

Sea level rise is a particular concern in relation to The

Broads, as increased inland penetration of saline water

may threaten sites of international nature conservation

value and any breach of coastal defences could similarly

damage the upper reaches of some river catchments and

their associated broads.

41

Effects of motorised boat movement

Boat movements influence the biota of navigable

channels by:

• hydrodynamic impacts, including currents and waves;

• the re-suspension of bottom sediments;

• physical contact and entrainment (e.g. propellers

cutting plants).

These forms of impact are well studied but hydrodynamic

effects, in particular, are complex (Box 6.2) (Verheij, 2006)

and effects depend on many variables including channel

size and profile, boat dimensions, stability of bed materials,

bank type, vessel speed and the design of the craft. This

said, a number of generalisations can be made about the

type and magnitude of impacts, which are summarised

in Tables 6.1 and 6.2.

This chapter aims to explain the ways in which the use of

boats and waterway design and maintenance can influence

aquatic nature conservation value.

Introduction

We have established above how wildlife value of navigable

waterways can be affected by a range of factors other than

navigation. However, this report is mainly concerned with

balancing navigation activity and nature conservation.

We need therefore to understand the mechanisms by

which navigation use can affect nature conservation

value, so we can select the most appropriate management

regime to ensure navigation is sustainable.

Use of waterways by motorised boats, in particular, can

lead to significant effects on aquatic wildlife. For a given

boat and boat speed, the larger the channel cross-section

the lower will be the physical interaction between boat

movement and wildlife receptors on the bed and at the

edge of the channel. Thus the effects of boat movement

on aquatic wildlife vary in magnitude according to the type

of waterway and the types of boat in use, with the greatest

potential for effects on narrow canals of the English

midlands and a much reduced potential on larger

waterways, especially the navigable rivers (Box 6.1).

There is considerable evidence which shows that powered

boats can have a wide range of undesirable impacts on the

wildlife of some navigable waterways. Depending on other

stress factors present, these effects may begin at low

traffic densities particularly on small waterways where

the channel is very restricted for the boats typically in use.

Some navigation related activities have a positive effect

on waterway wildlife, provided they are carried out

appropriately. Dredging, for example, is sometimes

essential to arrest succession and help maintain high

quality submerged plant communities in canals.

Influence of navigation on aquatic wildlife

Box 6.1 Canals and rivers

Narrow canal (English midlands):

Typical channel cross-section is around 11.5m2

(Willby & Eaton, 2004). Wetted cross-section

of a typical narrow boat using the canal is about

1.6m2. This gives a ratio of 7 to1 between channel

and boat cross-sections. Also the depth below the

propeller may be less than 0.5m.

Mid-reaches of the non-tidal Thames:

Typical channel cross-section is 350m2. Many boats

using the river are from the narrow canal system

but even larger river cruisers are typically of no

more than 5m2 wetted cross-section amidships.

Thus the minimum ratio in this case is about 70

to 1 between channel and boat cross-sections.

Depth below the propeller is typically greater

than 3m.

Note that effects also depend on boat speeds,

which are higher on the Thames than on a narrow

canal (typically by a factor of 1.5 to 2 times), and

on the fact that plant growth in deeper water

is limited by attenuation of light through the

water column.

Broadly, the effects of navigation on aquatic waterwaywildlife can be divided into adverse or beneficial impactsthat result:• directly from the movement of boats (e.g. physical

damage to plants, the creation of high turbidity, the maintenance of open water habitat), or

• indirectly from the design and maintenance of navigationinfrastructure (e.g. dredging, bank protection).

42

WavesA boat moving in a channel causes a primarywave in the direction of travel, with thesurface water level raised in front of thebow, pulled down somewhere in the middleof the boat and raised behind the stern,resulting in temporary drawdown of waterlevel at the bank.

It also causes secondary waves, similar to wind waves, which start at the bow andstern and travel towards the bank. Thesetoo cause undulating water levels at thebank and can cause significant erosionand even bank failure if they are big enoughto form a breaking wave at the bank. Fineeroded material is then distributed acrossthe river bed. Wave generation is a functionof the boat size, shape and speed andchannel size (cross-section).

Waves put stress on underwater vegetationand breaking waves can uproot marginalplants.

The shape and amplitude of waves are very dependent on boat size and shape: for boats of the same beam moving at thesame speed, shorter craft will often creategreater breaking wave wash at the bank.

Return currentsThe water displaced by a boat as it movesforwards has to move to fill in the ‘hole’ in the water left behind the boat, resultingin ‘return’ or ‘reverse’ currents running in the opposite direction to movement of the boat. The smaller the gap aroundthe boat, the faster are these currents.

Thus the speed of return currents dependsmainly on the ratio between the boatcross-section and the waterway cross-section and the boat speed. Averagereturn currents for typical recreationalcraft on a narrow canal will be typically 5 to 7 times higher than on a larger rivernavigation (Box 6.1). For a particularnavigation, and boat speed, larger anddeeper draughted boats result in higherreturn currents.

Propeller jetsPropellers produce a conical jet of turbulentwater behind the vessel when it is underpower, which can be the major cause of re-suspension of bed sediments. Theimpact is largely a function of waterwaydepth, power applied, boat speed andstern gear design. Impacts are greatlyreduced where there is a greater depth of water below the bottom of the boat hull. The effects are exacerbated by thedrawdown of the stern of a boat underpower (stern squat), bringing the propellercloser to the bed.

Direct effectsPhysical contact between boat hulls and,particularly, propellers and submerged or emergent vegetation can clearly causephysical damage to vegetation. Again themagnitude of the effect depends ingeneral on the size of the boat in relationto the size of the channel.

SedimentsWaves, return currents, contact with thebed and propeller jets can all causesuspension of bed sediments into thewater column, loosening roots of plantsand causing the water to become veryturbid. This turbidity and deposition ofsediment on plant leaves restricts lightpenetration, thus reducing or eliminatingsubmerged plant growth. Nutrients andtoxic contaminants may also be releasedto the water column.

As well as the characteristics of the boat,its speed and channel dimensions, thenature of the waterway bed is animportant factor in determining theamount of sediment re-suspended. This is clearly greater, for example, in a shallow waterway with a silty or claybed than in a deeper river with a sand and gravel bed.

Re-suspension of clay can form stablecolloidal suspensions. Fine materialeroded from waterway banks by wavewash can accumulate in the navigationchannel, providing a source of readilysuspended particles which can bemobilised by subsequent boat passage.

Box 6.2

Mechanisms by which boat movement can affect wildlife in waterways.

The Worcester and Birmingham Canal (a narrow canal)

is very turbid due to boat movements in a narrow,

shallow channel

Boat movement on the River Avon does not result

in high turbidity

43

In Britain, most research has been undertaken in smaller

canals and Broadland rivers. There have also been many

studies in continental Europe and North America,

describing the effects of navigation by large vessels

on larger channels and lakes.

Effects on plants

Aquatic plants are a vital and integral part of freshwater

ecosystems. Submerged aquatic plants are the most

susceptible to impacts from boats. Many uncommon

species are found in waterways, with some protected

by policy and legislation or by statutory designation

of their sites. Effects can arise from all the mechanisms

described in Box 6.2.

Emergent plants and, to a lesser extent, floating leaved

plants growing at the edges of waterways are generally

more tolerant of boat traffic than submerged aquatic

plants. They can form areas of linear habitat, protected

to some extent from boat wash, that are of particular value

to juvenile stages of fish, some nesting birds (e.g. moorhen

and coot) and invertebrates such as water beetles and

dragonflies.

Larger emergent and submerged plants form an important

part of the habitat structure on which invertebrates and

many fish depend. Thus the presence or absence of such

plants can affect the whole biological community.

Effects of boat movement on plants are dealt with in some

detail in Box 6.3.

Clear water habitat protected from boat wash within emergent vegetation on the navigable Thames

Factor Effects

Waterbody type and size

Number of vessels

Vessel speed and size

Vessel design

Vessel impacts are greatest in narrow, shallow, still or slow-flowing waterways (i.e. canals). Here the

propeller is very close to the bottom sediments and the channel base and sides receive the full force

of all hull generated currents and bank reflected cross-currents, as well as the propeller jet. The

magnitude of the environmental impact of the hydraulic forces decreases progressively with

increasing distance from the bank, with increasing width of the waterway and with increasing depth

relative to boat draught. In broader river navigations turbidity also decreases as background current

speeds increase. Effects, per boat, are smallest in deep lakes and larger rivers where impacts are

generally limited to wake wash on the shoreline.

Vessel impacts increase with the number of boats moving along a waterway. Boat numbers affect the

frequency with which boat induced currents and wash act to erode banks. As bottom sediments are

stirred-up more frequently, larger particles are suspended in the water column for a longer period,

increasing water turbidity.

Boat speed and size act separately and together to influence boat impacts. In general, increased

speed and larger boats (the increase in cross-section being the critical issue) have proportionally

greater impacts on waterways. However there are critical thresholds when the two interact to cause

greater, and sometimes lower, levels of damage.

Impacts on the channel sides and bed can be strongly influenced by the shape of the boat’s hull and

by the design of propellers and stern gear. There are numerous historic examples of boats designed

for speed that created little wash, which provide examples of good hull design.

Table 6.1 Factors that influence vessel impacts on waterway wildlife

44

Effects on submerged plants

Smaller canalsIn Britain, boat impacts on submerged plants have been most studied

in smaller canals, where the ratio between boat cross-section and

channel cross-section is at a maximum, so that effects are likely

to be greatest. This has focussed particularly on traffic levels that

cause damage to uncommon and protected species such as floating

water plantain and rare pondweeds. Key work in this area has been

undertaken by researchers at Liverpool and Stirling Universities

(John Eaton, Nigel Willby and colleagues), who have used plant data

from over 500 sites across the canal system to model boat impacts

on plants in a 10m wide canal with a standard profile. This model

shows that on these smaller waterways, some impact of boats on

aquatic plants can be detected at very low levels of vessel activity,

although results vary between species and on many canals diversity

reaches a peak typically at around 1000 boat movements per year

(bmy), with a decline and a move towards more tolerant species

at higher traffic levels. Effects are reduced on canals with larger

cross-sections.

A few waterways are of recognised importance for floating water-

plantain and the rarer pondweeds. In some cases, these appear to

thrive best in waterways that either have no boats and are maintained

by periodic dredging or have very low levels of boat movement. In

general up to about 500 boat movements per year (bmy) in a narrow

canal will cause little or no damage to these plants. Recent findings

suggest that the very few nutrient poor, high conservation value canals

(i.e. the Welsh part of the Montgomery Canal and potentially the top

of the Rochdale Canal and the Huddersfield Narrow Canal), are

particularly sensitive to damage to rare plants (Wilby et al. 2001,

Willby & Eaton, 2002). This appears to be because plant species grow,

and therefore recover from boat damage, much more slowly in these

low nutrient status canals. In other cases, however, rare species such

as floating water-plantain maintain significant populations with much

higher levels of boat traffic (greater than 1500 bmy), which appear

to benefit rare species by limiting competition by more robust species.

Effects can result from direct contact with the boat and from effects

of currents and waves (Box 6.2), resulting in plants becoming damaged

and uprooted. In narrow canals, above traffic densities of 2000-3000

bmy, levels of suspended solids increase rapidly, largely stirred up

by boat propeller jets. This makes the water increasingly turbid, giving

insufficient light to allow significant submerged plant growth, although

floating leaved species can survive.

Rivers, drains and lakesIn rivers, lakes and broads the general trend of declines in aquatic

plants with greater levels of boat traffic are similar in principle to

those `seen in canals (e.g. Vermaat & Debruyne, 1993, Garrad and

Hey, 1988, Schutten & Davey, 2000), although it has been difficult

to quantify these trends in relation to UK waterways, as most

research has focussed on larger freight waterways in continental

Europe and the USA.

Drawing conclusions from direct observation of aquatic plant

communities present on these larger navigations is also difficult,

as many waterways are affected by nutrient enrichment, which

can limit the diversity of aquatic plant communities. However,

effects from boat movement are expected to be much lower than

on a narrow canal, as return currents are reduced (Box 6.1) and

propeller jet effects at the bed are usually lower due to greater

water depths. This is borne out by the lower turbidity seen on most

river navigations compared with that observed in smaller canals.

However, wave wash can still have significant effects on rivers,

causing erosion of banks and turbidity and restricting development

of healthy marginal emergent and submerged plant communities.

This is a particular issue on some Broadland rivers where erosion

rates may reach 0.3m per year (Murphy et al, 1995).

Effects on marginal plants

In canals, it is possible to retain a marginal vegetation fringe up

to quite high traffic levels, although its width will decline as traffic

increases. The fringe width will depend on many factors, including

the bed gradient near to the canal edge. For a narrow canal with

a natural bank with a gradient of 30°, for example, sweet reed

grass will root out to nearly 2m from the bank with no boat traffic,

reducing to 0.5m at 2500 bmy and 0.17m at 5000 bmy. Little change

occurs in the number of species present as boat traffic increases,

although the most tolerant species become more dominant and

stands of plants become fragmented (Willby & Eaton (2002).

Where hard bank protection has been installed on a narrow channel

with high levels of traffic, emergent vegetation may be eliminated

entirely (see photo below), although there are examples of busy

canals with extensive stands of emergent vegetation, even in front

of steel piled banks.

On larger waterways, especially river sections without engineered

banks, extensive fringes of reeds, reedgrasses and rushes up to

several metres wide are common, even on waterways with traffic

levels of 10000 bmy.

In general, impacts of boat movement on marginal plants are

of less concern than effects on submerged plants, as techniques

are readily available for encouraging rooting of marginal aquatic

vegetation even where boat traffic

levels are high (see Chapter 7).

Box 6.3

Effects of boat movement on waterway plants

Canal vegetation fringe

at 7000 bmy

Vegetation fringe on fenland

river at 4000 bmy

Canal vegetation fringe

at 500 bmy

Navigable river vegetation

fringe at 8000 bmy

From Wilby & Eaton, 2002

Narrow canal with hard bank

protection and 10000 bmy

showing absence of marginal

emergent vegetation

45

Effects on invertebrates

Surprisingly few studies have looked directly at the effects

of boat traffic on invertebrates, so understanding has been

inferred from knowledge of invertebrate life-histories.

Generally, it is believed that the most significant boat traffic

effects on invertebrates are likely to be through loss of their

habitats. The underwater structure provided by aquatic and

marginal plants is particularly important. Plants provide

a refuge from predators, protection from water movement,

egg-laying and emergence sites, and an indirect source

of food (many invertebrates graze algal films on the surface

of higher plants).

Thus the greatest effects will occur on smaller canals,

where boat traffic is sufficient to thin-out or remove the

submerged and marginal plant stands, since these create

the richest invertebrate habitat in most waterways.

However, there are indications that some species decline

before traffic densities build up to these levels (Murphy

& Eaton 1983).

The sediment stirred up by boats in narrow and shallow

waterways can smother invertebrate communities, for

example by clogging invertebrate breathing structures.

This can cause starvation in freshwater mussels by reducing

their feeding ability. It is possible that the physical stress

of boat induced currents may also affect many still water

bottom living species in canals and drains. Effects on rivers

are less pronounced and need to be set in the context of the

effects of natural currents and wind induced waves.

Effects on fish

There is an extensive literature documenting the direct and

indirect impacts of navigation on fish. Key impacts are

shown in Table 6.2.

The specific effects of these impacts vary considerably both

between individual fish species, the size of the waterway

and the propulsion types and speed of the craft. Canoes,

for example, probably cause no more than minor localised

impacts, whereas single large ships cause major current,

turbidity and wave wash effects in large navigable canals

(Hendry & Tree 2000, Arlinghaus et al. 2002).

Overall, the net result of increasing motorised boat traffic

on smaller UK canals is to create a shift in fish community

composition and structure (Pygott et al, 1990; Hodgson

& Eaton, 2000). For example, lightly trafficked waters

with an abundance of vegetation are dominated by roach

and perch with bream, weed-associated tench and sight

hunting pike. Heavily trafficked canals have a lower diversity

and biomass of fish, with the community dominated

by small roach and the bottom feeding gudgeon, as well

as sometimes very large carp.

Use of typical recreational craft on larger UK waterways,

such as rivers, appears to have less effect on fish. Based

on Environment Agency data, many navigable waterways

support the same coarse fish species as similar non-

navigable rivers.

Only a few types of animal live in open water. Like this dragonfly

larva, most prefer the protection, food and resting places they find

amongst plants

Vessel impact Effect on fish

Direct effect of currents

Shoreline waves & drawdown

Indirect effect from

loss of aquatic plants

Increased suspended

sediments in the water

Increased turbidity

Noise and disturbance

Direct entrainment in

propellers

Causes dislodgement of eggs and young from favourable habitats and creates higher energy

costs for feeding.

Strands or destroys eggs and vulnerable newly hatched fry.

Reduces the abundance of invertebrate food, which sustains the growth of larger fish. In addition

plants provide substrates for egg laying and cover from predation.

Can clog the gills of very young fish and reduce breeding success by depositing silt over the egg

masses or smothering gravel spawning areas.

Can make it difficult for fish to find food and disrupt courtship and egg laying behaviours.

Can adversely affect fish behaviour and, therefore, survival.

May be rare in adult fish (that avoid the passage of large boats), but may be significant for eggs and

larvae.

Table 6.2 Effects of vessel movement on fish

Gudgeon find suitable habitat in many turbid canals

46

Effects on birds and mammals

As with invertebrates and fish, some of the main impacts

of boat traffic on birds are associated with loss of

vegetation. At moderate levels of boat traffic, progressive

loss of submerged plants and consequential loss of

invertebrates and fish reduces food availability for species

such as coot, grebe, heron and kingfisher. At very high boat

densities, progressive loss of the marginal fringe reduces

availability of nesting sites and protective cover. Water

voles are also impacted because marginal wetland plants

form a significant part of their diet. Otters depend in part

on the presence of varied vegetated lake and river

shorelines, whilst bat species, which feed on invertebrates

emerging from the water surface, may also find less food

as invertebrate biomass declines.

Direct effects on burrowing animals such as water vole and

kingfisher can arise from excessive wave wash at the bank.

Disturbance may also be a factor, although boat movement

forms only a small part of human disturbance on many

waterways and many species become habituated to the

presence of human activity.

Table 6.3 gives a summary of aquatic wildlife in a typical

UK narrow canal, assuming mesotrophic-eutrophic water

with low levels of pollution. This represents the waterway

type where wildlife is most sensitive to boat movement and

should not be taken as representative of larger waterways.

Table 6.3 Summary of aquatic wildlife in a narrow canal at different levels of boat traffic

Physical effect

on ecosystem

Boat Traffic

(bmy)

Invertebrates Fish Birds &

Mammals

Plants

Largely clear still-

water system, with

accumulating

sediments and

progressively

shallower water.

0

(non-navigated)

Can support

diverse

invertebrate

communities in

emergent

vegetation.

Declining fish

population as

channel becomes

shallower.

Habitat for some

waterbirds and

mammals.

Progressive domination by floating-

leaved species such as duckweeds, tall

emergent plants and fast growing

willows. Moderately rich in species,

but loss of many aquatic plants over

time. Very shallow sites may

sometimes support uncommon

species.

Only periodic

mechanical and

hydrodynamic

damage to plants

from propeller and

hulls.

0 - 500 Diverse

invertebrate

community in

marginal and

aquatic

vegetation.

Mixed population

with tench, pike,

stickleback and

eel.

Good range of

habitats for water

birds and

mammals.

Plant species diversity high.

Uncommon submerged plant species

thrive.

Increasing channel

disturbance from

boat currents

causes damage

and uprooting of

sensitive aquatic

plants.

500 - 2000 Diverse

invertebrate

community in

marginal

vegetation.

Mixed population

with tench, pike,

perch, roach,

rudd and eel.

Good range of

habitats for most

water birds and

mammals.

Some key uncommon aquatic plant

species decline and are lost. Good

marginal fringe still retained. Overall

plant richness high, maximising at

roughly 1000 bmy.

2000 - 5000 Variable species

richness and

abundance,

depending largely

on the availability

of marginal plant

habitats.

Roach, tench,

pike bream,

perch.

Decreasing

biomass.

Loss of habitat,

nesting areas and

food sources for

waterside birds

and mammals

e.g. water vole.

High water

turbidity from

water disturbance.

High wave wash,

bank erosion, high

sedimentation.

5000+ Impoverished

communities.

Few invertebrate

species and

usually few

individuals.

Small/stunted

roach, gudgeon,

few perch. Carp

where stocked.

Limited range of

permanent water

birds and

mammals.

Vegetation fringe patchy or absent in

many canals. Aquatic species absent

or mainly limited to those with

submerged or floating leaves.

Regular channel

disturbance. Rapidly

increasing water

turbidity through this

boat movement range,

from suspension of

bottom sediments by

water currents.

Progressive narrowing of marginal

reed fringe. Few aquatic species,

which are mainly those with

submerged or floating leaves, though

precise impact depends on channel

profile and bank material. Best where

banks are soft and not steep sided.

47

Pollution from boats and boatyards

Minimising pollution from boats and boatyards is essential

for the protection of aquatic wildlife. Principal causes for

concern are antifouling paints and spillages of fuel and

lubricating oils, as well as black water in inland marinas

used by seagoing vessels. Of minor concern are also

polluting materials in ‘grey’ water and engine exhaust

emissions (Table 6.4).

Pollution effects from boats are potentially greater in mooring

areas and marinas.

Source Detail

Antifouling paints

Fuel and

lubricating oils

Black water

Grey water

Exhausts

Tributyl tin, banned for use on small boats in 1987 and completely banned in the UK since 2003,

was previously a common antifouling used on seagoing boats. It has been partially implicated in the

loss of exceptionally high value plant communities on the broads and high levels remain in sediments

around Broadland and around boatyards used by marine vessels.

Modern antifoulants use copper and a suite of 'booster biocides' instead, some of which are known to be

extremely damaging to freshwater organisms, including emergent and aquatic plants. There are particular

concerns in the Broads where rare and protected stoneworts occur in navigable broads (Chapter 3)

(Lambert et al, in press).

Inland steel vessels tend to use bitumen paints for hulls rather than anti-fouling preparations.

Earlier coal derived formulations released pollutants such as PAH to the water but modern oil

derived paints are less toxic.

Such toxins accumulate in sediments and affect wildlife, particularly where craft are moored for long

periods, or dry docked for scraping and re-painting, especially in enclosed marinas (Willby 1994).

Hydrocarbon pollution arises mainly from fuel and lubricating oil spillages, direct fuel leakage from engines

and, particularly, from pumping out of oily bilge water. In general, however, effects are mainly limited

to enclosed areas with a high density of boats and levels of activity, e.g. marinas and boat yards

(G. Newman pers. comm.).

Black water (from sea toilets) is still a concern on some inland waterways frequented by seagoing vessels,

particularly The Broads.

Grey water (water from sinks, showers etc.) is of concern particularly in relation to local effects of use of

bleach or other toxic cleaning products, especially in areas with a high density of boats and levels of activity.

There may be a risk to fish and potentially other organisms from the exhaust emissions of outboard engines

and inboard engines with wet exhaust systems - these types being prevalent mainly on river navigations.

(Most craft on the canals have dry exhausts discharging directly to the air.)

Emissions from recreational craft wet exhausts which remain in the water are largely a mixture of unburned

and partially oxidised hydrocarbons including benzene, xylene, toluene, phenols, carbonyls and polynuclear

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), as well as carbon dioxide. It has been estimated that approximately 40%

of the hydrocarbons emitted from a wet exhaust are initially captured in the water phase, while the

remaining 60% escape immediately to the air in exhaust gas bubbles (TNO, 2004). About 35% of the

carbon dioxide dissolves in the water and may contribute to plant growth.

Many of the organic components are volatile and of low solubility and therefore rapidly evaporate.

Some hydrocarbons can form surface films on the water, while PAH tend to become bound to sediments.

Research reported by TNO (2004) indicates that effects are small and that water quality standards based

on maximum admissible concentrations of these compounds are generally not exceeded, although the

situation regarding sediment contaminants is less clear.

Table 6.4 Water pollution from boats

48

Development and maintenance of waterways

Some of the most significant influences of navigation

on aquatic wildlife come from the activities that surround

navigation and enable it to function effectively. This includes

both the historic legacy of waterway creation, maintenance

engineering and ongoing development and operational

management practices such as dredging.

Waterway infrastructure

River navigations have, over many centuries, experienced

a wide range of impacts through modification of the natural

river environment to provide power for mills and to support

navigation. Typically these have involved deepening,

removing shallow gravel shoals, the steepening of banks,

the creation of cuts through meandering channels,

blocking or abandoning side channels and maintaining

navigable depths by the impoundment by weirs provided

with locks.

Bank protection has also been installed in some areas

but the majority of banks on navigable rivers and drains

are reasonably natural. The presence of weirs has

fundamentally changed the character of many rivers,

replacing biological communities typical of faster flowing

water containing riffle stretches by communities more

typical of slower flowing deeper waters. Superimposed

on these effects are the effects of boat movement

described above.

Canals are totally artificial channels but many have

changed considerably from their early days, as the advent

of motorised boating and increases in traffic have led

to increased pressure for banks to be protected from

erosion and to provide hard edges for boat mooring. In the

past this has typically been done using piling, creating

a hard edge; this severely restricts emergent vegetation,

burrowing by animals such as water voles and access

by otters. Such banks reflect rather than absorb boat

generated currents, amplifying wash, scour, turbulence

and turbidity with knock-on effects for aquatic wildlife.

Softer, more ecologically-friendly bank protection methods

are now available (see Chapter 8).

Dredging

In general, dredging is essential to maintain sufficient

water depth for safe vessel movement in canals, which

have no natural periodic scouring from floods to keep

their channel open. In rivers the navigational need varies

between waterways. On faster-flowing rivers, which

maintain a naturally deep channel, dredging may only

be needed on a very local basis, typically to remove

accumulated silt in artificial lock cuts and to remove sand

bars that develop below locks. In fenland drains, lightly

used canals or other slow flowing waterways, weed cutting

may be necessary to maintain land drainage or navigation.

In the case of invasive species such as floating pennywort,

removal of the plant material is essential to limit the rate

of re-colonisation. Dredging and weed cutting are also

undertaken for flood management on many rivers and

drains.

Canals are usually dredged every 15-30 years, though

they may be spot-dredged more regularly, sometimes

annually, where, for example, there is an inflow from

a river. Restoration of derelict waterways often involves

significant dredging.

Further detail on dredging and its impacts on wildlife

is given in Box 6.3.

Benefits of navigation for aquatic life

In contrast to the evidence of ecological damage caused

by boat traffic, there are a more limited number of

attributable benefits. Thus although the trend is for a loss

of species diversity with increasing boat traffic, a small

number of species benefit. Gudgeon, for example, usually

a turbid river fish, find a suitable habitat in many turbid

waterways.

In canals, some physical disturbance is necessary to

sustain open water habitats and prevent complete

encroachment of marginal plants or dominance by invasive

aquatic species. This disturbance can be achieved either

by dredging and/or by boat movement at an appropriate

level, which will vary according to the waterway concerned.

Waterway development can restore or create new aquatic

habitat. For example, while there is concern in some cases

that restoration of disused canals to navigation may

adversely affect aquatic habitat in sections still in water,

this is balanced by the fact that many derelict canals no

longer hold water and restoration provides opportunities

for the creation of new aquatic habitat. The net value for

wildlife will depend on channel design features, traffic

levels and water quality in the restored canal and the value

of the damp or dry habitat of the derelict waterway that is

lost during restoration. Thus it is important to be realistic

about such benefits for biodiversity.

However some works may be mutually beneficial. For

example, clearance of native plants at nuisance levels

or invasive aliens not only facilitates navigation and

improves a waterway’s visual appearance but helps to

improve its biodiversity. Similarly, restoration of silted and

nutrient enriched lakes in Broadland has benefited both

navigation and wildlife.

Extension of water space on currently navigable waterways

by providing new off-line marinas can, with good design,

provide valuable additional still water and marginal

habitats, especially for fish.

In a wider context, improving access to water habitats

through navigation helps to educate the community to

value wildlife, which in turn has positive implications for

nature conservation. In this respect, applications for funds

for works required to maintain and enhance wildlife value

on derelict waterways are likely to be more successful if

these form part of integrated proposals to provide wider

socio-economic benefits, such as restoration of navigation,

access for other recreation, encouragement of social

inclusion and interpretation and education facilities.

How wildlife legislation affects navigation

There are no reliable data describing the extent to which

recreational and commercial use of the inland waterways

are currently restricted by environmental considerations.

However some stakeholders are concerned that changes

to the designation process arising from the Habitats

Directive and changes in legislation regarding the

notification of SSSIs, introduced in England and Wales

by the Countryside and Right of Way Act (2000) and in

Scotland by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act (2004),

may mean that some resources will no longer be available

for sport and recreation activities (University of Brighton

2002).

49

Waterway infrastructure

Waterway wildlife on rivers is affected by impoundment for

navigation and often by fundamental permanent changes

to the physical nature of the channel. On canals the nature

of the artificial channel is largely defined by the initial

construction profile and the channel lining. However,

the value of a waterway for wildlife can be greatly affected

by the way the infrastructure is managed locally, particularly

in relation to bank protection (hard edging generally having

a deleterious effect) and the near-bank bed profile.

Alternative methods of bank protection are described

in Chapter 7.

For major waterway engineering restoration projects and for

maintenance, short-term dewatering of a section of waterway

may be required. The impacts of such work have been little

assessed but are likely to be localised and temporary.

Their significance will depend on whether there are

particularly sensitive species present (e.g. water vole, native

crayfish, and long-lived species, such as swan mussels).

If so, population loss may be significant unless appropriate

mitigation measures are implemented and the species may

find it difficult to re-colonise after re-flooding.

The creation of off-line marinas is known significantly to

benefit fish populations (Pinder 1997) but their value for other

wildlife has been little studied. However given the sometimes

elevated levels of pollutants, and shading from boats, they

may be of relatively little value for groups such as plants and

invertebrates (Vermaat & DeBruyne 1993) unless suitable

habitat is a design component. The opportunity to incorporate

new wildlife habitat is however becoming a more common

feature in the design of inland marinas.

Restoration of derelict canals, while often creating new

aquatic habitat, may also disturb or remove valued biological

communities that have developed over many years. Even

when only a shallow water body remains, this can support

uncommon plants, such as six-stamened waterwort, and

many invertebrates associated with emergent plants and

wet scrub. Restoration to navigation is a major engineering

endeavour that brings impacts related to:

• the temporary and permanent engineering works;

• the effects of boat use after restoration.

In practice, the implications of such developments for wildlife

depend on whether:

• existing habitats would, in any case, be rapidly lost

by further canal decay;

• recreation of new canal habitats will compensate for loss

of existing habitats;

• measures can be undertaken to ensure that key species

and communities can be maintained, in the long term,

either within the new channel or in compensatory wetlands

(see Chapter 8), although re-creation of the many factors

that determine the characteristics of an existing habitat

may be difficult to achieve in practice.

Dredging

Dredging can have positive effects on wildlife value,

particularly in canals, as it:

• enlarges the channel, reducing the intensity of boat

disturbance;

• limits succession by restoring open water conditions on

disused or little used canals, in the same way that flooding

does on rivers, thus maintaining habitat for submerged

plants;

• often benefits some of the rarest species which are

typically early succession plants that decline and are lost,

as canals fill with silt and floating-leaved and marginal

plants fill-in the channel;

• removes fine sediments, which may leave a firmer base for

plant and invertebrate colonisation, increasing their chance

to withstand buffeting from boat traffic;

• removes polluted sediments, where these have

accumulated;

• removes sediment-bound nutrients, particularly

phosphorus.

Typically silt and plants from the centre of the channel are

removed, usually in the winter months, and current good

practice stipulates that bank angles are designed so that any

vegetation fringe on either bank edge, or at least the off-side

on a canal, is largely retained.

The impact of dredging on ecosystems is always disruptive in

the short term. Submerged plants are lost, together with the

invertebrates living amongst them and on the waterway bed.

Loss may be particularly significant for long-lived invertebrate

species, such as freshwater mussels, and for uncommon and

protected species, such as spined loach, which live amongst

the plant stands (Perrow pers. comm.). However, in the

medium and long-term the positive effects are realised.

Weed control

Plant cutting, as opposed to dredging, has been found to

reduce plant diversity and encourage unwanted plant species

like the alien Nuttall’s pondweed (Baattrup-Pendersen,

Larsen & Riis 2002). For invertebrates there is rapid recovery

after both cutting and herbicide treatment of aquatic

vegetation, with apparently no significant impact on fish

(Monahan and Caffrey 1996).

However it should be noted that use of herbicides in or near

water is often limited by water quality considerations and the

relevant environment agency (EA or SEPA) must be consulted

in advance.

Box 6.3

Effects of waterway development and maintenance on aquatic wildlife

Vertical banks and deep

water limit marginal

wildlife communities

Making rivers navigable

often involves impoundment

by weirs

Dredging can be

beneficial for wildlife if

carefully managed

Marinas can provide

an off-line refuge

for fish

50

There are greater potential impacts for navigation interests

in cases of:

• new waterway development (e.g. re-opening abandoned

canals for navigation, extending river navigations,

the creation of new canals);

• use of the very few navigable canals, such as the

Basingstoke, which are both of exceptional ecological

value and where powered boat use is regarded as a

threat to conservation value by regulators and some

other users.

Where waterways are re-opened or developed for navigation,

solutions have generally been found which seek to protect

conservation value whilst allowing navigation (see Chapter 7).

On the few existing waterways where statutory protection

may favour the rights of conservation over those of navigation,

there may be a need for restrictions in use such as more

stringent speed limits or limits on the number of boats.

Limiting boat numbers will inevitably be unpopular with

recreational users and the service industry that supports

them and should be minimised by appropriate design of other

mitigation measures.

Amongst the most significant impacts of wildlife conservation

on navigable waterways is the cost to navigation authorities

of managing the natural environment. For example,

environmental impact assessments, the use of wildlife friendly

bank protection, conservation dredging, the use of ecological

enhancement or mitigation techniques and the curtailment

of income-generating developments can all have significant

economic and social implications which must be balanced

against the wildlife benefits.

Conclusions

It is largely modern engine-driven boating on canals and

infrastructure modifications to support this that can cause

significant damage to nature conservation if not properly

managed.

It is evident from the wealth of plant records and herbarium

specimens from Victorian times that the commercial decline

of the canals in the latter half of the 19th Century allowed

colonisation by aquatic biota on a scale which their previous

heavy traffic did not permit, especially where that traffic

had already switched from the original horse-drawn craft

to propeller driven craft. As already noted, the richest period

ecologically was probably the mid 20th Century, after which

the rise of pleasure cruising started to reduce quantities and

qualities of channel vegetation and their associated faunas

(Murphy & Eaton 1982; Willby, 1994).

Most boats using British river navigations are small compared

with the size of the waterway channel, so the effects of boat

movement are less pronounced than on the smaller canals.

However, there are still issues to be addressed regarding the

effects of wave wash and the opportunities for improved bank

management to protect and enhance wildlife.

Motorised boat traffic is increasing, with national targets

set to encourage greater use, so the issues of modern

navigation’s effect on nature conservation, particularly

on smaller canals, are likely to remain a challenge for

navigation managers.

Many of the adverse effects of navigation can be mitigated

with good practice and Chapter 8 describes some methods for

achieving this. However, it must be recognised that navigation

is only one pressure affecting the ecological status of waterways

and management should aim to address all these relevant

factors in a co-ordinated and cost-effective way.

Key information sourcesKey information sources

English Nature, 1995. Canal SSSIs

management and planning issues.

English Nature Freshwater Series No. 2.

PIANC WG 10, 2006.

Environmental risk assessment of dredging

operations.

PIANC WG 12, 2002.

Recreational navigation and nature.

PIANC WG 27 (in press)

Guidelines on the environmental impact of vessels.

Verheij H. (2006)

Hydraulic aspects of the Montgomery Canal

Restoration. Report by Delft Hydraulics for BW.

51

Case studiesThis chapter summarises the overall conclusions to the findings from the ten case studies described in Appendix 5; these have been collated in co-operationwith navigation interests to show how the relationshipbetween nature conservation and navigation has beenmanaged on different waterways.

The examples cover situations where reconciling the interests

of navigation and nature conservation has been particularly

difficult, as well as those where nature conservation benefits

have been achieved without significant conflict with

navigation interests.

The case studies

The focus of the case studies was on:

• the navigational use of the waterway and its nature

conservation value;

• the effectiveness of communication and consensus

building methods;

• the effectiveness of technical measures which facilitate

navigation and maintain or enhance the nature conservation

interest.

Ten case study summaries are given in Appendix 5. It should

be noted that case study authors were not prompted with

a list of possible techniques and asked “which did you use?”

Instead, the reports provide unprompted answers and thus

give greater insight to what factors the authors felt were

important.

The case studies deal with a range of waterway types

including:

• river navigations (the Thames, the Great Ouse system);

• the Broads;

• narrow boat canals (Montgomery, Ashby and Grand Union

[Warwick & Napton section]);

• larger canals (Bude (part), Forth & Clyde, Lancaster

& Rochdale);

• tub boat canals (Bude (part)).

The studies include fully navigable waterways and waterways

which are the subject of current restoration or extension

proposals.

Conclusions

The conclusions distilled from the case studies, which have

been taken into account in developing the guidance in the next

chapter, are:

• most waterways serve both navigation and wildlife and

the key issue is agreeing where the balance should be

in each case;

• on some waterways, wildlife value could be improved while

maintaining navigation, contributing to the attraction of the

waterway for visitors and to the maintenance of biodiversity

- there are plenty of technical measures to do this;

• even on very busy waterways some wildlife benefit can

be readily achieved, principally in the emergent vegetation

and associated fauna;

• some waterways need special consideration for wildlife -

these are often on the periphery of system;

• ongoing research is needed on new measures and on the

cost-effectiveness of all measures;

• best outcomes are achieved when navigation and wildlife

interests establish a good rapport;

• in any restoration or major works project, it is very

important that planning involves both navigation, wildlife

and other interests from an early stage and that adequate

time is allowed for building consensus on the way forward

and developing a project plan which has wide support;

• where wildlife is of particular value, preparation

of a Conservation Management Plan or Strategy

may be the best way forward;

• there is a need to be realistic as to what can be achieved

and discuss issues openly;

• funding is a key issue, especially for front end feasibility

or Environmental Impact Assessment studies in projects

being promoted by small navigation authorities or waterway

interest groups;

• misinformation is a major issue with new schemes, many

responsible for wildlife do not understand navigation issues

and vice versa;

• where wildlife is legally protected, navigation interests

need to be aware of the proper procedures for obtaining

the necessary permissions for their activities - in the end

this is the same message that communication must

be established early.

• where there is a statutory duty to maintain navigation,

conservation interests need to be aware of the requirements

and take these into account - aquatic interest can usually

be maintained but in some cases it is likely to rely on fauna

and emergent species rather than submerged aquatic flora.

52

53

Improving the balancebetween navigation andnature conservationWhile opportunities for protecting or developing wildlife valuemay be very limited on a few stretches of waterway, in themajority of cases good planning, design and managementpractice will provide tangible wildlife benefits, increasing their attractiveness for many users and contributing towardsrealising their full potential as a multifunctional resource.

For the few inland waterways that are designated as being

of exceptional wildlife value, complying with legislation and

achieving the right balance with navigation will require

detailed investigation and consultation.

A key to the adoption of best practice on the ground in any

particular waterway situation is to ensure that all interested

parties believe in it. Achieving this will require time and

effort but will pay dividends in the medium and long term.

This chapter outlines good practice in terms of organisational

issues and consensus building, as well as identifying

practical management measures. Comprehensive manuals

for environmentally-friendly waterway engineering design

|and maintenance are being developed elsewhere and this

aspect is covered only briefly here.

Approaches considered

For any activity associated with navigation on the inland

waterways, there will be potential interactions with their

aquatic wildlife. The wildlife of the waterway environment

is itself a significant attraction for many boaters and other

visitors, as well as contributing to wider objectives for the

protection of biodiversity.

Some activities can contribute both to navigation and wildlife

interests, but with others it will be necessary to strike an

appropriate balance in the approach taken.

Ways of achieving such a balance are varied, as described

in this chapter. They can range from the education and

persuasion of users to follow best practice through to the

regulation of use, and from the modification of engineering

practices through to habitat creation. Measures have been

organised for convenience under the following main headings:

• advance planning;

• stakeholder engagement and consensus building;

• management of navigation activity;

• waterway infrastructure design and management;

• compensation for habitat loss or degradation;

• difficulties with the adoption of preferred solutions;

• summary of good practice recommendations.

It is important that feedback of views and practical

experience is built in to the process, to advise future

decision making.

Approaches available are summarised in Table 8.1 and

described in more detail in the following parts of this chapter.

Advance planning

Waterways fulfil many different functions. They are an

important tourism, leisure and social resource and a pivotal

focus for waterside regeneration, as well as providing

an important contribution to the conservation of wildlife

and the built heritage. These are not independent attributes.

Abundant and varied wildlife adds to the attraction of

waterways to users (bankside and afloat) and to their value

as an educational resource; users in turn can affect the

wildlife value that attracts them. Effective planning and

management are essential to obtain the maximum benefits

from the waterway across all its functions.

Planning for wildlife should form part of this process,

alongside the protection of other waterway attributes and

satisfying the needs of users. This is essential if wildlife and

navigation benefits are to be maximised and any negative

effects of navigation mitigated. The key message is that,

whether considering the management of a navigation,

the restoration of a derelict canal or a specific task such

as dredging, then planning for wildlife should be considered

right from the start and should continue throughout the

project.

Planning works on different scales. Design and technical

considerations will be important for local, site-specific

works. In contrast, business planning for waterway

networks will involve prioritisation of expenditure and

trade-offs. For example it may be best to focus expenditure

on SSSIs where wildlife benefit to cost ratios are high and

the achievement of favourable status is a realistic proposition,

at the expense of highly stressed sites where even a large

expenditure would not result in the restoration of favourable

status.

For the few inland waterways where the aquatic habitat

forms part of a statutorily protected national or international

wildlife site, consultation with the relevant conservation

agency is obligatory and time needs to be set aside to

undertake surveys and obtain any necessary consents.

Similarly, licenses may be required for work that may

affect protected species, wherever it takes place.

For many navigation authorities, protection and

enhancement of wildlife is also a legal duty.

54

For routine work, advance planning may simply involvespecifying adherence to published guidance. In some cases,particularly if consent is required for specific work that needs to be undertaken regularly, it is often most convenient to includeall likely operations into a management plan which can beagreed in advance with regulators and other interested parties,rather than adopting a piecemeal approach.

For a major project, such as a waterway restoration scheme, it will be helpful to produce a formal ecological impactassessment report. This should establish the ecologicalbaseline, evaluate potential impacts (positive and negative) of the project and identify enhancement, mitigation orcompensation measures to be incorporated into the project, as appropriate. Further guidance is provided by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Guidelines forEcological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom[http://www.ieem.org.uk/ecia/index.html].

In these cases, it may be necessary to take expert, independentmultidisciplinary advice (e.g. from ecologists, engineers,economists and navigation experts) to obtain best solutions forbalancing the interests of navigation and wildlife, particularlywhere methods are new or little tested. The agreedenvironmental measures should be set out as part of an overallconservation management plan, or as a separate project-basedenvironmental management plan, which should includeecological objectives and targets along with procedures formonitoring and auditing success in achieving them.

Stakeholder engagement and consensus buildingThe best results for the sustainable management of waterwayswill be achieved by the early engagement of all environmentaland user interests to agree shared objectives and appropriateactions. Such user interests include those interested in socialissues, economic development, cultural heritage, navigation,recreation and the natural environment. This is essential if themaximum benefits that a waterway can offer to navigation,wildlife and other interests are to be realised.

Establishing a rapport between navigation and wildlife interestswill also assist in avoiding or resolving conflicts, should thesearise. Navigation interests should aim fully to involve thestatutory nature conservation body (NE, SNH or CCW) insignificant projects. The environment agencies (EA, SEPA) andperhaps local authorities should also be included where issuessuch as water quality or flood risk management are important.It is also important that the voluntary sector, particularly localwaterway societies and wildlife trusts, is brought on board.

In this way, consensus on good practice can be reached andpromoted, with adherence to it increased. Promotingresponsible behaviour by all users will minimise adverse effectson wildlife.

While this approach will help to avoid conflicts developing,difficulties will arise from time to time and success will dependon the commitment to a genuine partnership approach. Thus consensus building is akin to negotiation, about whichresearch is voluminous. Some pointers to key aspects are given in Box 8.1 and Appendix 4.

Waterway developmentsA priority in promoting any major new waterway proposal will be the establishment of shared objectives and agreed actions.This should typically include the following steps.

• Form strategic partnerships with representatives of allinterested parties.

• Develop a network of contacts with other stakeholders.

• Make sure outline plans are made known early, before thereis a chance for rumours or misinformation to gain credibilitywith stakeholders.

• Provide detailed plans packaged into an evidence-basedproject plan, in which environmental protection andenhancement are an integral part of the initial works andfuture maintenance - not just bolt-on extras.

• Use the project plan as a basis for wider consultation and to expose plans to public scrutiny such as in meetings orother public events - techniques need to vary with differentaudiences and different proposals; there is no single type of public scrutiny process.

• Be open, honest and inclusive throughout. If there areuncertainties or it is likely that the plans will result in somedamage to wildlife, recognise this and show what has beendone to mitigate it.

• Where uncertainties arise from a lack of objective data,consider setting out proposals for data gathering.

Although the focus here is on navigation and wildlife conservation,steps such as these are typically applicable across a wide rangeof types of partnership.

Involving local and regional nature conservation organisationsfrom the beginning will enable them to provide an early warningof projects which may prove contentious, increasing thelikelihood of finding agreed solutions and reducing the potentialfor costly, time consuming and destructive conflicts at a laterstage.

Waterway restoration and development may take a long time to implement, so procedures should be set up for maintainingdialogue with key partners and stakeholders. This may meanformally constituted forums and/or occasional public meetingsto report progress and raise issues.

55

Source of effect

(see Chapter 6)

Category of measure Potential measures

Motorised boat use

AND

Development andmaintenance of waterway infrastructure

Motorised boat use

AND

Development andmaintenance of waterway infrastructure

Motorised boat use

Development andmaintenance of waterway infrastructure

Motorised boat use

AND

Development andmaintenance of waterway infrastructure

Advance planning

Stakeholder engagement

Management of navigation

Design and management

Provision of compensatoryhabitat/ restoration ofhabitat

Impact assessment: effects on wildlife should be considered right from the start of any waterwayproject; this can range from a very simple ecological assessment following a standard checklist to production of a formal environmental statement to support an application for necessarypermissions. For European wildlife sites 'appropriate assessment' may be required under theHabitats Regulations.

Management agreements: may be negotiated with the statutory nature conservation agency (NE, CCW, and SNH) to cover routine or other planned operations within waterway SSSI, avoidingthe need for repeated consultation and applications for consent for such work.

Waterway conservation management plans: development of such plans can provide a valuablestimulus for stakeholders to work in partnership towards an agreed vision for the waterway and to commit themselves to the actions required to implement this vision. Such plans should includeall aspects of conservation of the waterway, including built heritage, landscape, hydromorphology,water quality and wildlife, as well as navigation and other socio-economic aspects such as angling,setting out a programme of agreed measures over several years. They should include an account of options considered and an assessment of each option in terms of how it will meet (or not)environmental and socio-economic needs/criteria.

Form partnerships: early establishment of working partnerships with key stakeholders, includingnavigation, wildlife and fisheries interests, helps to avoid the development of conflicts and allowsdifferent interests to be taken into account from the beginning, thus avoiding a waste of time andmoney in reworking plans to mitigate problems at a later stage. Emphasis on common concerns,such as curbing invasives that impact on navigation and biodiversity, can increase the strength of partnerships.

Education: many conflicts are generated through dissemination of misinformation and a lack of technical understanding of issues of interest to other stakeholders. A pro-active approach tomutual education of different interest groups, through discussion, workshops, presentations andinformation boards on-site, can help to avoid such problems. Raising awareness about the linksbetween boat movement and bank erosion, sediment re-suspension and aquatic plants isparticularly important.

User groups: these are an established and, if there is commitment to problem solving on bothsides, an effective and valuable means of communication between waterway managers and users.

Engineering solutions to boat design: environmentally friendly boat design may include propellerand sterngear modification, wider adoption of hulls designed to minimise wash, use of lightermaterial, use of different type of propulsion (e.g. water jets, towing from the bank), wherecommercially viable.

Local speed limits: to protect sensitive areas; may require boat handling training, education and information, enforcement.

Zoning boat movement in space: for example concentrating boat traffic in a defined channel and protecting areas near banks, appropriate mooring management and good practice, definition of areas available only for non-motorised access, education and information.

Mooring management: appropriate location and good management of moorings and hire boatbases, advice on boat handling at moorings, education and information, enforcement.

Zoning boat movements in time: will usually involve seasonal restrictions.

Restriction of the number of boat movements: may include controls on access, boat numbers as trigger for other actions, restriction of licence numbers.

Pollution reduction: good practice guidelines for boat cleaning, painting, bilge water management,disposal of black water and better management of grey water (e.g. Green Blue initiative), goodpractice for and regulation of boatyard activities, education and information.

Channel design modifications: may include channel bed stabilisation, increasing water depth,channel cross-section profile designed to provide for both navigation and maximum diversity of wildlife habitats (see Table 8.3).

Environmentally sensitive bank protection: use 'soft' as well as 'hard' materials (singly or in conjunction), design to provide habitat for otters, water voles, native crayfish and marginalvegetation, which will support other fauna, replace hard by soft banks as the opportunity arises in suitable locations.

Vegetation control: remove invasive species, ensure appropriate timing and use of selectivemethods for aquatic weed control where required.

Mooring design: design marinas and other mooring areas to maximise wildlife benefit, for exampleby including refuge areas for fish and water voles, soft bank protection and space for marginalvegetation between pontoons and bank.

Dredging mitigations: dredging should be part of a clear sediment management strategy; aim tominimise disturbance, avoid the spread of turbidity and encourage re-colonisation; deep-dredgingrather than surface skimming is generally recommended.

Dewatering mitigations: phase in space and time to minimise loss of wildlife; rescue fish andcrayfish; consider off-site maintenance of rare plants for later replanting.

Weirs and fish passes: weirs should be designed or modified to allow passage by otters; fish passes may be appropriate to reduce the effects of navigation structures on fish migration in river navigations.

Restoring derelict canals to water: maximise opportunities for a net gain for wildlife by creatingnew aquatic wildlife habitat in ways compatible with the restoration of navigation.

On-line habitat: for example, installation of barriers of various kinds within the navigable channelto provide habitat that is protected from the physical effects of boat movement, bank modification to create improved marginal habitat, biomanipulation as part of habitat restoration (as, for example,on Barton Broad).

Off-line habitat: modification of existing off-line habitats (e.g. backwaters, adjacent gravel pits),reconnection of historic aquatic habitat or creation of completely new aquatic habitat (linked to the navigation channel or isolated).

Table 8.1 Approaches for balancing the needs of navigation and wildlife

56

Developing Codes of Good Practice for waterway users

It is generally helpful to demonstrate that participants in

a potentially damaging recreational activity will adhere to

an approved Code of Good Practice. It is now common for

national governing bodies of recreational groups to produce

such codes. A diagrammatic representation of an approach

for developing such codes and a list of examples is given

in Appendix 4.

Promoting Codes of Good Practice

Whilst it is very laudable to produce Codes of Good Practice,

this is no guarantee that participants in the activity will

adhere to them. The need to achieve ‘buy-in’ was a key

feature of the British Marine Federation (BMF) and Royal

Yachting Association (RYA) “Green Blue” Initiative. For

a code to be effective it has to:

• be practical and do “what it says on the box”;

• be credible and promote best practice;

• promote the idea of freedom;

• be aspirational and look to the future;

• be innovative and inspiring;

• engender excitement and appeal to the individual;

• empower the audience;

• promote serious messages in a light way.

In essence, the aim appears to be that anyone straying

outside these Codes of Good Practice is regarded as

a ‘bad sailor’. Another key feature of the Green Blue

initiative is the detailed analysis done to decide how best

to raise awareness amongst BMF members, the plethora

of RYA individual members and affiliated clubs, as well as

other inland navigation users. The methods being employed

include demonstration projects, the production of CDs,

leaflets, promotion at regattas and so on.

Box 8.1Consensus building

Key principlesBishop (1996) and others suggest that the keyprinciples underpinning successful consensusbuilding are:

• commitment to abide by the outcomes of theprocess;

• openness, honesty, trust and inclusiveness;

• sharing of credit for successes, outcomes andimplementation;

• common information base/sharing ofinformation;

• mutual education and sharing of each other’sideas and principles;

• multiple options are identified;

• decisions arrived at through consent.

Methods availableA number of methods can be employed as ameans of consulting stakeholders, including:

• face to face interviews;

• written consultations;

• group consultations;

• parish questionnaires and newsletters;

• direct public consultation;

• user questionnaires;

• using maps to show who wants what and where;

• organisations’ questionnaires.

Strategic partnershipsThere is merit in entering into strategicpartnerships (see, for example, Crowe and Mulder2005) and perhaps underlining these withMemoranda of Understanding (MoU). For example,English Nature’s MoU with the British Canoe Unionand Canoe England “seeks to establish andpromote a framework for co-operation betweenEnglish Nature and the British Canoe Union at alllevels”. British Waterways advocates a partnershipapproach (with respect to social inclusion) in its“Waterways for People” (BW 2002) and also has a MoU with English Nature.

57

On-the-ground measures

A range of measures is commonly used in situ to manage

recreation in a way that serves to minimise adverse

environmental effects. The most commonly used measures are:

• awareness-raising through information provision and

interpretation;

• zoning of activity;

• ‘steering’ users towards particular behaviours;

• maintaining a presence;

• formal agreements.

These measures are described in more detail in Appendix 4.

Zoning and steering are considered in further detail in the

next section.

Management of navigation activity

There are a range of proposed mitigation measures that focus

on boat design or use, with the aim of reducing the physical

footprint arising from boat movement and achieving a satisfactory

balance between navigation and wildlife. Note that not all are yet

proven or commercially available.

In some cases, a successful outcome will depend on actions

by boat users themselves. Therefore, a key requirement is that

they are fully informed as to how they can contribute to wildlife

protection and be educated as to the reasons why they should

do so. In other words, it is essential to achieve ‘buy-in’ by the

boating community for a Code of Good Practice, as discussed

above.

Speed limitation

Vessel speed has long been recognised as a key determinant of

navigation impacts; speed limits are already imposed on most

waterways for safety and environmental reasons.

Non-tidal river navigations and larger canals in Britain typically

operate speed limits in the range 8 to 13kph (5 to 8mph), except

for specific areas designated for water-ski users. On narrow

canals the speed limit is 6.4kph (4mph).

For larger river navigations the principal mechanism by which

boats affect nature conservation interest tends to be breaking

wave wash at the bank: speed limits aim to avoid this. Where

a waterway reach is particularly sensitive, due for example

to a restricted channel size or special wildlife receptor, locally

reduced speed limits may be an appropriate mitigation measure.

Similar principles can be applied to canals, where return

currents and propeller jet effects become more important.

Again, speed limitation will reduce the effects. Boaters are urged

by navigation authorities and user organisations not to create

a breaking wash. On parts of the narrow canal system with

particularly restricted channels, responsible boaters typically

need to travel more slowly than the maximum permitted speed

to achieve this. Even on these smaller waterways, boat speeds

of less than 3kph (about 2mph) cause little damage to banks

and vegetation; further reducing the speed limit to this level

has the potential significantly to reduce the effects of boat use

on wildlife in key areas without an unacceptable effect on journey

times, if applied selectively (see Montgomery Canal case study

in Appendix 5).

Mitigating boat impacts by reducing speed limits over long

distances can, however, reduce boaters’ enjoyment of the

navigation experience. The propulsion systems of some boats

are not well designed to cope with prolonged running at very

low speeds. In some circumstances, such as strong crosswinds

or fast water flows, proper control of the boat will be jeopardised

if speed is reduced too much. This can compromise safety and

increase the likelihood that the boat will be driven off-course

into more sensitive wildlife habitat.

Another difficulty is that speed limits are generally difficult

to police. Boats do not usually have accurate speedometers,

although the use of GPS is increasing, and many navigation

authorities do not monitor boat speed, with only blatant offences

being dealt with. Speed monitoring is possible, however. In the

Broads and on the River Thames, for example, boat speeds are

tracked with hand-held radar guns; on the Broads, limits are

enforced by Rangers.

Another approach available on isolated sections of a canal

is to limit the power of engines. For example, on the Grand

Western Canal, power is limited to 2.5 horsepower per metre

length of boat.

Nevertheless, achieving protection of aquatic wildlife through

speed limitation is perhaps the most practicable mitigation

measure available. Successful application will always depend

to a large extent on buy-in from the boating community. This will

require effective communication and education, backed up by

enforcement where necessary. Acceptance will be more likely

if additional restrictions are applied only to particularly sensitive

locations where the need can be clearly explained.

58

Zoning boat movement in space: access restrictions

The impact of boat movement on aquatic ecology can also be

managed by restricting access to sensitive areas. For example by:

• limiting the area available to boats in wide waterways and

lakes, either by the creation of navigation lanes or by marking

protected areas with buoys or signs;

• the creation of linear bankside habitat that is physically

protected by underwater walls or other barriers;

• prohibiting access to, or use of propellers in, sensitive areas.

The first approach has been applied in the Broads in consultation

with a liaison group comprising a wide range of stakeholders;

for example, the wintering waterfowl refuges at Hickling Broad

and non-intervention areas at Barton Broad provide undisturbed

areas for wildlife.

Examples of the second approach are the underwater protective

walls and benching which have been used successfully on a

number of canals, for example the Kennet and Avon and the

Rochdale Canals.

The last approach is only likely to be applicable in a very limited

number of locations. For example, towing boats from the bank,

which was clearly associated with low environmental impacts at

relatively high traffic densities in the 19th century, is sometimes

proposed as a local solution to impacts related to propeller

driven craft (see Montgomery Canal case study in Appendix 5).

However, there are practical implementation limitations

associated with towing motorised boats, including towpath

safety issues associated with use of the towline and the fact

that motorised boats are not usually provided with large enough

rudders to give effective steerage when being towed.

Mooring management

As the habitat at the waterway margin is often the most valuable

part of a linear waterway for wildlife, boat mooring can be a

significant factor that may affect wildlife.

Protection can be achieved by allocating areas of the bank for

marginal wildlife development and discouraging mooring in

these locations. Encouraging boating practice that minimises

adverse effects where moorings are situated in sensitive

stretches of waterway may also provide help.

Mooring in sensitive areas can be discouraged by warning signs

or by using features such as leaving uncut vegetation on the

towpath to discourage mooring which could damage vulnerable

bank areas. This approach is used by many navigation

authorities to reduce mooring impacts, such as BW on the

Oxford Canal. However, for this approach to be effective there

must also be enough acceptable mooring places available to

satisfy demand.

As water is often shallow at the waterway margin, the propeller

jet effects of boats leaving moorings under power are

accentuated. Disturbance of the waterway bed can be reduced

by first pushing the stern of the boat out into deeper water

before reversing out slowly from the mooring. Again the success

of this approach will depend on persuading boaters to adopt the

practice; this may be more likely if it is promoted specifically

in relation to particularly sensitive waterways where the need

can be clearly explained.

Zoning boat movement in time: seasonal restrictions

The most intense use of the waterways is between May and

September when about 90% of leisure boat movements occur.

This coincides with the main growth and activity periods of

aquatic plants; it is probably less critical for aquatic animals,

most of which are either present all year (e.g. fish, water snails)

or are present from autumn to spring in the water, then

emerging as adults in the summer (e.g. dragonflies, mayflies).

In the case of breeding birds, the most sensitive time will be

the nesting season in spring.

There may, therefore, be specific times of the year when

restricting boat movement could reduce biological impacts

during critical phases of the life cycle of plants or animals.

However, as seasonal navigation restrictions would usually need

to be applied during the peak boating season, this approach

is often not compatible with the aim of achieving a balance

between navigation and nature conservation. Again it may have

limited applicability for off-line areas, for example Hickling

Broad, where navigation is limited to protect wintering

wildfowl refuges.

59

Restriction of the number of boat movements

Restricting boat movements may be an effective method for

mitigating navigation impacts where sensitive species and

communities are present. Where legislation allows, it can

be achieved directly by limiting traffic through control points,

such as locks, or through a requirement for boaters to pre-book

accompanied passages.

Boat traffic density can also be reduced indirectly by limiting

the numbers and types of boats licensed, or by controlling

the locations and sizes of mooring facilities, hire-boat bases

and the siting of trip boat operations. This is preferable to the

imposition of limits.

Limitations on boat numbers are currently used on the

Basingstoke Canal and the Montgomery Canal.

Restricting the level of boat movements will, however, usually

be unpopular amongst boaters and navigation support

businesses and may amount to a breach of statutory duties

to maintain navigation. It should be used only as a last resort,

possibly as part of a balanced package of measures for protecting

the most valuable wildlife sites after other approaches, including

speed limits and infrastructure measures, have been examined

and deemed to be insufficient.

To be effective, the need for restrictions should be assessed

on the basis of good ecological and boat traffic data. Proposals

should be developed in discussion with stakeholder groups.

Reduction of pollution from navigation use

There is a range of pollutants associated with navigation,

including antifouling paints, grey and black water and oils

(Table 6.4 in Chapter 6).

The Green Blue initiative, set up by the British Marine

Federation and the Royal Yachting Association in association

with the Environment Agency, published an Environmental

Code of Practice in April 2006. This very comprehensive guide

identifies environmental legislation relevant to the marine

industry; it sets out the business case for developing

environmental management systems that ensure compliance

with legislative requirements and embody voluntary good

practice to address pollution and sustainability issues.

This document is aimed principally at boatyard activities relating

to sea-going vessels but much of its content is equally relevant

to inland boating, particularly the Broads.

Boat users also have a major part to play in ensuring that

pollution from their activities is minimised. On inland waters,

the key issues are the:

• avoidance of oil pollution from bilge water discharge by use

of separate bilge compartments under engines, where oil

from leaks can be collected and disposed of ashore, and use

of oil removal filters on bilge water outlets;

• good design of fuel filler pipes to avoid blowback of fuel

while refuelling;

• containment and proper disposal of paint and sanding

residues when boats are washed down, cleaned and

repainted;

• avoidance of use of cleaning products containing high

chlorine concentrations or other toxic chemicals, which

may then be discharged to the waterway in ‘grey’ water;

• control of toilet waste (black water), which should not be

discharged overboard from sea toilets when on inland waters.

Some of these are covered in the Boat Safety Scheme; the Green

Blue initiative has produced a number of guidance leaflets and

posters along these lines. The messages need to be reinforced

by the boating industry, navigation authorities and voluntary

organisations.

Engineering solutions to boat design

In recent years, much engineering design effort has been

directed towards modifying or re-designing craft so that they

re-suspend less bottom sediment and create less wash (Verheij,

2006). Table 8.2 outlines some techniques that have been

suggested for this purpose.

Some designs could be retro-fitted to certain types of existing

boats. Deflector plates, for example, could be fitted below the

propeller on a typical steel narrow boat to re-direct propeller

jets away from the bed. Most new design ideas are, however,

only practicable in the long-term as most boats have a long life,

so renewal of the boat fleet is generally slow. Some new boat

designs aim not only to reduce damage to wildlife but to cause

lower environmental impacts in terms of energy use, carbon

emissions and use of recyclable materials. Current research

on boat design includes the Ecoboat in the Broads (Box 8.2).

The use of low impact boats may be encouraged through

licensing. For example, BW already has a 25% discount

on its licence for electric motor boats.

60

Type of measure Potential modifications

Modifications to propellers

Hull design and material

Use of different types of drive

Reduced propeller jet velocities, which can be achieved without loss of power by larger, lower speed

propellers which have similar power output to small, high speed propellers.

Redirecting propeller jets by, for example, retro-fitting a horizontal plate below the propeller.

Refining hull designs by, for example, the use of tunnel sterns which give more control over the

propeller. Hull shape can also be an important factor.

Use of lighter hull materials creating boats with shallower drafts that displace less water when

moving, reducing return currents (but not necessarily wash effects).

Water jets, which are generally less disruptive to the channel, and new approaches, such as a whale-

tail wheels, which produce power with far less disturbance. Electric boats produce less pollution

locally, although overall benefit depends on the amount of pollution produced in generating the

electricity. At present there is little information about the ecological effectiveness of these alternative

drives.

Table 8.2 Modification of boat power systems, design and engineering

Box 8.2

The Ecoboat: for a sustainable future on the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads

The Ecoboat project aims to develop a design brief for sustainable boats, incorporating features intended to

reduce both global environmental impacts and local waterway nature conservation impacts (e.g. low wash hulls).

The Ecoboat project is an initiative of the Norfolk and Suffolk Boatbuilders Association, which acts as a forum for

those involved in boatbuilding and allied trades and aims to increase awareness of the importance of sustainable

and eco-friendly tourism.

The main aim of the Ecoboat project

is to review sustainable technologies

(e.g. reduced carbon emissions, alternative

power sources, novel materials) and

environmental best practices (e.g. waste

handling, boat dismantling, recycling)

that can be applied to navigation in the

Norfolk and Suffolk Broads and use this

to develop a brief for the construction

of a boat that can be used for

demonstration and evaluation.

The overall vision for the new design

is that the boat should be constructed

from sustainable materials, powered by

renewable fuel sources, operated in a way

that does not damage the environment,

and that its components and structure

should be capable of being recycled

at the end of its life. (See Landamore

et al, 2005 and 2006)

61

In the longer term, environmental requirements could be

incorporated into the boat safety certificate system used by BW,

the EA and other navigations, subject to suitable provision for

the continued operation of heritage vessels.

In the short-term, this approach is only really applicable

to an extremely limited number of circumstances where boat

access to a particular area of waterway is restricted to a few

specified vessels.

Waterway infrastructure design and management

A number of measures involving manipulation of the waterway

habitat are currently used, or are being investigated, which aim

to assist navigation and wildlife to co-exist successfully. These are

related to:

• channel design modification;

• environmentally sensitive bank protection;

• dredging;

• fish passes;

• mitigation of dewatering;

• restoring navigation to derelict canals.

Enhancement and mitigation measures need to be tailored

to each site and to the specific species and habitats of interest.

They should also be designed so that they harmonise with and

promote national, regional and local biodiversity objectives (e.g.

LBAPs, adjacent SSSIs).

Proposals should also consider the wider context, including the

surrounding areas and not just the immediate length, seeking

to enhance connectivity between habitats; for example, linking

water vole habitats to prevent population isolation.

The long term sustainability of mitigation measures should be

considered when assessing which to use: what works now might

not work for very long and there may be long-term maintenance

implications.

Where relationships between navigation use and wildlife

tolerances are uncertain, design should incorporate flexibility

for later modification or extension, should the need for this

be indicated by experience following implementation. In this

way the best protection should be achieved for key species

and communities from any adverse effects of navigation use.

Channel design modification

Channel design modifications can increase the potential for

the development of aquatic plant and animal communities

by reducing boat-related impacts and increasing habitat

heterogeneity. Examples are given in Table 8.3.

The effectiveness of these methods is currently difficult to assess

due to lack of ‘before and after’ monitoring and the importance

of local circumstances and design. A research project to test

the efficiency of a range of techniques is being set up on the

Montgomery Canal. The results will be available over the next

few years and should help develop best practice.

Environmentally sensitive bank protection

Boat movements generally increase the rate of erosion of

waterway banks. Significant bank erosion by boat wash can

reduce the nature conservation value of marginal habitats and

add sediment to the water, contributing to turbidity and bed

siltation. However, it should be remembered that erosion by flood

flows is a natural feature of some rivers and can be important

for maintaining vertical banks, which are of value as nesting

sites for bird species such as kingfisher and sand martin.

To improve bank stability, a wide range of techniques has been

developed (Table 8.4). Although bank protection can reduce

sediment re-suspension, such works are generally only of

significant benefit to wildlife if they improve the bank habitats

by providing protection from disturbance, increasing habitat

heterogeneity and providing refuges. Specific provision can

be made for water voles or crayfish, for example.

Traditionally, hard materials have been used to maintain the

structural integrity of banks because their behaviour is well

understood and they are relatively cost-effective. In some cases,

such as on embankments, this may be the only realistic option.

Such materials are not entirely negative for wildlife (Table 8.4).

Bioengineering options create a (usually) softer bank that

absorbs waves and currents and allows marginal plants to

develop. These plants then provide a natural barrier against

erosion. Such ecologically friendly techniques tend to be a

cheaper option in the short term, though some may not be

as long-lasting as sheet piling, for example, and may require

more maintenance.

62

Type of measure Potential modifications

Increased depth

Bed stabilisation

Channel profile

modification

Increasing water cross-sectional area reduces return

currents and wash, as well as lowering the risk of

direct contact with plants by boat hulls and propellers.

In most cases, the only practicable approach is to

increase depth, which also reduces re-suspension of

bed sediments by return currents and propeller jet

effects. On canals, there may be limits to this approach

due to the need to maintain the integrity of the lining

and the stability of the side slopes (batters).

Laying stones or other suitable material on the channel

bed can reduce re-suspension of sediments and

provide a firmer rooting medium for aquatic plants.

Modifications to the waterway channel profile to benefit

wildlife may include provision of a variety of marginal

characteristics, including both steep and shallow

slopes, shelves at different depths and use of chippings

to stabilise bed sediments.

Wildlife benefits

Maximizing channel cross-section and depth reduces direct

physical effects of boat movement on both marginal and

aquatic plants, while the reduction in turbidity benefits

submerged plants. However, in natural rivers the potential

adverse effects on valued shallow water habitats also need

to be considered.

Work on the Middlewich Branch of the Shropshire Union

Canal showed that stones provided a firmer growing medium

for aquatic plants, increased the abundance of invertebrates

by providing refuges and increased prey abundance,

benefiting fish populations. Reduced turbidity increases the

amount of light reaching the plants encouraging growth.

A steep marginal profile will maximise the area for aquatic

plant growth, and minimise areas available for emergent

plant colonisation. Shelves or ledges at shallow depths can

provide good habitat for emergent species, while deeper

shelf areas will encourage aquatic plants. Use of chippings

may assist plant rooting in mid-shelf areas.

Type of measure Materials used

Hard bank

protection

Interlocking sheet steel piling is often used as

a cost effective, long-lasting method of bank

protection and can also provide a suitable bank

for boat mooring.

Concrete walls and piling create a uniform,

impenetrable surface but concrete walls can

be readily shaped.

Sand/weak mortar/concrete bags can be used

for bank protection or repairs and can be

shaped to provide slopes.

Stones and stone products, including gabions

and rip-rap.

Wildlife value

Sheet steel piling, generally the material which mitigation often seeks

to replace, can offer some benefit by reducing water column sediment

loads and can create deep water which prevents marginal plants

growing out into the habitats of uncommon aquatic plants. However,

piling generally limits marginal vegetation development and reflects

boat wash.

As for sheet steel piling but can be used to create underwater shelves

to increase the potential for wetland plant establishment (e.g. Kennet

and Avon Canal in the Bath valley).

Can promote plant establishment and provide habitat for invertebrates,

including crayfish.

Stone reinforced banks, depending on the size of the gaps between

units, can absorb wave energy and provide a good habitat for plants

and animals, although rip-rap comprising large stones is of little

habitat value.

Soft bank

protection

Coir rolls, made from coconut fibre.

Willow walls or spiling (may be expensive if

willows are not available locally).

Hazel faggots/bundles.

Geotextiles, in the form of open weave

fabrics that can withstand wash and

currents (e.g. nylon meshes) and which may

be designed to allow plant growth.

Reed fringes.

Coir has good properties for rhizome and root establishment. Rolls can

be pre-planted prior to being laid along the banks. However, coir can

degrade rapidly (5 years in some cases), at which time it needs to be

replaced; it can also be undermined by boat wash and can become

snagged in boats' propellers.

For narrow channels (e.g. canals), shade management once the willow

is growing may be an issue but the technique can be effective in larger

waterways.

These can be set just below the water level and kept in place by

geotextiles (see below) to trap silt to create a growing medium for

marginal plants. However, they can become ineffective after about 5

years as the silt can be washed out.

Used successfully on a range of canals and rivers with high boat

movements over the last 20 years. Cheaper and less disruptive to

install than sheet-steel piling; the reed fringe it can help to create

and/or maintain absorbs the energy from boat wash which reduces

bank erosion. Can be effective in many situations up to c10.000 bmy in

maintaining important marginal habitats for some invertebrate, fish

and birds. Aesthetically more pleasing to many users.

In some cases, particularly in wider sections of waterway, reed fringes

can be established and maintained without any artificial bank

protection to form a good defence against boat wash.

Table 8.3 Design of the waterway channel to benefit wildlife

Table 8.4 Bank protection and wildlife

In some cases, a combination of hard and soft methods can be

used effectively, for example stones coupled with geotextiles.

The effectiveness of geotextiles has been proven and they are

widely used, for example in the Broads to reintroduce reedbeds

along the eroded banks of rivers. Other bioengineering materials,

for example coir rolls, have also been widely used on the

waterways. These have often been locally successful, although,

on balance, they have been found to degrade more quickly and

to be less effective than geotextiles, particularly at high levels

of boat traffic (John Eaton, pers. comm.).

Dredging

Dredging can have a range of effects on the wildlife of inland

waterways, depending on the waterway type and characteristics.

Deep dredging and suitable profiling can benefit wildlife

(see Table 8.3).

However, dredging can cause temporary adverse effects,

which should be minimised by the type of mitigation measure

detailed in Table 8.5. These aim to:

• minimise disturbance to the existing plant and animal

community;

• avoid the spread of turbidity and, potentially, other

contaminants during the operation;

• encourage the re-colonisation by plants and animals

of dredged sections.

Good knowledge of the location of the most important plant and

animal species or communities is key to ensuring that impacts

related to disturbance and the spread of turbidity are minimised.

An environmental appraisal is now routinely undertaken by larger

navigation authorities before dredging work is undertaken, which

allows guidance to be given to dredging operators on the ground.

Such an approach should be applied universally.

Where necessary, critical species may be removed prior to the

dredging process and reintroduced following its completion.

Methods listed in Table 8.5 are based mostly on practical

experience and few published data are available on their

ecological effectiveness. Further research is needed to determine

the most effective dredging mitigation measures, particularly

on waterways with high conservation value. The results of current

work on the Grand Western Canal, where the effectiveness

of dredging in short lengths is being investigated, should

be available over the next two years.

Fish passes

In order to sustain migratory fish populations (e.g. salmon),

unrestricted access to spawning grounds is required.

Obstructions such as locks and weirs, which are commonly

required for navigation purposes, can restrict these movements.

Both legal and conservation considerations currently require a

fish pass to be introduced into any new or significantly renovated

river obstructions where there are populations of migratory fish.

There are many designs of fish passes including:

• pool and weir passes;

• baffled or steep passes;

• pre-barrages;

• artificial channels with low gradient.

The effectiveness of these designs has been shown to vary

considerably, partly dependent on local conditions. Any new fish

pass will need the approval of the relevant environment agency.

63

Aims Measures

Minimise disturbance

to the existing plant

and animal community.

Avoid the spread of

turbidity (and potentially

other contaminants)

during and after the

operation.

Encourage re-

colonisation of dredged

sections by plants and

animals.

Dredge outside the bird nesting and fish spawning seasons; thus consider avoiding late March to July.

Leave reed beds and other emergent vegetation where practical, i.e. when the channel is wide enough

to maintain navigation without having to dredge the whole width of the canal. After 1 year following

dredging using this technique, reed warblers had re-colonised a stretch of the Grand Western Canal.

Lower water level to prevent overflow to watercourses and other connected waterbodies.

This can be particularly difficult after heavy rain.

Set up a filter with coir or geotextiles to prevent overflow to particularly sensitive watercourses.

Limit the movement of very turbid water beyond the immediate dredged area by using straw bales

(e.g. Union Canal) and/or closed dredging buckets.

Dredge deep in the main channel.

Dredge in short non-consecutive lengths.

Dredge some marginal areas to shallow depths to maintain the seed bank.

Create shelves if there is room and keep them shallow to improve vegetation development.

Table 8.5 Mitigation measures to minimise adverse impacts of dredging activities

64

Dewatering mitigation

Dewatering is periodically required on canal sections as part

of structural repair works or channel re-lining. In general it is

undertaken in the winter months when the waterways are least

used and, it is assumed, wildlife impacts will be least damaging.

Dewatering will inevitably be disruptive to the channel

environment. Best practice methods to reduce its impact include

minimising the period of dewatering and retaining at least some

water in the channel bed. However, in practice, the effectiveness

of these methods has been little assessed either in canals or

other habitats.

Where species of conservation or other interest are present in

a channel where dewatering is planned (e.g. fish, white clawed

crayfish, rare plants), rescue and release can be undertaken.

This has been successful in many cases, some long term.

The Rochdale Canal, for example, was dewatered for many

months during its restoration to navigation. Throughout this

time, plants of floating water-plantain were removed from

the canal, maintained in a botanic garden and successfully

replanted after restoration was complete.

Restoring navigation to derelict canals

As mentioned above, there is an opportunity when reintroducing

water to derelict canals during restoration to create new valued

aquatic habitat. In assessing the potential effects on wildlife at

the planning stage, it is important to consider both the newly

created wet habitat and the existing damp or dry habitat that will

be lost. The re-watered channel should be carefully designed

to try to ensure that the new habitat will remain of significant

value once boats are re-introduced.

Compensation for habitat loss or degradation

Compensation schemes aim to retain examples of the plants

and animals of a waterway, such as scarcer aquatic plants,

which may be impacted by the construction phase of a restoration

project or by increased boat movements. For example, the

planned use of offline reserves was instrumental in securing

the agreement to restore navigation onto the Montgomery Canal

SSSI. Reserves can be either in-channel or off-line (Table 8.6).

Creation of in-channel reserves has been most used on the

continent. It has been trialled in Britain on the Rochdale Canal

to protect floating water plantain. The results from this work have

been broadly successful in the first few years after implementation,

though boat traffic movements on this waterway are still modest

(about 25% of the initial threshold of 800 bmy which would trigger

further monitoring).

There remain issues about the long-term sustainability of such

reserves, since they have shown a tendency for rapid siltation and

invasion by emergent plants, and dredging them to retain their

value for aquatic plants can require specialist equipment.

Biomanipulation, using ‘exclosures’ from which fish are excluded,

has been trialled successfully on Barton Broad as part of a

restoration scheme involving the removal of nutrient-rich sediment.

This also benefits navigation. Excluding fish provides the right

conditions for zooplankton such as water fleas to flourish.

These feed on planktonic algae to produce clear water, which

has resulted in the development of a diverse macrophyte flora.

In situations where navigation impacts cannot be mitigated in

the main navigation channel, off-channel compensation schemes

may be proposed. Ideally, off-channel reserves for aquatic plant

communities should be relatively large, with a wide range of

depths, a firm substrate for rooting and with good water quality.

This implies that they would be relatively isolated from,

but hydrologically connected to, the main channel, have few

(if any) boat movements and low fish densities.

Monitoring of offline reserves has shown that, in the short term,

they can support rich plant and invertebrate communities similar

to those of the main channel (Willby & Eaton, 1996). However,

in the longer term, they may lose the populations of the critical

submerged plants for which they were usually created, although

they may retain a high diversity of other species (Boedeltje et al.,

2001).

Particular problems that have been identified with offline

reserves, especially those directly connected to the main

channel, include:

• water quality: if the water entering the reserve, either from

the surrounding land or from navigation in the main channel,

is silt-laden and turbid, then the reserve may silt up quickly;

• vegetation succession: silting-up can allow tall emergent

vegetation extensively to colonise the compensation area,

out-competing the submerged and floating-leaved plants which

are typically the main reason for establishing the reserve;

• management: due to emergent plant and tree/shrub

encroachment, sites need to be managed to maintain open

water habitat equivalent to that originally present in the pre-

restoration navigation channel. This has long-term cost

implications.

65

Overall, the value of offline reserves will very much depend on

local circumstances, together with their design and management.

Continued research and monitoring is required to assess further

the effectiveness of offline reserves in the longer term (see

Montgomery Canal Case Study in Appendix 5).

Difficulties with the adoption of preferred solutions

A number of constraints may hinder the adoption of preferred

solutions to mitigate the adverse effects of navigation on nature

conservation. Clearly these constraints will differ widely

depending on local circumstances, including differing views

held by different local consultees. In general, however,

the most significant are the following:

• Profile raising. Many involved in the waterway restoration

movement have little experience in wildlife matters, while

many in the wildlife movement have little understanding of how

waterways function for navigation. Greater communication and

sharing of information should be encouraged.

• Limitations imposed by built heritage. Many waterways in

urban areas may be constrained by the nature of the built

environment: in these places it may be impossible to install

soft revetments. The walls of a waterway may have statutory

protection under heritage legislation; some waterways are

designated in full or part as Scheduled Monuments.

• Engineering issues. In some places, the need to ensure

waterway structural integrity may make it impossible to adopt

the best mitigation technique for nature conservation.

• Uncertainty about success and costs. Techniques are being

constantly refined, but often their effectiveness can only be

assessed over long periods of time.

• Cost-effectiveness and sustainability

of different solutions. The ecological benefits of some

new mitigation techniques have not yet been fully

evaluated, making it difficult to assess their cost-

effectiveness.

• Information limitation. Mitigation techniques (e.g. water

vole-friendly banks) are developing very rapidly and staff

on some smaller navigations have, as yet, little experience

and training in their use. Wider dissemination of details

of eco-friendly techniques would be beneficial.

• Navigation legislation. In some cases duties towards

navigation placed on navigation authorities by their

enabling legislation, or through public rights protected

by statute, limit the adoption of some of the nature

conservation management measures described above.

Type of

measure

Examples

In-channel

reserves

These are separated-off areas of water within

the main line of the navigation where the aim

is to minimize boat traffic impacts so that

vulnerable species, often uncommon

submerged plants, can thrive. In-channel

reserve areas are generally at least partly

separated from the main channel by a physical

barrier (e.g. earth bunds, metal piles, concrete

walls) but are hydrologically connected with it.

In lakes, such reserves may simply be roped-off

or buoy-marked 'no-go' areas.

In a more limited way, in-channel reserves

can also include structures such as rafts that

provide local cover for fish and roosting and

nesting sites for birds.

'Exclosures' used to restore clear water

conditions using biomanipulation (e.g. removal

of fish to encourage zooplankton which remove

algae and produce clearer water) can also be

considered as a form of in-channel reserve.

Off-line

reserves

These include non-navigated connected basins

and lagoons or former canal channels, as well

as dedicated areas set aside or created in

marinas and mooring basins. Flooded, disused

gravel pits adjacent to waterways can provide

an opportunity for valuable habitat creation.

Sidewaters (defined as a minimum 50%

increase in channel width) can provide a habitat

that is relatively sheltered from the effects of

boat movement. This includes areas such as

weir streams, lock bywashes, side ponds and

large winding holes, as well as wide sections

of waterway where there is space and a suitable

bed profile to allow development of an extensive

area of emergent and/or submerged vegetation.

In some cases, the provision of off-line

compensation may involve the construction of

completely new pond areas. These will require

a water supply, either from the waterway under

restoration or from another source of similar

water chemistry.

Table 8.6 Provision of nature reserve areas

as compensatory habitat

66

Many methods are currently being developed to try to

minimise the impact of navigation on nature conservation.

The next 5 to 10 years should bring considerable amounts

of new information on the value of a range of mitigation

techniques. For example, monitoring of mitigation schemes

on the Rochdale and Montgomery Canals (see case studies

in Appendix 5) should help assess their effectiveness in

protecting rare plants in canals restored to navigation.

Summary of good practice recommendations

The key stages that should underpin any plan of action

for balancing the needs of navigation and wildlife can

be summarised as:

• establish a planning process;

• engage people and develop partnerships;

• find out what is there in terms of ecological value;

• decide on what needs doing to maintain navigation,

while protecting and enhancing wildlife;

• do it;

• monitor outcomes and feed back and disseminate

knowledge for use in future planning.

In conclusion, it is worth summarising who should take

action, why it is necessary and how it should be done.

Who should take action?

The adoption of good practice in balancing the needs of

navigation and wildlife is recommended to all promoters

of waterway restoration and development, along with

those involved in waterway operation and maintenance,

for example navigation authorities, local authorities and

the voluntary sector. This will usually best be achieved

by a partnership approach involving navigation, wildlife

and other interests.

Those in an advisory or wider enabling role, for example

central Government, statutory nature conservation,

countryside advisory bodies and local planning authorities,

should contribute to developing and promoting good

practice in this area.

Why is it necessary?

The UK has international and national commitments to

protect and enhance wildlife, as well as national policies

on sustainable development. All public bodies, including

many navigation authorities, have legal duties towards

nature conservation and it is recommended that all

interested parties adopt the same approach. Sustainable

management of the waterways will contribute towards the

UK Sustainable Development Strategy targets for protecting

natural resources and enhancing the environment and for

creating sustainable communities (Defra, 2005).

By taking the initiative and adopting a partnership approach

with wildlife interests, navigation bodies will be more likely

to succeed in obtaining policy support and funding for the

waterways.

How should it be done?

This chapter of the report signposts the way to good

practice but is not a detailed manual of practical

techniques. Detailed guidance can be found in the

publications and on the websites detailed in the blue

‘Key information sources’ boxes in this report.

There are no magic bullets that enable single prescriptive

recommendations to be given for a best method to use

when developing, maintaining or operating inland waterways.

The most suitable for a site will inevitably depend on many

variables. These include natural factors (width, depth,

underlying substrate, water quality), navigation related

factors (boat traffic density, speed limit, required draught)

and the legal status of waterway and the land it crosses

(in terms of environmental designations).

The tables above set out guidance on and include a range

of practical examples of good practice. Some further

summary points are set out in Table 8.7.

67

Issue Discussion

Realism

Timing

Management

control

Where to

enhance

Banks

Recognise

opportunities

Protecting

rare aquatic

plant

communities

Boat design

Communicati

on to ensure

consensus

Management

plans:

In major developments it is important to be realistic, not over-optimistic, about the likely extent of impacts.

It is always much easier to cost-in and implement mitigation at an early project stage; it is sometimes impossible,

technically and financially, to retro-fit it.

Consider timing carefully to ensure that:

• particularly vulnerable life stages are avoided (e.g. eggs or newly hatched fish, nesting birds);

• works such as dewatering are carried out for the minimum time.

Effective management of waterway infrastructure and navigation can be effective in mitigating many of the negative

impacts of navigation on wildlife and achieving additional benefits. Use of EIA and EcIA, control of mooring locations

and early gathering of baseline data in critical locations all help to minimise ecological damage and enable protection

and enhancement to be built in to waterway management plans at an early stage.

If there are water quality issues because of pollution or high boat traffic, focus any enhancement on maximising

the value of in-channel bank edge communities (such as having lower angled, well vegetated banks), but also create

off-line water bodies to support the submerged plant communities and associated animals that are difficult to

maintain in heavily trafficked waterways.

Management of bank habitats must clearly support the needs of navigation and towpath users, as well as striking

a balance with conservation and engineering stability needs. However a wide range of soft engineering techniques

are available which in many situations provide good, sometimes better, engineering alternatives to hard materials.

Minimise the need for hard banks for linear moorings by focussing on marinas (such as BW's policy) and focus

customer facilities such as moorings, marinas and wharves away from sensitive areas.

Geotextiles appear be the most effective and long-lasting method for maintaining at least some marginal vegetation

even on heavily trafficked canals (up to 10,000 bmy.). More widespread use appears justified.

Industrial operations, particularly aggregates quarrying, may leave water filled pits alongside navigable watercourses

which provide opportunities for the creation of nature reserves linked to the navigation or for off-line moorings. These

relieve pressure on the wildlife of the main navigation channel. Similarly, the construction of new off-line marinas

provides opportunities for the creation of valued habitat, provided this is properly designed.

Mitigation methods for protecting uncommon submerged plants from traffic effects are all very new. Most are still

in the development and trial stage. None have, as yet, been proven effective in the long term. Indeed an initial trial of

creating off-line reserves (the method trialled for longest), although promising in the first few years, proved ineffective

over longer periods under the management regime implemented. It is possible that (i) new techniques (e.g. modified

boat designs) may give better results in future and (ii) it may be possible to modify existing approaches to increase

their longevity (e.g. dredging offline reserves). However, based on current data, it is recommended that flexibility be

built into management plans to allow experience gained from monitoring of success or otherwise to be acted upon.

In the long term, using the best practice in boat design is likely to have very positive impacts on the canal environment

for wildlife. In the short term alterations such as fixing deflector plates to boats can help reduce impacts, especially

in ecologically sensitive areas where these issues are most critical.

As the case studies in Appendix 5 of this report emphasise, the key to long term sustainable management of the

navigable waterways is the continued use of extensive discussion and consultation. This helps to achieve consensus,

form strategic partnerships with all interested parties and enable an open, transparent and inclusive process in all

that is done.

Rather than starting fresh negotiations for every individual project on a waterway, the aim should be to obtain

agreement on a comprehensive programme of work over a period of time.

Table 8.7 Good practice recommendations for waterway development and management

68

AINA (2003) Safeguarding the waterway environment:

Priorities for research.

AINA Working Group on Environmental Impacts

of Waterway Uses.

AINA (2003) Safeguarding the waterway environment:

Priorities for research.

AINA Working Group on Environmental Impacts

of Waterway Uses.

BMF, RYA and EA, 2006. Environmental Code

of Practice: Practical advice for marine businesses,

sailing clubs and training centres (available at

www.ecop.org.uk)

Broads Authority 2005. From darkness to light:

the restoration of Barton Broad.

BW Biodiversity technical manual

Defra (2005) Securing the Future.

The UK's Sustainable Development Strategy

Defra (2006) Sustainable Development Indicators

in your pocket (see www.sustainable-

development.gov.uk).

EA (2000) Navigation restoration and environmental

appraisal: a guidance note.

EA (2000) Navigation restoration and environmental

appraisal: a guidance note.

EA (2002) EIA Scoping Guidelines

EA (2002) EIA Scoping Guidelines

EA (2002) EIA Scoping Guidelines - guidance notes

for 76 development types

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

(IEEM) (2006) Guidelines for Ecological Impact

Assessment in the UK

Institute of Environmental Management

and Assessment (IEMA) EIA Guidance -

see www.ieem.org.uk/ecia/

Inland Waterways Association (IWA) Practical

Restoration Handbook

IWA Technical Restoration Handbook

Landamore et al, (2005 and 2006) Stage 1

and Stage 2 reports.

Moss B., Madgwick J. and G. Phillips 1996. A guide

to the restoration of nutrient-enriched shallow lakes.

Report for Environment Agency, Broads Authority,

LIFE.

PIANC (1997) Conference report: geotextiles and

geomembranes in river and maritime works

PIANC WG12 (1996). Reinforced vegetative bank

protections using geotextiles.

PIANC WG7 (2003). Ecological and Engineering

Guidelines for Wetlands Restoration in Relation

to the Development, Operation and Maintenance

of Navigation Infrastructures.

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB),

National Rivers Authority (NRA) and Royal Society

for Nature Conservation (RSNC), 1994.

The new rivers and wildlife handbook.

Strachan R. and Moorhouse T. (2006) Water

vole conservation handbook, 2nd Edition.

The Green Blue - guidance for navigation

users available at www.thegreenblue.org.uk

Key information sources

ConclusionsThe conclusions of this report are given below.

Supporting information is given in the chapters indicated.

• The navigable inland waterways system of England, Wales and

Scotland comprises a wide variety of waterways, including

river navigations, the Broads, navigable fenland drains and

canals ranging from those designed for narrow boats to ship

canals. These provide a wide range of aquatic habitats

supporting diverse biological communities which respond

to pressures in different ways (Chapter 3).

• While vessel movement has always had an interaction with the

waterway environment, this has been greatly increased by the

introduction of propeller driven craft compared with historic

methods of propulsion, such as towage from the bank or use

of sails (Chapter 3).

• The inland waterways system has become a multi-functional

resource of value both to the country as a whole and to local

communities. This resource contributes to leisure and tourism,

commercial enterprises, freight transport, urban and rural

regeneration, telecommunications, water management,

the built heritage, community wellbeing, human health and

nature conservation (Chapter 3).

• Navigation authorities often have statutory duties to maintain

their waterways and enjoy various powers to enable them to

do this. They all must, of course, comply with wildlife protection

legislation and all public navigation authorities now have a

statutory duty to promote nature conservation in the exercise

of their functions (Chapter 3).

• As a whole, this inland waterways system makes an important

contribution to biodiversity and to aquatic wildlife in particular.

In the interests both of nature conservation and of the

continuing attractiveness of the system to its users, this

contribution needs to be protected and, where practicable,

enhanced (Chapter 4).

• The contribution of the system to wildlife conservation is far

from uniform: at one extreme there are internationally and

nationally important designated sites with legal protection,

notably the Broads and some peripheral waterways (such

as the Montgomery and Pocklington Canals) which are

undergoing, or with plans for, restoration of navigation; at the

other there are some stretches devoid of much conservation

interest (Chapter 4).

• The extremes constitute a small proportion of the whole

system. The vast majority of the waterway system is of

modest conservation interest and here the wildlife value and

the attractiveness for users can, and should, be affected

directly by how the waterways are managed and by other

controls. With appropriate management almost all waterways

can deliver some wildlife benefits compatible with other

requirements on them, including navigation (Chapter 4).

• The value of each part of the system for aquatic wildlife

conservation evolves over time and all nationally protected

sites (SSSIs) are subject to continuing re-assessment by the

statutory agencies. While UK and Scottish Government policy

is to maintain or, where necessary, restore SSSIs to favourable

conservation status, a few SSSIs on very busy waterways have

never reached and are unlikely ever to reach favourable

conservation status, even with large expenditure and resource

input and the best efforts of the waterway managers. In such

cases, it may be best to focus limited available resources on

SSSIs where achievement of favourable status is a realistic

proposition. Conversely, others sites may grow in importance

and may justify legal protection in future (Chapter 4, Chapter 8).

• Changes in value arise because a whole range of pressures,

as well as navigation, affects waterway wildlife. Physical

alterations, such as the installation of weirs on rivers and bank

protection, affect habitat availability. Water quality is

particularly important, especially nutrient pollution from both

point and diffuse sources. The Water Framework Directive aims

to address such issues by establishing programmes of

measures directed towards the achievement of ecological

quality targets in all surface water bodies and should be a

major stimulus to improving wildlife value of the waterways

system. Other factors affecting aquatic wildlife value include

hydrology (e.g. water diversion, abstraction and impoundment),

fishery management and invasive species (Chapter 5).

• Navigation by motorised vessels in particular can affect

aquatic wildlife via induced currents and waves, by re-

suspending bottom sediments and by direct physical contact

with aquatic plants. The extent of such effects depends

on a number of factors, including the type of waterway,

the relationship between vessel size and channel cross-

section, the nature of the bed and the banks along with

vessel speed (Chapter 6).

• The ways in which the development and maintenance

of waterway infrastructure are carried out can also have

a significant influence on the aquatic wildlife value of the

waterway. This is particularly the case for dredging and bank

protection (Chapter 6).

69

Conclusions andRecommendations

• In some cases, the well planned development and use of

waterways for navigation can also provide benefits for wildlife,

particularly where waterway restoration to navigation secures

continued maintenance of aquatic habitat or where new habitat

is created (Chapter 6).

• Many non-tidal navigable inland waterways are already managed

to serve navigation demands, as required by statute in many

cases, in an appropriate balance with other requirements

including those of aquatic wildlife. Such a management

approach, both sustainable and by consensus, is supported,

should continue and should be extended to all waterways

(Chapter 8).

• Early engagement of both navigation and wildlife interests

in constructive working partnerships, particularly in the case

of major projects such as waterway restoration, is likely

to produce the best outcomes for waterway users and the

environment (Chapter 8).

• Tools such as ecological impact assessment, management

agreements and, particularly for waterways of high conservation

value, conservation management plans can prove very valuable

as aids to effective planning for waterway development and use

(Chapter 8).

• Measures to reduce stress on aquatic wildlife will include

the way navigation is managed. This may include specific local

measures, as well as management approaches that can be

applied across the whole inland waterway system (Chapter 8).

• Channel cross-section profiles and banks should be designed

to minimise the effects of waves and currents, generated

by boat movements, to encourage marginal vegetation and

to provide habitat for species such as the otter, water vole

and native crayfish. Creating new off-line habitats may

be appropriate in special cases (Chapter 8).

• There are a small number of waterways, both in use for

navigation and with plans for restoration, where their

importance for aquatic wildlife should be given extra

consideration in their design and management, even as far

as limitations on boat movements, boat speed or the type

of vessels allowed. Achieving a sustainable balance between

navigation and aquatic wildlife conservation does not

necessarily cost more but where it involves significant

additional costs, these should be shared between those

that benefit (Chapter 8).

• Across the system, navigation bodies, local authorities,

wildlife organisations and the waterways industry need to be

actively engaged at all levels of management and consultation

to decide on shared objectives, to agree on approaches to

impact assessment, to ascertain the optimum balance for

future management, to develop good practice methods and

to monitor outcomes, if the country is to get the best value

out of its inland waterways (Chapter 8).

RecommendationsIWAC’s recommendations which flow from this report and

its conclusions are set out below.

For the inland waterways sector as a whole,

in conjunction with the UK Biodiversity Partnership1

IWAC recommends that these bodies should:

• encourage research on the effects of navigation on biodiversity.

Key areas might include (a) assessing the value of off-line and

on-line nature reserves in a range of water quality and boat

traffic environments, (b) evaluating dredging methods to

enhance populations of key species, and (c) investigating the

impact of boats on river navigations, considering all biota.

Assessments of new mitigation methods should extend over

the longer-term (5 to 10 years) in order to test the value of new

techniques.

• where they are lead agencies for Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)

aquatic species or habitats occurring in and on the waterways,

encourage the collection of environmental and management

information on such species, especially those where

knowledge is limited, and contribute to national target setting

and reporting for these BAPs;

• recognise fully the value of navigable inland waterways in

River Basin Management Plans established under the Water

Framework Directive, making full use of provisions for the

designation of artificial and heavily modified water bodies and

setting alternative objectives as appropriate, thus ensuring

that navigation authorities are not subjected to

disproportionate costs.

70

1 The inland waterways sector includes local authorities, local groups, central government, navigation authorities and waterways' user groups. The UK Biodiversity Partnership

comprises a wide range of people from those who provide funds, amateur and professional experts to those who are interested in the rich wildlife and natural history of the UK.

They include private individuals, business, Government and non-Government representatives. The Partnership is supported by a Standing Committee comprising representatives

from Defra and the devolved Governments, as well as the statutory nature conservation agencies and Wildlife Link.

71

• Waterway Conservation Management Plans (CMPs)

should be in place for the limited number of waterways

(active navigations and those under restoration or

proposed for restoration) with significant nature

conservation interest. Existing CMPs and other

conservation plans should be regularly reviewed

as new knowledge becomes available;

• navigation authorities should be active partners,

either directly or through AINA, in contributing to the

development and implementation on their waterways

of the River Basin Management Plans required by the

Water Framework Directive, to ensure that waterway

interests are taken fully into account;

• in consultation with statutory nature conservation

agencies, navigation authorities should encourage the

development of new mitigation and enhancement

techniques for waterway wildlife using a multidisciplinary

approach involving engineers, navigation experts and

ecologists, while ensuring that essential works to the

waterway are not prevented by excessive mitigation costs.

Environmental mitigation is a rapidly evolving field with

a very wide range of solutions possible, many not yet

well-developed (and possibly not even yet conceived) and

ongoing research and development is urgently needed;

• national navigation authorities should maintain and

cultivate their links with statutory environment and

nature conservation agencies;

• all navigation authorities should seek to engage local

stakeholders, to foster mutual understanding on matters

relating to navigation and wildlife and to work in

partnership to develop and implement good practice;

• AINA should provide a forum for, and actively encourage

dissemination of, the considerable experience of larger

navigation authorities on management of waterways for

navigation and wildlife to the smaller navigation

authorities;

• AINA should encourage its members and licensed boaters

to take responsibility for maintaining the conservation

value of inland waterways, for example by encouraging

elements of self-policing;

For development agencies, English regional bodies

and all local authorities throughout Britain

IWAC recommends that development agencies (in England’s

regions, Scotland and Wales), UK Government Offices,

English regional bodies and British local authority planning

and countryside departments should:

• take active steps to identify all active or derelict inland

waterways within their geographical areas;

• take an interest in developing the full potential of these

waterways for navigation users, wildlife and for the

community as a whole;

• engage with navigation authorities, statutory conservation

and environment agencies, landowners and the voluntary

sector to agree future development and conservation

plans for these waterways;

• ensure that appropriate protection and development

provisions are included in regional spatial strategies

and local development plans.

For navigation authorities and navigation bodies

IWAC recommends that:

• where these are not already in place, navigation

authorities should develop procedures that ensure an

appropriate level of ecological impact assessment is

undertaken in advance of carrying out works that may

affect aquatic wildlife. Such assessments may range from

simply following a standard checklist covering routine

activities to a detailed ecological impact assessment

in the case of more significant works;

• navigation authorities should take account of the results

of these assessments in carrying out their functions and

implement appropriate mitigation and enhancement

measures for wildlife on their waterways;

• where waterways host BAP species or habitats, waterway

based local biodiversity action plans should be

developed, tailored specifically to contribute to decisions

on waterway maintenance and management; these may

be very brief or more complex, depending on the activities

being undertaken;

72

For waterway related businesses

IWAC recommends that:

• building on its ‘Green Blue’ initiative with the RYA and

the publication of its Environmental Code of Practice,

the British Marine Federation (BMF) should continue

to raise awareness among its members of

environmental issues and the role of boat designers,

manufacturers, marina operators and boat chandlers

in contributing to the protection of the waterway

environment for wildlife;

• boatyards should follow the advice in the BMF

Environmental Code of Practice to minimise entry

to the water of any materials that might be detrimental

to wildlife;

• developers and operators should aim to accommodate

wildlife-friendly areas within marinas where practicable;

• waterway businesses who supply boat users should

encourage responsible navigation, to minimise the

adverse effects on wildlife, promote the use of

environmentally friendly products and practices and

minimise water pollution from boats.

IWAC will keep this matter under review to identify

changes and, where possible, anticipate problems

• building on its 2005 report, AINA should assist smaller

navigation bodies and restoration societies by developing

- a manual of conservation techniques (i.e. an easily

updateable document with lists of specialists for advice)

to extend its current guidelines for aquatic wildlife;

- an easy-to-use pictorial guide for use by operators,

for example those involved in dredging;

• navigation authorities should undertake properly

structured monitoring of wildlife and boat use on their

waterways, to improve our understanding of the

interactions and the success of different mitigation

methods;

• information should be shared between authorities

(through AINA) and with statutory wildlife bodies and

the voluntary sector, to allow the real gaps in knowledge

to be identified; effort can then be directed towards

resolving these, rather than re-inventing the wheel

in relation to each new waterway project. This applies

both to technical and scientific experience and to

consensus building.

For the voluntary sector

IWAC recommends that:

• a more effective dialogue between voluntary bodies in the

navigation and nature conservation fields is established

to share experience, develop best practice and to address

issues such as coordinating the use of volunteers;

• local waterway societies should take advice on wildlife

protection matters and should initiate dialogue with

wildlife bodies at the earliest stages of restoration

proposals;

• Non Governmental Organisations, such as County Wildlife

Trusts, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

and specialist nature conservation groups, should take an

active interest in inland waterways and participate in the

local and national consultation and liaison arrangements

of navigation authorities, as well as responding positively

to requests for involvement in waterway restoration

projects;

• national waterway bodies, such as IWA and RYA, should

continue to play a leading role in providing education and

guidance to local voluntary groups and providing

technical responses to information requests and

consultations.

73

Glossary and list of abbreviations

Feeder - a pipe or channel supplying water to a canal

Invertebrate - an animal without a backbone,

such as shrimps, insects, worms

IEEM - Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

IEMA - Institute of Environmental Management

and Assessment

IWAAC - Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council

IWAC - Inland Waterways Advisory Council

IWA - Inland Waterways Association

JNCC - Joint Nature Conservation Committee, a joint

committee on the national nature conservation agencies

in England, Wales and Scotland

Leeboards - large boards lowered into the water at the sides

of a sailing vessel to reduce the amount of leeway (sideways

movement), particularly when unladen

LBAP - Local Biodiversity Action Plan

Macrophyte - a member of the plant life of an area, especially

in a body of water, visible by the naked eye

Narrow canal - a canal built to accommodate only narrow

boats, which were generally about 21m (70 feet) long and

2.13m (7 feet) wide

NGO - Non Governmental Organisation

NE - Natural England (formerly English Nature), the UK

Government’s advisory body on nature conservation and

countryside matters in England

Nutrients - in terms of aquatic plants, substances such

as nitrogen and phosphorus compounds which are necessary

for and stimulate plant growth

Omni-directional drive - a propeller drive on a vessel that

is capable of rotation through 360° around a vertical axis,

allowing the thrust from the propeller to be directed forwards,

backwards or sideways

Organic - contains carbon or compounds of carbon

pH - a measure of the hydrogen ion concentration, which

determines whether water is acid or alkaline - a pH of 7

is neutral, lower values represent acid water, higher values

alkaline water

Aquatic plants - emergent and submerged plants

BA - Broads Authority

BAP - Biodiversity Action Plan

BMF - British Marine Federation

BMY - Boat Movements per Year

Bow-thruster - a propeller mounted in a transverse tunnel

across the bow of a vessel, to provide sideways thrust for

the bow when manoeuvring at low speed

Broads - a series of lakes in Norfolk and Suffolk created

by medieval peat digging in the 12th-14th centuries and

flooded at the end of that time

BW - British Waterways

By-wash - a bypass channel or culvert allowing water

to flow round a lock from the higher to the lower canal level

CCW - Countryside Council for Wales, the Welsh Assembly

Government’s advisory body on nature conservation and

countryside matters in Wales

CROW Act - Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

Cut - a canal or other artificial water channel

DCLG - Department for Communities and Local Government

DCMS - Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Defra - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DfT - Department for Transport

Drain - an artificial waterway built primarily for land drainage

purposes

EA - Environment Agency, the environmental regulator

in England and Wales

EcIA - Ecological Impact Assessment

EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment

Emergent plants - plants with their roots submerged but

with part of the plant growing above the water surface level

Eutrophication - the nutrient enrichment of waters which

results in the stimulation of an array of symptomatic changes,

among which increased production of algae and macrophytes

and deterioration of water quality are found to be undesirable

and interfere with water uses

74

PIANC - the International Navigation Association

Quant - an East Anglian term for a barge pole used for

propelling a boat by pushing off the waterway bed (quanting)

Ramsar site - a site listed under the Ramsar Convention

on Wetlands of International Importance, Ramsar, Iran, 1971

Riparian - pertaining to the banks of a waterway

RSPB - Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

RYA - the Royal Yachting Association

SAC - Special Area of Conservation designated under the

EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and

of Wild Flora and Fauna (92/43/EEC) (the Habitats Directive)

(as amended)

SG - Scottish Government

SEPA - Scottish Environment Protection Agency,

the environmental regulator in Scotland

Shaft - a canal term for a barge pole used for propelling

a boat by pushing off the waterway bed (shafting or poling)

Ship canal - a canal designed to accommodate seagoing ships

SINC - Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation

SNCI - Sites of Natural Conservation Interest

SNH - Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Government’s

advisory body on nature conservation and countryside matters

in Scotland

SPA - Special Protection Area classified under EC Directive

on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC), as amended

SSSI - Site of Special Scientific Interest notified under the

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

Substrate - an underlying layer

Submerged plants - plants growing entirely within

the water column

Swim - the tapered stern of a boat leading to the point

where the propeller is mounted

Tub boat canal - a canal built to accommodate short

rectangular container boats towed in trains, often provided

with boat lifts instead of locks

WAG - Welsh Assembly Government

75

AINA (Association of Inland Navigation Authorities), 2001.

A vision for the strategic enhancement of Britain’s inland

navigation network. AINA, 28pp.

AINA (Association of Inland Navigation Authorities), 2003.

Demonstrating the value of waterways: A good practice

guide to the appraisal of restoration and regeneration

projects. AINA, 37pp.

AINA (Association of Inland Navigation Authorities), 2003.

Safeguarding the waterway environment: priorities for

research. Report of the AINA Working Group on the

Environmental Impacts of Waterways Uses. AINA, 44pp.

AINA (Association of Inland Navigation Authorities),

2003. Making more of our waterways. AINA, 20pp.

AINA (Association of Inland Navigation Authorities), 2005.

Managing water resources: a good practice guide for

navigation authorities. 20pp.

Arlinghaus, R., Engelhardt, D., Sukhodolov, A., and C.

Wolter., 2002. Fish recruitment in a canal with intensive

navigation: implications for ecosystem management.

Journal of Fish Biology, 61: 1368-1402.

Boedeltje, G., Smolders, A.J.P., Roelofs, J.G.M. and J.M.

van Groendael, 2001. Constructed shallow zones along

navigation canals: vegetation establishment and change

in relation to environmental characteristics. Aquatic

Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 11:

453-471.

Boulton, A.J., Boon, P.J., Muhar, S. and G.M.Gislason,

2000. Making river conservation work: integrating science,

legislative policy and public attitude. Verh. Internat. Verein.

Limnol., 27: 661-668.

Brierley, S. J., Harper, D.M. and P.J. Barham, 1989. Factors

affecting the distribution of aquatic plants in a navigable

lowland river, the River Nene, England. Regulated Rivers:

Research and Management, 4: 263-274.

British Marine Federation. 2006. Environmental code of

practice: Practical advice for marine businesses, sailing

clubs and training centres. Produced in partnership with

the Royal Yachting Association and the Environment

Agency as part of the Green Blue initiative.

www.britishmarine.co.uk/

Bibliography

British Waterways, 2001. British Waterways and

Biodiversity: A framework for waterway wildlife.

British Waterways and The Wildlife Trusts.

British Waterways, Waterways 2025: our vision for the

shape of the waterway network. British Waterways.

British Waterways, 2005. Inland waterways and sustainable

rural transport. British Waterways and the Countryside

Agency, 61pp.

British Waterways, 2005. Code of practice for works

affecting British Waterways. British Waterways,

October 2005, 84pp.

Broads Authority, 2005. From darkness to light:

the restoration of Barton Broad.

CIWEM, 2005. Policy Position Statement: Recreational

use of inland waters.

Defra, 2003. Strategic review of diffuse water pollution

from Agriculture. Department for Environment, Food and

Rural affairs, London, 85pp.

Defra, 2005. Securing the Future. The UK’s Sustainable

Development Strategy.

Defra, 2006. Sustainable Development Indicators in your

pocket (see www.sustainable-development.gov.uk).

DETR, 2000. Waterways for tomorrow. Department of the

Environment, Transport and the Regions, London. See:

www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/iw/tomorrow/index.ht

m

DETR and NAW, 2000. Environmental Impact Assessment:

A guide to the procedures. Department of the Environment,

Transport and the Regions and National Assembly

for Wales.

Eaton, J.W., 1989. Ecological aspects of water management

in Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 26: 835-849.

Eaton, J.W., 1996. Canal ecology and its management.

Proceedings of the World Canal Conference, Birmingham,

26-28 June, 1996. British Waterways, Watford, UK, 6 pages.

Eaton, J. W., 1996. Effective environmental management

and the importance of canals as an environmental

resource. Proceedings of the World Canal Conference,

Birmingham, 26-28 June, 1996. British Waterways,

Watford, UK.

Eaton, J. W., O’Hara, K., Pygott, J. R. and J.A. Staples,

1989. The Effects of Boat Traffic on the Ecology and

Fisheries of Canals. Progress report on research for the

British Waterways Board. Liverpool, UK. May 1989.

Eaton, J.W. and D.R. Hatcher, 2003. Impact of Navigation

on Wildlife: A Feasibility Study on Creating a Methodology

for the Impact Assessment of River Navigations.

Environment Agency R & D Technical Report W3-001/TR1.

English Nature, 1996. Canal SSSIs - Management and

planning issues. English Nature Freshwater Series No.2,

Report for EN by Environmental Management Consultants,

Bradford, UK.

English Nature, 1997. Wildlife and fresh water: an agenda

for sustainable management.

Environment Agency, 2000. Sustainable recreation on

waterways - Assessing user activity on canals and other

inland waterways: a comparison of three survey methods.

R&D Technical Report W3-017/TR.

Environment Agency, 2004, Your Rivers For Life: A strategy

for the development of navigable rivers 2004-2007.

Garrad, P.N. and R.D. Hey, 1987. Boat traffic, sediment

resuspension and turbidity in a Broadland river. Journal

of Hydrology, 95: 289-29.

Garrod, G. and K. Willis, 1998. Using contingent ranking

to estimate the loss of amenity value for inland waterways

from public utility structures. Environmental and Resource

Economics, 12: 241-247.

Gregory, S.V., Boyer, K.L. and A.M. Gurnell, (editors) 2003.

Ecology and management of wood in world rivers.

American Fisheries Society symposium series 37.

Guy, C., 2005. The recovery of macrophytes after dredging

in three canals designated as SSSI. A dissertation

submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance

with the requirements of the Masters of Science degree

in ecology and Management of the Natural Environment

in the Faculty of Science. September 2005.

Hatcher, D. R., 2000. Sustainable Nature Conservation

in Canals. Thesis submitted in accordance with the

requirements of The University of Liverpool for the degree

of Doctor in Philosophy. September 2000.

Hendry, K. and A. Tree. Effects of Canoeing on Fish Stocks.

Environment Agency R&D Technical Report W266.

Research Contractor: APEM Ltd.

HMSO, 1999. The Town and Country Planning

(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales)

Regulations 1999. S.I. 1999:293.

Hodgson, B.P. and J.W. Eaton, 2000. Provision for the

juvenile stages of coarse fish in river rehabilitation

projects. In I.G. Cowx. (editor), Management and Ecology

of River Fisheries. Blackwell Science, Oxford, 318-328.

Hughes, S., 1998. A mobile horizontal hydroacoustic

fisheries survey of the River Thames, UK. Fisheries

Research, 35: 91-97.

IEEM, 2006. Guidelines for ecological impact assessment

in the UK. Institute of Ecology and Environmental

Manangement. See www.ieem.org.uk/ecia

IWA (Inland Waterways Association). Practical Restoration

Handbook. See: www.waterways.org.uk

IWA (Inland Waterways Association). Technical Restoration

Handbook. See: www.waterways.org.uk

IWAAC, 2001. Planning a future for the inland waterways:

a good practice guide. IWAAC, London, 79pp.

IWACC, 2005. Just add water: how our inland waterways

can do more for rural regeneration. IWAAC, London, 69pp.

IWAAC, 2006. Inland Waterway Restoration and

Development Projects in England, Wales and Scotland.

Third Review Report. IWAAC, London, 59pp.

IWAC, 2007. The Inland Waterways of England and Wales

in 2007. IWAC, London, 40pp.

Lambert, S.J., Thomas, K.V, and A. J. Davy, 2005.

Assessment of the risk posed by the antifouling booster

biocides Irgarol 1051 and diuron to freshwater

macrophytes. Chemosphere (article in press).

Landamore M.J., Birmingham R.W., Downie M.J. and

P.N.H. Wright, 2005. Ecoboat - Boats for a sustainable

future on the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads. Report for the

Norfolk and Suffolk Boatbuilders Association by the School

of Marine Sciences and Technology, University of

Newcastle upon Tyne.

76

Landamore M.J., Birmingham R.W., Downie M.J., Mesbahi

E. and S. Jackson, 2006. Life Cycle and Cost-Benefit

Analysis of Selected Technologies for Sustainable Inland

Boating. Stage 2 Report of the Ecoboat project for the

Norfolk and Suffolk Boatbuilders Association by the

School of Marine Sciences and Technology, University

of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Monahan, C., and J.M. Caffrey, 1996. The effect of weed

control practices on macroinvertebrate communities

in Irish canals. Hydrobiologia, 340(1-3): 205-211.

December 1996.

Moss, B, 1997. Conservation problems in the Norfolk

Broads and rivers of East Anglia, England - phytoplankton,

boats and the causes of turbidity. Biological Conservation,

12: 96-114.

Moss B., Madgwick J. and G. Phillips, 1996. A guide to the

restoration of nutrient-enriched shallow lakes. Report for

Environment Agency, Broads Authority, LIFE.

Murphy, K.J. and J.W. Eaton, 1982. The management

of aquatic plants in a navigable canal system used for

amenity and recreation. Proc. EWRS 6th Symposium

on Aquatic Weeds, Novi Sad, Yugoslavia, pp.141-151.

Murphy, K. J. and J.W. Eaton, 1983. Effect of pleasure-boat

traffic on macrophyte growth in canals. Journal of Applied

Ecology, 20: 713-729.

Murphy, K., Willby, N.J., and J.W. Eaton, 1995. Ecological

Impacts and Management of Boat Traffic on Navigable

Inland Waterways. In: D.M. Harper and A.J.D. Ferguson

(editors). The Ecological Basis for River Management. J

ohn Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Pages 427-442.

[The literature review on which this is based is included

in the main bibliography of the book on pages 525-590.]

Nature Conservancy Council, 1989. Guidelines for

the selection of biological SSSIs (updated by JNCC -

see www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2303)

ODPM, 2005. Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and

Geological Conservation. The Stationery Office.

Petts G., Heathcote J. and D. Martin, 2002. Urban Rivers:

Our Inheritance and Future. International Water

Association Publishing and Environment Agency.

PIANC (International Navigation Association), 1996.

Reinforced vegetative bank protections using geotextiles.

Report of Working Group 12 of the Inland Navigation

Commission, PIANC, Brussels.

PIANC (International Navigation Association), 1997.

Conference Report Reims: geotextiles and geomembranes

in river and maritime works. PIANC, Brussels.

PIANC (International Navigation Association), 2002.

Recreational Navigation and Nature. Report of Working

Group 12 of the Recreational Navigation Commission,

PIANC, Brussels. (Note: also contains additional

bibliography on conflict and recreational users).

PIANC (International Navigation Association), 2003.

Ecological and Engineering Guidelines for Wetlands

Restoration in Relation to the Development, Operation

and Maintenance of Navigation Infrastructures. Report

of Working Group 7 of the Environmental Commission,

PIANC, Brussels.

PIANC (International Navigation Association), 2003.

Guidelines for Sustainable Inland Waterways and

Navigation. Report of Working Group 6 of the

Environmental Commission. PIANC, Brussels.

PIANC (International Navigation Association), 2006.

Environmental risk assessment of dredging operations.

Report of Working Group 10 of the Environmental

Commission, PIANC, Brussels.

PIANC (International Navigation Association), (in press).

Consideration to Reduce Environmental Impacts of

Vessels. Report of Working Group 27 of the Inland

Navigation Commission, Brussels, Draft May 2006.

PIANC (International Navigation Association), (in press).

Bird Habitat Management in Ports and Waterways. Report

of Working Group 2 of the Environmental Commission,

PIANC, Brussels.

Pinder, L.C.V., 1997. Research on the Great Ouse: overview

and implications for management. Regulated Rivers:

Research and Management, 13: 309-315.

Pygott, J.R., O’Hara, K. and J.W. Eaton, 1990. Fish

community structure and management in navigated British

canals. In W.L.T. van Densen et al (editors): Management

of Freshwater Fisheries. European Inland Fisheries

Advisory Commission, Pudoc, Wageningen. Pages 547-557.

77

Schutten, J. and A. J. Davy, 2000. Predicting the hydraulic

forces on submerged macrophytes from current velocity,

biomass and morphology. Oecologia 123: 445-452.

Scottish Executive (now Scottish Government), 2002.

Scotland’s Canals: an asset for the future.

Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional

Affairs. The Special Wildlife Interest in Canals. Appendices

to the Minutes of Evidence, Annex 1, The United Kingdom

Parliament, February 2006.

Strachan R. and T. Moorhouse, 2006. Water vole

conservation handbook, 2nd Edition. Wildlife Conservation

Research Unit, University of Oxford.

TNO, 2004. Stocktaking study on the current status and

developments of technology and regulations related

to the environmental performance of recreational

marine engines. Contract ETD/FIF.20030701.

Report 04.OR.VM.057.1/RR by TNO Automotive

for the European Commission, January 10, 2004

University of Brighton, 2002. Water-based sport and

recreation: the facts. School for the Environment,

University of Brighton. Research report for Defra.

University of Liverpool, 1989. The effects of boat traffic

on the Ecology and Fisheries of Canals. Progress report

for British Waterways.

Urban Design Alliance, 1998. Liquid Assets: Making the

Most of Urban Watercourses. Institution of Civil Engineers.

Verheij, H, 2006. Hydraulic aspects of the Montgomery

Canal Restoration. Report for British Waterways,

March 2006.

Vermaat, J. E., and R. J. Debruyne, 1993. Factors limiting

the distribution of submerged waterplants in the lowland

River Vecht (The Netherlands). Freshwater Biology,

30(1):147-157.

Wakelin T. and A. Kelly, 2007. Broads Authority: Sediment

Management Strategy. The Broads Authority, Norwich.

Ward, D., Holmes N.T.H., and P. Jose., (eds), 1995. The new

rivers and wildlife handbook. RSPB, NRA and RSNC.

Wilkinson D, 1992. Access to inland waterways: recreation,

conservation and the need for reform. Journal of Planning

and Environmental Law, June 1992: 525.

Willby, N. J, 1994. Management of Navigable Canals for

Nature Conservation and Fisheries. Thesis submitted

in accordance with the requirements of the University

of Liverpool for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,

March 1994.

Willby, N.J., and J.W. Eaton., 1993. The distribution,

ecology and conservation of Luronium natans (L.) Raf.

in Britain. Journal of the Aquatic Plant Management

Society, 31: 70-76.

Willby, N. J. and J.W. Eaton, 1996. Backwater habitats

and their role in nature conservation on navigable

waterways. Hydrobiologia, 340: 333-338.

Willby, N.J., Pygott, J.R. and J.W, Eaton, 2001. Inter-

relationships between standing crop, biodiversity and trait

attributes of hydrophytic vegetation in artificial waterways.

Freshwater Biology, 46: 883-902.

Willby, N. J. and J.W. Eaton, 2002. Sustainable Canal

Restoration: Plant Conservation in the Restoration

of the Montgomery Canal to Navigation. Report for

British Waterways, March 2002.

Willby, N. J., Eaton, J. W. and S. Clarke, 2003.

Monitoring the Floating Water-plantain.

Willis, K.G., and G.D. Garrod., 1999. Angling and

recreation values of low-flow alleviation in rivers.

Journal of Environmental Management, 57: 71-83.

Consensus building bibliography (Chapter 8)

- See Appendix 4

78

This report was produced for IWAC by Anne Powell of the

Freshwater Biological Association and Jeremy Biggs,

Penny Williams and Pascale Nicolet of Pond Conservation:

The Water Habitats Trust. Inputs on consensus building

were supplied by Ken Taylor of Asken Ltd, and engineering

advice was provided by Chris Mitchell. Further inputs

and editing of the report were provided by John Pomfret

of Entec UK Ltd. Design was by Matt Purkiss-Webb

of Honey Creative.

Derek Gowling, former Policy Manager at IWAAC/IWAC,

and John Manning, Policy Adviser at IWAC, were

responsible for co-ordinating IWAC Members’ inputs,

including the majority of case study work.

Recognition and appreciation is given to all those

organisations additional to the Steering Group who

contributed to the case studies and review of drafts of the

report, particularly British Waterways, Broads Authority,

IWA, Derby Wildlife Trust, John Eaton and various

waterway societies.

The Council gratefully acknowledges the financial

assistance from Defra towards the research and

publication of this report.

The report represents the views of IWAC, as advised by the

members of the Steering Group and other consultees.

It provides advice on the consideration of wildlife issues

in relation to navigable inland waterways and illustrative

examples of the way in which a balance can be achieved

between navigation and wildlife interests. However, the

success of specific approaches will vary according to the

characteristics and use of the waterway concerned and

IWAC urges readers to refer to more detailed information

referenced in the report and to local circumstances before

committing to any particular course of action. Neither

IWAC nor its advisers can be held responsible for any

planning or operational decisions made in relation to this

study’s findings.

79

Acknowledgements

Steering Group

Members of the Steering Group were:

Sheelin Knollys/John Edmonds - IWAAC/IWAC

Derek Gowling/John Manning - IWAAC/IWAC

John Pomfret - IWAC

Jayne Redrup - Defra

Ian White/Paul Beckwith/Philip Burgess (alternates) - AINA

Stewart Clarke - Natural England (formerly English Nature)

Eileen McKeever - Environment Agency

80

Appendices

81

International

Legislation

Purpose

Summary of Main Legislation Relevant to NatureConservation and Inland Waterways

The Convention

on Wetlands of

International

Importance especially

Waterfowl Habitats

1971 (The Ramsar

Convention)

The Convention on

the Conservation of

European Wildlife and

Natural Habitats 1979

(The Bern Convention)

The Bonn Convention

on Migratory Species

of Wild Animals 1983

(The Bonn Convention

or CMS)

The Convention on

Biological Diversity

1992 (The Biodiversity

Convention or CBD)

EC Directive

79/409/EEC on the

Conservation of Wild

Birds (The Birds

Directive)

The UK ratified the Convention in 1976. It covers all aspects of wetland conservation and their wise use.

The Convention has three main 'pillars' of activity: the designation of wetlands of international importance;

the promotion of the wise-use of all wetlands in the territory of each country; and international co-operation

with other countries to further the wise-use of wetlands and their resources. The UK has generally chosen

to underpin the designation of its Ramsar sites through prior notification of these areas as Sites of Special

Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (see WCA and Nature Conservation (Scotland) Acts below). Ramsar sites have the

same level of protection as that afforded under the EC Birds and Habitats Directives (see below).

This Convention was ratified by the UK in 1982. The principal aims of the Convention are to ensure

conservation and protection of the wild plant and animal species and their natural habitats (listed in

Appendices I and II of the Convention), to increase cooperation between contracting parties, and to afford

special protection to the most vulnerable or threatened species (including migratory species) (listed in

Appendix 3). To implement the Bern Convention in Europe, the European Community adopted the Birds

Directive in 1979 and the Habitats Directive in 1992 (see below). The Convention was implemented in UK

law by the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981, as amended) (see WCA below).

The Convention arose in 1972 from a recommendation by the United Nations “Man and the Environment”

conference in Stockholm, and entered into force in November 1983. The UK ratified the Convention in July

1985 and it entered into force in the UK on 1 October 1985.

The Bonn Convention aims to improve the status of all threatened migratory species through national action

and international Agreements between the range states of particular groups of species.

Under the Convention, the Agreement on the Conservation of European Bats (EUROBATS) entered into force

on 16 January 1994, with the UK a party to it. The Agreement aims to encourage co-operation within Europe

to conserve all its 37 species of bats. Parties to the Agreement agree to work through legislation, education,

conservation measures and international co-operation towards the conservation of bats in Europe. Of the

Parties fundamental obligations, two are most relevant for the inland waterways:

• to identify sites within its jurisdiction that are important to the conservation of bats and protect these

sites from damage or disturbance;

• to promote research programs relating to the conservation and management of bats.

The Convention entered into force in December 1993 and was ratified by the UK in 1994. This is the first

treaty to provide a legal framework for biodiversity conservation. In 1994, as a result of this Convention,

the UK Government launched the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP), a national strategy which identified

broad activities for conservation work over the next 20 years, and established fundamental principles for

future biodiversity conservation. Subsequently, Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) and Local Biodiversity

Action Plans (LBAPs) have been prepared for species and habitats.

The Directive provides a framework for the conservation and management of, and human interactions with,

wild birds in Europe. The Directive requires the identification and classification of Special Protection Areas

(SPAs) for rare or vulnerable species listed in its Annex I. In the UK, the provisions of the Directive are

implemented through the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation (Natural

Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). It is generally policy in the UK that areas classified as SPAs

are first notified as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (see WCA below). These are particularly relevant

to estuarine waterways (which are not covered in this guide), but also include the Broads.

Appendix 1

82

International

Legislation

Purpose

EC Directive on theConservation ofNatural Habitats andthe Wild flora andFauna 92/43/EEC (TheHabitats Directive)

EC Directive withRegards to thePrevention andRemedying ofEnvironmentalDamage 2004/35/EC(The EnvironmentalLiability Directive)

EC Freshwater FishDirective 78/659/EEC

EC Directiveestablishing aframework for theCommunity action in the field of waterpolicy 2000/60/EC (EU Water FrameworkDirective or WFD)

EC Directive onEnvironmental ImpactAssessments85/337/EEC, asamended by 97/11/ECand 2003/35/EC

EC Directive on theassessment of theeffects of certainplans andprogrammes on the environment2001/42/EC

The main aim of the EC Habitats Directive is to promote the maintenance of biodiversity by requiring MemberStates to take measures to maintain or restore natural habitats and wild species at a favourable conservationstatus, introducing robust protection for those habitats and species of European importance (listed in Annex Iand II). In applying these measures Member States are required to take account of economic, social andcultural requirements and regional and local characteristics. This is the means by which the Communitymeets its obligations as a signatory of the Bern Convention (see above). Each Member State is required to prepare and propose a national list of sites for evaluation in order to form a European network of Sites of Community Importance (SCIs). Once adopted, these are designated by Member States as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). The Habitats Directive introduces for the first time for protected areas, theprecautionary principle; that is that projects can only be permitted having ascertained no adverse effect on the integrity of the site. Projects may still be permitted if there are no alternatives, and there are imperativereasons of overriding public interest. In such cases compensation measures will be necessary to ensure theoverall integrity of network of sites. In the UK the Directive has been transposed into national laws by meansof the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) (see below). Most SACs on land or freshwater areas are underpinned by notification as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).

Seeks to prevent and remediate environmental damage, particularly to habitats and species protected underEC legislation. The Directive was adopted in 2004 and is now in force.

Establishes categories of (i) Salmonid waters and (ii) Cyprinid waters for the classification of inlandfreshwaters which require protection or improvement in order to support fish life and sets environmentalquality standards for these waters. The Directive is implemented in the UK through regulations.

The purpose of the Directive is to establish a framework for the protection of inland surface waters (rivers andlakes), transitional waters (estuaries), coastal waters and groundwater. It will ensure all aquatic ecosystemsand, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands meet 'good status' by 2015. The Directive requires Member States to establish river basin districts and for each of these a river basinmanagement plan. The Directive envisages a cyclical process where river basin management plans areprepared, implemented and reviewed every six years. There are four distinct elements to the river basinplanning cycle: characterisation and assessment of impacts on river basin districts; environmental monitoring;the setting of environmental objectives; and the design and implementation of the programme of measuresneeded to achieve them.

The purpose of the Directive is to ensure that environmental concerns are taken into account when newdevelopments (built, infrastructure etc, including canals) are proposed. Developments are classed as Annex I(for which an EIA must be completed) and Annex II (for which an EIA may be needed). Common practice fornon-Annex I projects is now to prepare a screening paper on which a decision can be made by the relevantauthorities, whether an EIA is needed. All aspects of the environment need to be considered including natureconservation, recreation and socio-economic effects. The Directive has been implemented in UK law by a number of Regulations.

This Directive requires national, regional and local authorities in Member States to carry out strategicenvironmental assessments (SEAs) on certain plans and programmes that they promote. It has beenintroduced into UK law through Statutory Instruments 2004:1633 (England), 2004:1656 (Wales) and by the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 (Scotland)

83

The Wildlife and

Countryside Act (WCA)

1981 (as amended)

The Conservation

(Natural Habitats etc)

Regulations 1994 (as

amended)

The Countryside and

Right of Way (CROW)

Act 2000

The Nature

Conservation

(Scotland) Act 2004

Environmental Impact

Assessment

Regulations

Natural Environment

and Rural

Communities Act 2006

This Act consolidates and amends existing national legislation to implement international legislation

on nature conservation (see above) and covers protection of wildlife (birds, and some animals and plants),

the countryside, National Parks, and the designation of protected areas, and public rights of way. It forms

the basis for habitat and species protection in the UK. Under this act, sites of particular nature conservation

interest are notified as Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The WCA (and its subsequent amendments

and variations to schedules) identifies species that, in the absence of a licence, are directly protected from

killing and taking, or which have their habitat protected from disturbance and damage The release of non-

native species into the wild is also prohibited.

These regulations transpose the Habitats Directive (see above) into national law, it provides for the

designation and protection of 'European sites', the protection of 'European protected species', and the

adaptation of planning and other controls for the protection of European Sites. Under the Regulations,

competent authorities i.e. any Minister, government department, public body, or person holding public office,

have a general duty, in the exercise of any of their functions, to have regard to the EC Habitats Directive.

The Regulations also provide for the control of potentially damaging operations, whereby consent from

the country agency may only be granted once it has been shown through appropriate assessment that the

proposed operation will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. In instances where damage could occur,

the appropriate Minister may, if necessary, make special nature conservation orders, prohibiting any person

from carrying out the operation. However, an operation may proceed where it is or forms part of a plan or

project with no alternative solutions, which must be carried out for reasons of overriding public interest.

This Act increases protection for Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and strengthens wildlife

enforcement legislation. IT also places a duty on UK Government Departments and the National Assembly

for Wales to have regard for the conservation of biodiversity and maintain lists of species and habitats for

which conservation steps should be taken or promoted, in accordance with the Convention on Biological

Diversity. The Act changes WCA, amending SSSI notification procedures and providing increased powers for

the protection and management of SSSIs, and strengthening the legal protection for threatened species.

The provisions make certain offences 'arrestable', create a new offence of reckless disturbance, confer

greater powers to police and wildlife inspectors for entering premises and obtaining wildlife tissue samples

for DNA analysis, and enable heavier penalties on conviction of wildlife offences.

The Act places duties on public bodies in relation to the conservation of biodiversity, replaces the WCA and

increases protection in relation to Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), amends legislation on Nature

Conservation Orders, provides for Land Management Orders for SSSIs and associated land, strengthens

wildlife enforcement legislation, and requires the preparation of a Scottish Fossil Code. The Act is compliant

with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, requiring consultation where the rights

of the individual may be affected by these measures.

Since originally introduced in 1989, a family of regulations have been introduced with different regulations

applying to different sectors and in different countries of the UK. All are refinements of the basic premise

that the environmental impacts of any significant development should be identified and assessed, and

mitigation introduced to reduce the adverse impacts. The regulations are significant in introducing

transparency and give interested parties (i.e. stakeholders) an opportunity to review proposals (i.e.

stakeholders are routinely consulted).

Given Royal Assent on 30th March 2006. Part 2 concerns nature conservation in the UK. It introduces a duty

on every public authority to exercise its functions with due regard to conservation of biodiversity, prohibits

possession of banned pesticides, regulates sales of invasive non-native species and modifies the offences

in connection with SSSIs. Part 7 created IWAC from its predecessor body the Inland Waterways Amenity

Advisory Council.

National

Legislation

Nature Conservation

Purpose

84

National

Legislation

Purpose

Environmental

Protection Act 1990

Waste Management

Licensing Regulations

1994

Environment Act 1995

Water Resources Act

1991

Water Environment

and Water Services

(Scotland) Act 2003

This Act and many related amendments give powerful controls over companies that produce waste. The

main issue for navigation authorities is the definition of waste, and although dredged material is usually

exempt, it has to be chemically analysed to obtain an exemption certificate from the Environment Agency

(EA). If there are contaminants above certain levels, then the “waste” will have to go to an appropriate tip.

Under the Act a Local Authority could place notice on a navigation authority if land in their ownership is

found to be contaminated.

These regulations and many amendments seek to control waste and especially the movement and disposal

of waste. Waste should be securely contained in such a state as to avoid it escaping into the environment.

Waste must be transferred only to an authorised site by an authorised carrier and must be accompanied

by an appropriate written description (transfer note).

Waste management licences are required for dredging tips. Competent managers as recognised by the

Regulations are required for licensed sites. Exemptions are available for activities such as:

• dredging to banks;

• beneficial re-use by spreading on agricultural land;

• land reclamation;

• reuse and recycling.

Exemptions must be registered with EA/Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) in advance

of the works.

Establishes Environment Agency and Scottish Environment Protection Agency, who assume pre-existing

duties from the National Rivers Authority, River Purification Boards, Local Authorities, Waste Regulation

Authorities, HMIP and HMIPI, together with specified new duties under the 1995 Act. Provides for the

development of national air quality strategy for England, Wales and Scotland. Establishes a national waste

strategy for Scotland, England and Wales and a system of producer responsibility for waste together with

amendments of Scottish Statutory Nuisance Law and Scottish Water Pollution Legislation. Establishes the

Sandford Principle for national parks.

The Acts are to protect and control the use of water resources. This covers:

• water pollution and effluent discharge control;

• water resource management including control of abstractions;

• flood defence.

Canals are controlled waters, and the water quality is monitored by the EA and SEPA.

The acts include offences of causing knowingly permitting polluting matter to enter controlled waters,

including silt.

The Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 also makes provision for implementation

of the EC Water Framework Directive in Scotland.

Pollution Control and Water Management

85

Key information sources:Countryside Council for Wales (www.ccw.gov.uk)

Defra (www.defra.gov.uk)

Environment Agency (www.environment-agency.gov.uk)

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (www.jncc.gov.uk)

Natural England (www.naturalengland.org.uk)

Scottish Environment Protection Agency

(www.sepa.org.uk)

Scottish Government (www.scotland.gov.uk)

Scottish Natural Heritage (www.snh.org.uk)

National

Legislation

Purpose

Water Act 2003

The Salmon and

Freshwater Fisheries

Act 1975

Salmon and

Freshwater Fisheries

(Scotland) Act 2003

The Surface Waters

(Fish Life)

(Classification)

Regulations 1997 and

The Surface Waters

(Fish Life)

(Classification)

(Scotland) Regulations

1997

The Water

Environment (Water

Framework Directive)

(England and Wales)

Regulations 2003

Land Drainage Act

1991

Flood Prevention

and Land Drainage

(Scotland) 1991

(and related acts)

This Act applies mainly to England and Wales (with some sections applying to Scotland

(i.e. section 73 (Border Rivers)). There are four broad aims:

• the sustainable use of water resources;

• strengthening the voice of consumers;

• a measured increase in competition;

• the promotion of water conservation.

Many water abstractions that before were exempt now will require Environment Agency licences

or consents. Some exceptions still remain.

The Act protects freshwater fisheries. Key provisions are that it is an offence to pollute any waters that

are fisheries and section 30 requires a licence for the movement or introduction of fish to inland waters.

NAs cannot introduce fish or spawn without prior approval of the EA.

Consolidates previous legislation relating to salmon and freshwater fisheries in Scotland and essentially

make provision for offences of polluting waters containing fish.

These regulations implement the EC Freshwater Fish Directive.

Waters classified under the Regulations require to be sampled and analysed in accordance with provisions

set out in the Regulations. Specific provisions relating to sampling are covered.

If the quality standard is failed for any reason, then the navigation authority may have to be involved

in managing improvements.

These regulations make provision for implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive in England

and Wales.

Gives powers to the Environment Agency, local authorities and Internal drainage Boards to manage and

carry out works for flood prevention works in England and Wales.

There are requirements for navigation authorities not to block or obstruct any watercourses necessary for

the drainage without consent, and also NAs have a duty to keep all ditches on their property clear where

they drain adjacent land. Any works in a watercourse that is registered as “main river” have to be consented

by the Environment Agency.

These Acts regulate a regime for the carrying out of works to alleviate or prevent flooding and for flood

warning in Scotland.

86

Latin name English name Legislation/Status Comment/location

Vascular plantsLeersia oryzoides

Luronium natans

Potamogeton

compressus

Potamogeton

acutifolius

Cut Grass

Floating

Water-

Plantain

Grass-Wrack

Pondweed

Sharp Leaved

Pondweed

Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA),

Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)

Bern Convention, Habitats Directive,

WCA, BAP

BAP

BAP

Bridgwater and Taunton Canal, Basingstoke Canal.

Significant populations in a number of canals e.g.

Rochdale Canal, Montgomery canal.

A significant proportion of the remaining UK population

is located in canals e.g. Montgomery and Grantham.

Mainly in south-east England.

StonewortsChara baltica

Chara connivens

Chara intermedia

Nitellopsis obtusa

Baltic

Stonewort

Convergent

Stonewort

Intermediate

Stonewort

Starry

Stonewort

BAP

BAP

BAP

BAP

Upper Thurne Broads, mainly Martham Broad.

Upper Thurne Broads, mainly Martham Broad.

Upper Thurne Broads, mainly Martham Broad.

Upper Thurne Broads, mainly Martham Broad.

InvertebratesAustropotamobius

pallipes

Bidessus

minutissimus

Donacia bicolora

Pisidium

tenuilineatum

Pseudanodonta

complanata

Vertigo moulinsiana

White-

Clawed

Crayfish

Water

Beetle

A Reed

Beetle

Fine-Lined

Pea Mussel

Depressed

River Mussel

Desmoulin’s

Whorl Snail

Bern Convention, Habitats Directive,

WCA, BAP

BAP

BAP

BAP

BAP

Habitats Directive, BAP

Populations in a number of canals.

Occurs in the Wye.

Generally, Donacia bicolora is associated with

branched bur-reed growing along the margins

of rivers, and sometimes ponds, lakes and canals.

Occurs on the River Wey navigation.

Canals and lowland rivers north to Yorks.

Occurs (at least) in the rivers Ouse, Waveney, Yare,

Derwent (Yorkshire), Wye, Brue, Arun and various

canals and drains.

Occurs in dense reedswamp vegetation alongside

watercourses and in fens. Occurs on River Kennet

and in Norfolk Broads.

Important Protected Species and Habitats Associatedwith Navigable Waterways

Appendix 2

87

Latin name English Name Legislation/Status Comment/location

Perileptus areolatus

Bembidion testaceum

Lionychus quadrillum

Hydrochus nitidicollis

Thinobius newberyi

Meotica anglica

River

Shingle

Beetles

BAP Exposed riverine sediments, which support this

species group, occurs on some navigable rivers

e.g. Wye, Soar.

Amphibians Triturus cristatus Great

Crested Newt

Habitats Directive, WCA, BAP Occurs in a number of canals and fenland waterways.

MammalsArvicola terrestris

Lutra lutra

Neomys fodiens

Water Vole

Otter

Water Shrew

WCA, BAP

Habitats Directive, WCA, BAP

BAP

Occurs on canals and river navigations.

Occurs on canals and river navigations.

Found in habitats close to water, including the banks

of streams, rivers, ponds and drainage ditches,

as well as reed-beds and fens.

FishAlosa fallax

Anguilla anguilla

Cobitis taenia

Cottus gobio

Lampetra fluviatilis

Lampetra planeri

Petromyzon marinus

Salmo salar

Twaite Shad

Eel

Spined Loach

Bullhead

River

Lamprey

Brook

Lamprey

Sea Lamprey

Atlantic

Salmon

Bern Convention, Habitats Directive

BAP

Bern Convention, Habitats Directive

Habitats Directive

Bern Convention, Habitats Directive

Bern Convention, Habitats Directive

Bern Convention, Habitats Directive

Bern Convention, Habitats Directive

Rivers which still have spawning stocks include

the Wye and Severn.

Occurs widely in freshwater.

Trent and Great Ouse catchments, some small

rivers and drains in Lincolnshire and East Anglia

and a small number of canals (Grantham, Grand

Union, Trent and Mersey).

Study showing competition between bullhead

and signal crayfish done in Great Ouse

(Guan and Wiles 1997).

Rivers Ouse/Ure, Derwent, Dee and Wye.

River Ouse/Ure.

Occurs in some navigations (e.g. Rivers Derwent,

Avon, Dee, and Wye).

Occurs in navigations (e.g. Rivers Wye, Avon and Dee).

88

Latin name English name Legislation/Status Comment/location

Barbastella

barbastellus

Myotis bechsteinii

Myotis daubentonii

Myotis

mystacinus/brandtii

Myotis nattereri

Nyctalus noctula

Pipistrellus nathusii

Pipistrellus

pipistrellus

Pipistrellus

pygmaeus

Plecotus auritus

Rhinolophus

ferrumequinum

Rhinolophus

hipposideros

Barbastelle

Bechstein’s

Bat

Daubenton’s

Bat

Whiskered/Br

andt’s Bat

Natterer’s

Bat

Noctule

Nathusius’

Pipistrelle

Pipistrelle 45

kHz

Pipistrelle 55

kHz

Brown Long-

eared Bat

Greater

Horseshoe

Bat

Lesser

Horseshoe

Bat

Bonn Convention, Habitats

Directive, WCA, BAP

Bonn Convention, Habitats

Directive, WCA, BAP

Bonn Convention, Habitats

Directive, WCA

Bonn Convention, Habitats

Directive, WCA

Bonn Convention, Habitats

Directive, WCA

Bonn Convention, Habitats

Directive, WCA

Bonn Convention, Habitats

Directive, WCA

Bonn Convention, Habitats

Directive, WCA, BAP

Bonn Convention, Habitats

Directive, WCA, BAP

WCA, BAP, Bonn Convention,

Habitats Directive

Bonn Convention, Habitats

Directive, WCA, BAP

Bonn Convention, Habitats

Directive, WCA, BAP

An uncommon bat that sometimes feeds over water.

Ancient woodland species.

Occurs throughout Britain and feeds over rivers, lakes,

ponds and canals.

These two species, which are difficult to separate,

occur widely in England, Wales. Sometimes feeds

over water.

A scarce species found throughout Britain that

sometimes feeds over water and roosts in bridges,

trees, aqueducts and tunnels.

A bat that occurs widely in England, Wales and

south-west Scotland; sometimes feeds over water.

Very rare, perhaps under-recorded, bat. In southwest

England found over lakes and rivers.

Common bat on canals and rivers (see Lancaster

Canal case study in Appendix 5).

Common bat on canals and rivers (see Lancaster

Canal case study in Appendix 5).

Roosts in canal tunnels.

A rare species found in South-West England and

South Wales that sometimes feeds over water.

A rare species which occurs in Wales and the west

of England that sometimes feeds over water.

89

Notes on species selectionThe list includes a selection of species and habitats associated with navigable waterways taken from the following:

• UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species and Habitats.

• Natural habitat types and species listed in Annexes 1, 2 or 5 of the Habitats Directive.

• Species listed in the Bern Convention.

• Species listed in the Bonn Convention.

• Species listed on Schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and subsequent revisions.

The list includes water-dependent species and species which are associated with channel margin water-dependent habitats

(e.g. reed beetles, Donacia spp., which occur on emergent macrophytes that commonly border canal or river channels). It also

includes mammals such as bats which make extensive use of linear water habitats for foraging and/or shelter. The lists do not cover

Red Data Book species or species with other conservation designations (e.g. identified as nationally or regionally scarce), unless they

fall into one of the categories listed above.

Latin name English name Legislation/Status Comment/location

BirdsAlcedo atthis Kingfisher WCA Widespread on canals and navigable rivers.

Habitats Hard oligo-

mesotrophic

waters with

benthic vegetation

of Chara spp.

Water courses with

the Ranunculion

fluitantis and

Callitricho-

Batrachion

vegetation

Norfolk

Broads

Rivers with

water

crowfoot

plant

communities

Habitats Directive, BAP

(mesotrophic and eutrophic lakes)

Habitats Directive, BAP (chalk

rivers)

The Broads is the richest area for charophytes

in Britain (Stewart 1996).

Some navigations fall into this category

(e.g. River Derwent).

90

Species name Relevant legislation and status Ecological requirements

Aquatic plants

Floating water-plantain(Luronium natans)

Grass-wrack pondweed

(Potamogeton compressus)

Aquatic invertibrates

A reed beetle

(Donacia bicolora)

Depressed River Mussel

(Pseudanodonta complanata)

Fine-lined Pea mussel

(Pisidium tenuilineatum)

Bern Convention

Habitats Directive

Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA)

Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)

BAP

Nationally Scarce (it would be rare if notfor several large canal populations)

BAP

BAP

BAP

Red List

Floating water-plantain is found in clear-water, usuallymesotrophic canals, lakes, ponds and a few slow-movingrivers, where it may need periodic dredging and/ordisturbance to provide the open, bare-mud situations whichit favours. Luronium grows in a number of aquatic habitats:in shallow water with floating oval leaves, in deep water withsubmerged rosettes of narrow leaves and on exposed mudwhere water levels fluctuate. The plant thrives best in opensituations with a moderate degree of disturbance, wheregrowth of competing emergent vegetation is held in check.

Grass-wrack pondweed is a submerged plant species oflittle-polluted, still or slow flowing, calcareous, mesotrophicwaterbodies, including rivers, canals, drainage ditches andlowland lakes. In canals it typically grows in clear,moderately deep water, often in aqueducts or other areaswhere the flow is slightly accelerated. Populations areknown to be declining significantly in rivers, and canalpopulations are of significant importance.

Donacia aquatica is usually found on aquatic vegetationdominated by sedges, such as Carex acutiformis. Adults areactive during May and June. The larvae feed on submergedparts of emergent vegetation.

The depressed river mussel lives in the bottom sediment of rivers near the banks. Unlike the other mussel species, it usually buries completely into the mud, and leaves its footout to anchor itself into the substrate. It is restricted tolarger rivers and various canals and drains. It may preferrivers with high flow and high algal content. It can live forbetween 8 and 18 years, and may reach more than 10cm in length. Its larvae parasitise fish, probably perch andsticklebacks.

A little known species recorded from rivers, canals andlakes, where it favours fine silty or muddy substrates inclean hard unpolluted water.

Guidance on Waterway Management for Important Species and Habitats

Appendix 3

91

Threats

Canal populations may be threatened by opening little-used waterwaysto motorised traffic, which stirs up the mud, decreasing the lightpenetrating to submerged populations and may physically erodemarginal populations. Its habitat in rivers has been reduced bychannel-straightening, dredging and pollution, especially in thelowlands. There is also a potential threat from eutrophication due to agricultural intensification or development in the canal corridor.Paradoxically, there is also a threat from neglect of the canal system:particularly occasional dredging which helps to prevent ecologicalsuccession in which closed communities of emergent plants replacethe open communities supporting floating water-plantain.

The main threats to grass-wrack pondweed are enrichment(eutrophication) and increased turbidity in its aquatic habitats.Increases in volume of pleasure boat traffic and associated disturbanceare a threat in canals as are disuse and drying out.

Loss of suitable habitat due to water abstraction, disturbance of marginal vegetation and eutrophication.

The threats to this species are not fully known, but are likely to includewater pollution and physical disturbance of river banks and channels.River management has serious consequences for mussel populations:mussels may be deposited on the river banks, where they will die; theymay be moved into the mid-channel where flow may be too high andthey may be washed away; they may be killed when their shells arebroken; and mussels downstream of the dredging may be smothered by the extra sediment suspended during the dredging operation.

The reasons for both the rarity and recent decline are unknown, but arelikely to include a decline in water quality and possibly inappropriatechannel management.

Consideration in waterway restoration or operation

Populations of Floating Water-plantain can be maintained by (i) ensuring good water clarity in the channel and (ii) preventingovergrowth by emergent plants. Careful periodic dredging ordraining to expose sediments is beneficial, especially if canals are part dredged to ensure retention of a portion of the seed bank. In the short term Luronium may get some protection from adverseconditions, such as muddy water and disturbance, within in-channel refugia (e.g. behind piling). However, these areas quicklygrow over with tall emergents and their long-term sustainability,even with regular management, is unknown. The plant issuccessfully being conserved in on-line reserves on the RochdaleCanal (see Appendix 5). Creation of off-line refugia (e.g.Montgomery restoration ponds) may be effective where there is good water quality and periodic disturbance from dredging to create bare areas and keep the waterbodies in early to midsuccession. If managed appropriately, such refugia should work in principle. However in practice, their long-term value is currentlyunknown.

Channel management requirements for grass-wrack pondweedare similar to floating water-plantain: i.e. maintain clean waterwith good clarity in the channel and ensure periodic dredging. Off-line reserves have been created beside the Montgomery Canalfor this and other species. However, their value and long-termsustainability are not yet clear.

Identify populations and ensure their habitat is appropriatelymanaged, particularly in maintaining water quality and waterlevels.

Avoid activities which could cause pollution.

Recent studies of the effect of river dredging in the River Brue inSomerset found that dredging removed over 20% of the musselpopulation, including large numbers of the depressed rivermussel, Pseudanodonta complanata. After the winter floods, very few mussels were left in the river as much of the remainingsubstrate had been washed away. This demonstrates howdredging operations can be catastrophic for mussel populations.This is a particular problem for the depressed river mussel, which occurs along short stretches of river at high density. If thesestretches are dredged, whole populations of the depressed rivermussel can be lost.

From what little is known of the threats to this species, it appearsto be important to maintain water quality. Other recommendationswill need to await a greater understanding of its habitatrequirements and the reasons for population declines.

92

Water beetle

(Bidessus minutissimus)

White-clawed Crayfish

(Austropotamobius pallipes)

Amphibians

Great Crested Newt

(Triturus cristatus)

Fish

Migratory Fish associated withnavigable waterways

Spined Loach

(Cobitis taenia)

Mammals

Bats associated with navigablewaterways

BAP

Red List

Bern Convention

Habitats Directive

WCA

BAP

BAP

WCA

Various (see Appendix 2)

Bern Convention

Habitats Directive

12 species listed under WCA areassociated with navigable waterways; 5 of these are BAP species, 4 are specieswhose conservation requires thedesignation of Special Areas ofConservation. All bats are protected under the Habitats Directive (thedirective’s Annex IV gives a full listing).

Bidessus minutissimus occurs in the lower reaches ofrivers, typically in association with sand or fine gravel banks.Fine silt at edge of rivers often associated with plant roots.The life-cycle is unknown and the immature stages have notbeen described. In Great Britain this species is confined tothe west and includes recent records from the Dee and Wye.

The white-clawed crayfish occurs in a wide range ofenvironments (canals, streams, rivers, lakes, ponds),especially those with relatively hard water. Crayfish generallyprefer hard substrates to soft, but adult crayfish may dignumerous burrows in the soft mud of banks especially inwinter. Key factors associated with the presence of nativecrayfish are: (i) overhanging bank-side vegetation which is a key resource providing shade, food and cover (ii) steep,preferably vertical, banks (iii) overhanging trees with treeroot systems projecting into the water (iv) submergedvegetation and (v) unpolluted well oxygenated water. In favourable habitat areas crayfish typically live under rocks,in crevices, under logs among tree roots, algae andsubmerged plants. Juveniles may also be found underdetritus such as leaf litter, and dead leaves may also providean important source of food to supplement the crayfish’slargely carnivorous diet.

Although the Great Crested Newt is usually associated with pond habitats, they can also be found in standing water areas of other waterbody types including canals.

Great Crested Newts need to be able to move betweenaquatic and terrestrial habitat. Aquatic habitat needs toprovide both open and vegetated areas, minimal predationfrom fish and dragonfly larvae, and other amphibians andinvertebrates for food. Nearby terrestrial habitat such asgrassland, scrub and woodland is needed for dispersal,foraging for invertebrates and refuge including undergroundcrevices for hibernation.

The ecological requirements of migratory fish include: (i) a clear migration pathway with suitable river flows, (ii) suitable clean gravel spawning areas, (iii) suitable nurserysites, and (iv) clean water.

Requires fine, well-oxygenated sediments for filter feeding,patchy cover of submerged (and possibly emergent) plantsfor spawning, and sandy and silty substrate for juvenile fishto bury themselves.

Waterways are used by bats as sources of insect prey and as flyways. Bankside trees, bridges and tunnels are used as roosts and for hibernation.

Daubentons bat is especially associated with waterways andits activities have been demonstrated to be greatest in areaswith high insect activity which in turn is indicative of goodwater quality. It is particularly associated with slow flowingareas of rivers edged with trees and emergent vegetation.

Species name Relevant legislation and status Ecological requirements

Current factors causing loss or decline include (i) impoundment, bank strengthening, canalisation and other forms of river regulation (ii) point source pollution of lower parts of rivers from sewage outfalls(iii) diffuse pollution resulting in algal blooms and loss of clean gravelsites in rivers (iv) intensive use by anglers, pleasure craft and otheramenity use.

North American signal crayfish and some other US species, carry thehighly virulent and lethal crayfish plague (the fungus Aphanomycesastaci), which has decimated populations of our native species acrossthe UK. Where plague is not present, the three non-native crayfishspecies now breeding in the wild also out-compete white-clawedcrayfish for food and shelter. Native crayfish populations are alsodamaged by pollution including biocides, silage and cattle slurry.Individuals do not tolerate high turbidity; their delicate gills are easilyclogged by sediment, which causes physio-pathological changes in thelong term.

The major threats to Great Crested Newt populations are loss ofaquatic and terrestrial habitat, introduction of fish to previously fish-free waterbodies and chemical pollution including eutrophication.

Threats to migration include man-made obstacles such as weirs ordams and fluctuating water levels due to water abstraction or landdrainage. The long distances travelled make migratory fish vulnerableto belts of pollution

Spawning gravels and nursery silts are vulnerable to destruction by channelisation, to damage from flooding associated with fluctuatingwater levels resulting from water abstraction or land drainage, and to smothering by algae and siltation.

Habitat requirements mean this species is vulnerable to dredging and weed-cutting operations, but this is not well understood.

Loss of foraging areas because of reduction in insect prey numbers anddiversity due to inappropriate management or pollution of waterways.

Loss of habitat used for roosting or hibernation through, for example,repair work to bridges, aqueducts, tunnels and tree works, whichremoves gaps used for roosts. Timber treatment can be poisonous to bats.

Ensure that the habitat requirements of this species are takeninto account in relevant development policies, plans and proposals,particularly in relation to river engineering. Requires clean rivergravel and is susceptible to excessive algal growth from additionalnutrients (diffuse pollutants).

Where native populations are known or suspected, it isrecommended that anglers (and others using the aquaticenvironment) are made aware of the risks of spreading crayfishplague on equipment (spores are easily transferred by water, onfish and damp fishing equipment and mud on boots) and of thelegislative controls on release of non-native species. To protect thespecies, maintain key habitat requirements including overhangingvegetation. Avoid work likely to lead to the destruction of refugesand banks e.g. channelisation. Where bank maintenance or otherworks are critical in areas where native crayfish may occur, ensuresurveys are carried out at appropriate times of year to establish if a population is present. Use crayfish-friendly designs for bankreinforcement. Minimise the length of time taken for constructionoperations or take other precautions to prevent excessive waterturbidity. Translocation of populations has often proved successful.There appears to be low genetic variability across the UK, whichreduces problems associated with issues of crayfish movements and re-introductions.

Where Great Crested Newt populations are suspected their use of the habitat should be assessed before restoration or operationalchanges, or any activities which may entail disturbance of GreatCrested Newt habitat.

Further information can be found in the Great Crested NewtConservation Handbook (Langton et al. 2001).

Channels should be managed to ensure access along migratorypathways, clean water and availability of suitable areas of gravels,silt or sand for spawning and nursery areas. Channelisation,siltation and variation to flow dynamics should be avoided.

NB Consideration should be taken of which species are present asthere may different management needs for different species typese.g. lampreys and salmonids.

Where populations are known the potential impact of plannedrestoration or operation on vegetation and substrate used by the Spined Loach should be taken into account.

Waterway management should aim to maintain a structurallydiverse wide corridor of bankside vegetation including open andwooded banks.

If vegetation removal, bankside cutting or tree management isnecessary it should be planned to minimise the impact on insectpopulations and bat flyways e.g. vegetation removal or cutting insmall areas at a time, one bank per year, rotational pollarding /coppicing instead of clear-felling.

An assessment should be made of bat use of the waterway beforeany restoration or operational changes are made.

Where bats are affected by repair work on tunnels and bridges,artificial bat brick roosts should be installed as part of the repairprogramme.

93

Threats Consideration in waterway restoration or operation

94

Bern Convention

Habitats Directive

WCA

BAP

WCA

BAP

WCA

Otters occur in a wide range of habitat. Inland populationsutilise a range of running and standing freshwaters with anabundant supply of food (normally associated with high waterquality). Otter ranges can be extensive (often 10-15 kmstream or river length), and this is typically combined with thepresence of other habitats required for foraging, breeding andresting including ditches and dykes, mature broad-leavedwoodland with good understorey cover; scrub and other tallbankside vegetation, reed beds, sedge beds and willow carr;lakes, ponds and canals. Navigable canals are mainly used by otter as part of the range of wetlands they used forfeeding, rather than as breeding sites. Otters feed onwhatever fish are most available including stickleback, trout,roach, perch or eels. Frogs can become an important part of the diet during the breeding and hibernating seasons.Other prey include crayfish, water birds and more rarely small mammals, particularly rabbit. Otter holts are typicallydug into the earth of stream, river or lake banks often incavities among tree roots. They sometimes use piles of rock,wood or debris. The holt entrance is often below water level.

Water voles are predominantly found along the denselyvegetated banks of slow flowing permanent water habitatssuch as rivers, canals, ditches, ponds, lakes and marshes.They are herbivores, feeding on a wide variety of watersidevegetation. Surveys of canal and river sites show that watervoles are strongly associated with (i) earth banks into whichthey can burrow, (ii) dense bank-side vegetation thatcomprises tall grasses, sedges, reeds and herbaceous plants,in conjunction with (iii) a steep bank profile and (iv) nearbywetlands such as ditches or ponds. Water voles typically avoidsites with dense tree and shrub cover, or banks that aretrampled by cattle or reinforced by stone, wood or metalpiling. However they may use banks in poor repair wherethere are gaps in stonework or rotten wooden piles that allowwater voles access to the earth bank behind.

Kingfishers are usually associated with lowland still and slowflowing waters. Overhanging branches are used for perchesfrom which they catch small fish. Nests are made inriverbanks and consist of vertical tunnels into sandysubstrates.

Otter

(Lutra lutra)

Water vole

(Arvicola terrestris)

Birds

Kingfisher

(Alcedo atthis)

Species name Relevant legislation and status Ecological requirements

The aquatic habitats of otters are vulnerable to man-made changes.Canalisation of rivers, removal of bank side vegetation, damconstruction, draining of wetlands, aquaculture activities andassociated man-made impacts on aquatic systems are all unfavourableto otter populations. Specific threats include (i) lack of suitableriverside lying up and holt sites, hollows in large riverside tree roots,scrub patches, reedbeds, (ii) loss of wetlands within the floodplain, (iii) lack of large undisturbed areas suitable for breeding, (iv) lack of sustainable fish stocks limiting food availability to otters, (v) accidental mortality, e.g. road casualties (vi) direct effects of watercourse contaminants, e.g. PCBs and heavy metals, particularly mercury.

Water vole populations have been in decline for many decades. A national survey in 1996-1998 showed that they had been lost from94% of sites and had vanished from entire catchments in northeastScotland, North Yorkshire and Oxfordshire. The reasons for this declineare complex but involve: (i) habitat loss and degradation due to riverand canal engineering, bank protection and maintenance works (suchas desilting and reprofiling operations) which directly damage watervole habitat and removes vegetation cover (ii) fluctuations in waterlevels, (iii) pollution, (iv) predation (especially by mink), or (v) indirectpersecution through use of rodenticides in rat control operations.Banks can also be made unsuitable for the species by excessivetrampling and poaching by heavy animals such as cattle or ponies. This is a particular problem along sections of river and canal where the banks are not protected by fences.

Lack of availability of food caused by poor water quality.

Loss of nesting habitat due to canalisation, flood alleviation schemes,damage from livestock / agricultural activity.

Damage to nest site from removal of bankside vegetation. Increasedexposure of nest site due to over-abstraction resulting in increasedpredation of eggs and young.

95

Following large declines in the last century, otters are currentlyexpanding their range, at least in England. Unsympathetic rivermanagement and wetland drainage during the last century meansthat many areas remain sub-optimal for otters so there are manyopportunities for enhancement. This includes, improving waterquality, river habitat enhancement work to help improve fishpopulations and improving river corridors with tree and shrubplanting schemes to create sites where otters can hide and breed.Artificial holts are not a substitute for good habitat but may help to encourage otters into an area by providing immediate extrasecurity in otherwise poor habitat. They can often be constructedeasily when other work is being done next to a watercourse.Factors that will enhance use of canals include: improving waterquality (and hence fish stocks) and keeping one undisturbednatural bank to provide easy access points in and out of the water.This is particularly important in areas adjacent to small tributarieswhich can allow otters to move easily between watercourses.Where river or canal works or adjacent development are proposedin areas likely to be used by otters, this needs to be considered inearly stages of the planning process. There are often opportunitiesfor habitat enhancement (creation of natural river corridors forexample) as part of development work. This is valuable whetherotters are present in the area or not to ensure that conditions aresuitable as otter populations expand in future years. In planningdevelopments with otters in mind, particular care should be takento avoid increases in disturbance, especially from people and dogs.For example, where new riverside paths are proposed, routes canbe planned so they divert from the water’s edge at intervals to provide undisturbed riverbank areas. Opening up previously un-visited stretches to angling should be avoided, as shouldsignificant increases in water-based recreational activity. New development close to waterways needs to ensure that otterresting sites are protected and that changes in traffic patterns areconsidered, since they may increase the risk of otters being killedwhilst crossing roads.

Where water vole are known from canal and river sites, routinemanagement operations e.g. dredging and cutting should besensitive to their habitat requirements. Specifically: water marginsdominated by reeds, sedges and stands of emergent plantstogether with tall grasses and herbs on the banks should be retained, and mid-channel dredging or clearance should seek to maintain a minimum of 1m reed margin on each bank.Management of the margin vegetation is best achieved through a late summer cut of the bankside vegetation. Where developmentor bank maintenance work is planned, watercourses should besurveyed to establish if populations are present. Damage to knownvole habitats (e.g. through bank-side development, extension of moorings, bank re-profiling) must (legally) be avoided. Goodpractice in bank maintenance includes using appropriate naturalmaterials for erosion control (i.e. use of willow spiling, hazelhurdles and coir fibre rolls instead of stone, brick and metal/woodpiling). Pesticides should be used selectively and in accordancewith codes of best practice. There are also many opportunities in canal and river management to enhance existing bank habitatsfor water voles. Such restoration has an important role to playbecause of the importance of dispersal corridors to populationviability. Enhancement can include: (i) increasing vegetationabundance through sympathetic management or creation of vole-friendly bank edges (e.g. use of coir fibre rolls), (ii) pollarding,coppicing and clearance of scrub overhanging the channel and (iii) work with local land mangers to enhance adjacent areas e.g. fencing from stock, creation of wetland (reedbeds, ditches,ponds etc.) and introduction of buffer strips. Targeted Mink controlis suggested in the BAP as an experimental conservation tool, and should be considered where voles are under greatest threat: the preferred option is to encourage specific landowners to undertake the trapping

Management should be aimed at maintaining good water qualityand conditions that ensure suitable populations of fish prey, andareas of wooded banks. Where nests occur it is important to avoiddamage to banks and over-abstraction. Opportunities should besought to create new suitable nesting areas in waterways whichare otherwise suitable for Kingfishers.

Threats Consideration in waterway restoration or operation

96

1. OverviewConsensus building appears to be the ‘label’ currently

applied to a process of conflict resolution that has been

used, in various forms, since the dawn of civilisation.

Indeed, resolving conflicts through means other than by

physical struggle could be seen as the mark of a civilised

society. In more recent times, a chronology of consensus

building in relation to recreational activities would probably

focus more on conflicts between the rights of the public

to gain access to land and water, and the rights of land-

owners for exclusive use of the resource. The history of the

developments in this long-running struggle is explained

in detail by Shoard (1999).

Bishop (1996) traces its recent origins to the USA in the 1960s,

with emphasis on that country’s interest in participative

local democracy, and their reaction to activities of large

corporations. Because of the imbalance of power, for

example the ability of large corporations to appoint expert

legal advisers, the emphasis was on non-adversarial forms

of consensus building. Woods (undated) sets the issue

of conflicts in the context of canal restoration and sees

the best conflict avoidance strategy is to undertake

an environmental assessment of the proposals, along with

a ‘do nothing’ option against which it can be compared.

2. Consensus on management measures to reduce adverse environmental effects

2.1 Awareness raising in situ –

information and interpretation

Communicating messages on good practice often includes

raising awareness, for example through the use of signs,

leaflets and information boards. Various methods can

be used which work in situ, as opposed to imparting

knowledge before a visit:

• talking to people when on site;

• leaflets distributed through outlets such

as Tourist Information Centres, visitor centres, moorings;

• signs – directional, informative, regulatory;

• entries in guide books;

• interpretation boards (perhaps with a theme –

as at Bugsworth Basin; see photo alongside).

(Taken from Access-Nature Conservation Good Practice

Handbook, Taylor et al).

Consensus Building Techniques - Supporting Information

Appendix 4

97

There is a wealth of literature on interpretation and

no attempt has been made to review this. However,

a short summary of interpretation ‘ground rules’

(Past Forward Ltd 1988), in relation to proposed

developments in the Peak Forest Canal area,

is worth highlighting:

• preserve the sense of place;

• tell the stories which are appropriate to the location;

• edit the story ruthlessly;

• remember that you are telling a story;

• personalise stories where possible;

• respect the visitors.

2.2 Zoning - sharing the resource (in time and in space)

One of the commonly used methods for reaching

consensus over competing interests is through sharing

of the resource in question, either in time and/or in space.

Most typically, the sharing has been between two types

of recreational interest, such as canoeists and anglers.

However, the tactic has been employed when competing

interests are recreation participants and those protecting

nature conservation interests. The advantages of this

approach are:

• sensitive areas can be protected whilst less sensitive

areas continue to be used;

• recreational use can be reduced at times when wildlife

is most sensitive (e.g. nesting times);

• competing recreational activities can be kept apart.

Good examples of resource sharing are use of Llandegfedd

Reservoir (SportsScotland 1997) and Bassenthwaite Lake

(Crowe and Mulder 2005).

2.3 Steering

A technique commonly used in managing public access

so as to avoid conflict is “steering” (see, for example,

Countryside Agency 2005; Taylor et al in prep). It works

on the basic premise that most people are willing to be

led along particular routes and will tend to follow clearly

marked routes. So, good way marking and signage, clear

route alignment and the provision of access furniture

at key locations will serve to reduce straying off-route to

manageable proportions. It is a technique less applicable

to canal boating but may have relevance in mooring areas.

2.4 Presence on the ground

Research has shown that maintaining a presence ‘on-the-

ground’, such as in the form or wardens, rangers and

bailiffs, is likely to encourage adherence of participants

to codes of good practice (e.g. Taylor et al 2005, in relation

to control of dogs and based on responses from a number

of managers of nature reserves). Various studies have been

found that discuss the potential role for rangers and

wardens for managing land-based activities (e.g. Elwyn

Owen and Holdaway 2002; SNH 1997). The main point

made is that rangers and wardens should not be seen

as a ‘police force’, but as agents of increased mutual

understanding between differing interests. The individuals

who provide the presence can be either employed staff

or volunteers.

An alternative is for voluntary agreements and self

regulation. Such arrangements are generally only

successful where:

• the activity is controlled by a national governing body

and participation is dependent on membership

(SportsScotland 1997); and

• when the rationale is clear and well justified,

with specific messages and alternatives in place

to allow recreational use to continue at other

locations (Crowe and Mulder 2005).

The circumstances on canals may well meet these criteria,

especially via the licence system.

98

2.5 Formal agreement

Where two or more parties agree to a management

regime, there are benefits in drawing up a formal written

agreement. Although this has some disadvantages, such

as the cost of legal advice or the formality that such

agreements impose, there are many advantages, including:

• the reduction of scope for misunderstanding;

• the provision for continuity in cases of change

of personnel;

• imposing a level of commitment that may otherwise

be lacking, or which reduces over time.

There are several examples where formal agreements

have been used to enable improved recreational use

simultaneously with better environmental protection:

• on North Solent NNR covering canoeing on the Beaulieu

river, between English Nature and Liquid Logistics Ltd

(Mark Larter, Pers Comm.);

• Broads Authority and Eastern Rivers Ski Club

(Crowe and Mulder 2005).

2.6 Monitoring

Monitoring is an important component of consensus

building as it provides feedback on the success, or

otherwise, of management measures used (Taylor et al,

in prep). An example provided by Crowe and Mulder (ibid)

shows how monitoring at Bassenthwaite Lake has helped

determine the effectiveness of zoning measures which

give priority to nature conservation over recreation.

Important factors to be agreed with respect to monitoring,

as identified by the Best of Both Worlds (BoBW) website

www.bobw.co.uk, are:

• what is to be monitored, and over what period of time

(and procedures for the monitoring data be reviewed);

• who does the monitoring and using what methods;

• what are the critical thresholds;

• possible implications if critical thresholds are crossed.

It is inferred that monitoring methods would focus on

ecological variable, but there may be merit, in some

circumstances, in monitoring visitor/participant behaviour.

2.7 Step by step guide to consensus building

Step 1: Assessing the situation

• identify the position and name of the land and/or water

over which recreation is desired

• analyse the current situation at the site

- land/water management

- nature conservation/landscape interest

- existing recreational use

• know where each party stands legally

99

Step 2: Preparation

• establish objectives which include the most

and least favourable likely outcomes

• find out about who to deal with

• do your research:

- establish the facts of the case’s history

- understand the findings of relevant scientific

research on impacts of an activity

- collect objective data on usage of the site

• think about sharing resources not competing for them

Step 3: Meeting and opening communications

• talk to all interested parties

• make sure dealings are with the right people

and deal with them courteously

• be open and honest in all dealings

• hold some meetings on site

Step 4: Getting down to business

• start on a positive/encouraging note

• explore each other’s objectives

• list all the subjects/issues to be discussed

• don’t be fazed by ‘shows of strength’

• distinguish between conflicts of belief and conflicts

of interest

Step 5: Confronting conflict

• conflict sometimes cannot be avoided in achieving

a long-lasting solution, so don’t shy away from it

• look for areas of agreement as well as disagreement

• look for ways in which all can gain

• keep debates constructive and adjourn if they

become destructive

Step 6: Reaching consensus

• adopt a ‘can do’ philosophy – be positive and flexible

• only promise what you can deliver

• ask for more time if needed

• watch out for signs of agreement and build on them

• when agreement is in sight, don’t let it get away

• allow for others to be consulted if necessary

• be clear who is expected to do what, and when

to put the agreement into effect

• where necessary, make provision for the future

of the agreement

Drawn from Best of Both Worlds website www.bobw.co.uk,

which in turn was based on Kotler (1988) and Sidaway

(2005)

100

3. Codes of Good Practice

3.1 Development, promotion and review process

for a Code of Good Practice

Source: Scott and Annett, 2006

1.a. Recognition of management issues, or opportunities to influence awareness, attitudes and behaviour b. Identifying desired outcomes

2. Identifying preferred management mechanisms

Consult and involve stakeholders

a code or similar guidance other management solution (e.g. signing, zoning, byelaws)

3. Evaluations and key decisions for the development of codes

4. Developing and piloting the code

5. Preparing and implementing a code action plan

6. Monitoring, evaluation and review

101

3.2 List of codes of good practice

Organisation Codes Web Address

British Sub-Aqua

Club

British Surfing

Association

British Water Ski

British Water Ski

British Waterways

British Waterways/

Environment Agency

Environment Agency

Inland Waterways

Association

Marine Conservation

Society

Marine Conservation

Society

Marine Conservation

Society/CCW/ English

Nature

National Angling

Alliance

Pembrokeshire Coast

National Park

Pembrokeshire

County Council

Royal Yachting

Association

Salmon and Trout

Association

Thames Water

The Divers’ Code of Conduct

Code of Conduct

Statement of Purpose and Environmental

Commitment

General Code of Conduct of Cable Tow

Water Skiing

Waterways Code

The Boater’s Handbook –

Basic Boat-Handling and Safety

Golden Rules for Anglers

Guidance Notes

Seashore Code

Underwater Photographers’ Code

of Conduct

Conservation Code for Sea Anglers

Code of Conduct for Coarse Anglers

Canoeing & Kayaking

Pembrokeshire’s Personal Water Craft

and Speed Boat – Code of Practice

Environmental Guidance for Boat Users

Salmon and Trout Trust

River Thames Users Code

www.tolgus.com/infoandcodes/diverscodeofconduct.htm

www.britsurf.co.uk/html/code_of_conduct.asp

www.britishwaterski.org.uk/UKSki/Portals/57ad7180-c5e7-

49f5-b282c6475cdb7ee7/Statement%20of%20Purpose%20&

%20Environ%20Commitment.doc

www.britishwaterski.org.uk/UKSki/DesktopDefault.aspx?

tabid=35

www.britishwaterways.co.uk/waterways/waterways_code/

waterways_code.html

www.british-waterways.org/images/Boaters_Handbook.pdf

www.environmentagency.gov.uk/subjects/fish/246986/342184

/257916/259296/?version=1&lang=_e

www.waterways.org.uk/library/Guidance_notes/index.htm

www.adoptabeach.org.uk/pages/page.php?cust_id=17

www.mcsuk.org

www.mcsuk.org

www.anglersnet.co.uk/code.pdf

www.pcnpa.org.uk/PCNP/live/sitefiles/related_items/canoein

g_english.pdf

www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/activities/recreation/r07_05_3.htm

www.rya.org.uk/images/uploaded/43de9d06-c68b-4677-9ef9-

7fafbe62b2f1/Tidelines_2003.pdf

www.salmon-trout.org/conservation_main.htm

www.visitthames.co.uk/uploads/a_users_guide_to_the_River

_thames.pdf

102

Rural Resources (2004)

• User questionnaires

• Group discussion

• Using maps to show who wants what and where

• Semi-structured interviews

• Organisations questionnaires

• Parishes questionnaires

Conclusions:

• benefits were gained from investing time and effort into

explaining to stakeholders what the process was about

• use appropriate skills to carry out the chosen method

(not always available in-house)

• different methods are needed for different situations

and types of stakeholder

Nottinghamshire County Council (undated)

• Face to face

• Written Consultations

• Group Consultation

• Parish newsletters

• Direct Public Consultation

• In Depth Consultation

Conclusions:

• face-to-face consultations, be they with groups or individuals,

seem to elicit a more detailed response than other methods

• talking and be able to ask questions leads to a better quality

of response, in a format more useful to those posing

the questions

• the biggest part of the battle was getting people to come

to the group consultations

• the local newsletter part of the process produced a mixed

response, depending on which local residents read them

in detail

4 Consultation techniques employed

103

Codes of Practice

Conflict resolution

Consensus building

Consultation

Engagement

Good practice

Participant

Participation

Participatory appraisal

Stakeholder

A list of actions that, taken together, represent the responsible and legal way in which to undertake an

activity. A code may be specific to a single recreational activity (e.g. canoeing), and possibly in a specific

location or type of habitat (e.g. Marine Code for the Pembrokeshire Coast, by Wales Tourist Board et al,

undated).

The process through which differences in views between parties are removed, such as through correction

of misunderstandings, improving knowledge, changing opinions, compromise and so on.

A negotiation or process of decision-making aimed at recognising and respecting common interests

and working together for mutual benefit (taken directly from Sidaway, 2005). It differs from “conflict

resolution” as consensus building can occur without any conflict existing.

A process in which one party exposes its thinking, ideas and options to scrutiny by others, with a view

to improving the consultors’ proposals through the responses of consultees, including facilitating

acceptance of the proposals.

Any form of contact between interested parties. This could be one-to-one discussions, public meetings,

seminars/workshops and written communication. This differs from “consultation” as it usually involves

contemporaneous exchange of ideas.

Actions that would generally be regarded as responsible behaviour. It differs from “best practice” in that

good practice is what can reasonably be expected of most people.

An individual who takes part in an activity, such as canal boating.

A process during which individuals, groups and organisations are consulted about, or have the opportunity

to, become actively involved in a project or programme of activity.

An approach which uses group animation to facilitate information gathering and sharing, analysis and

action. Its purpose is to get development practitioners, government officials and local people to work

together.

Anyone with an interest in a site/area of land, including watercourses and canals. In terms of canal

boating, stakeholders will include: - canal boat users, businesses that rely on canals, environmental

regulators (e.g. Scottish Environment Protection Agency, English Nature), navigation authorities

(British Waterways), local residents, environmental bodies, riparian landowners and so on.

5 Definitions of commonly used terms

6 ReferencesPlease note that the organisations English Nature and

the Countryside Agency, referred to below, became part

of Natural England (www.naturalengland.org.uk) at its

creation in October 2006.

Best of Both Worlds – www.bobw.co.uk. Website developed

for the Countryside Agency, English Nature and Central

Council of Physical Recreation.

Bishop, J. 1996. Consensus in the Countryside: An

Overview. In: Consensus in the Countryside – Reaching

shared agreement in policy, planning and management.

Proceedings from a workshop held on 15th February 1996.

Countryside Recreation Network, Sheffield Hallam

University, Sheffield.

British Canoe Union 1999. Agreeing Access to Water for

Canoeing. See website:

www.bcu.org.uk/pdfdocs/agree%20access%20canoeing.pdf

British Waterways 2002. Waterways for People. British

Waterways, Watford. See website:

www.britishwaterways.co.uk/images/Final%20WFP%20sing

le%20pages_tcm6-71385.pdf

Bryden, D., Donaldson, N. 2004. Management for People.

Report for Scottish Natural Heritage. SNH, Battleby.

Council for National Parks 2005. Off Road or Off Limits?

Recreational Driving in the National Parks. CNP, London.

Countryside Agency 2005. Managing Public Access. Ref

CA210. Countryside Agency Publications, Wetherby.

Countryside Council for Wales (undated). SSSI citation for

Llandegfedd Reservoir.

Countryside Council for Wales 1998. A Model Approach to

Resolving Conflict in the Countryside. Ref CCC167.

Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor.

Crowe, L., Mulder, C. 2005. Promoting Outdoor Recreation

in the English National Parks: Guide To Good Practice.

Report for the Countryside Agency. Countryside Agency,

Cheltenham.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2003.

Rural England: Summary of Responses. Responses to

Question 4. See website: www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-

countryside/consult/ruraleng/response/rural05.htm.

Ellison, M. 2000. Windermere and Water Ski-ing: Access

Dilemma for the Future. Countryside Recreation, Summer

2000. See website:

www.countrysiderecreation.org.uk/journal/summer2000/6-

windermere.pdf

Elwyn Owen, R., Holdaway, E. 2001. The Role of

Rangers/Wardens in Implementing the New Right of

Access to Open Countryside in Wales. Report Ref: 01/1.

CCW, Bangor.

Falkirk Council 2005. Countryside Access Strategy –

Executive Summary. See website:

www.falkirk.gov.uk/DevServices/planenv/pdf/Countryside%

20Access/CASSummary.pdf.

Fletcher, J. (undated). Publicity Material. In IWA (Eds.),

Technical Restoration Handbook. See website:

www.waterways.org.uk/library/restoration/tech_handbook/

Chap18.pdf

Kotler, P. 1988. Marketing Management. Analysis,

Planning, Implementation and Control. 6th Edition.

Prentice-Hall International. New Jersey, USA.

Larter, M. 2005. Personal Communication. North Solent

NNR Manager for English Nature.

Nottinghamshire County Council (undated).

Greenwood/Sherwood Access Study (South). Report on

Gedling Demonstration Area Consultation trials. NCC,

Nottingham.

Past Forward Ltd 1998. Bugsworth Canal Basin –

Interpretation Strategy. In: Entec UK Ltd, Asken Ltd 2004

Peak Forest Tramway: Feasibility Study. Report for High

Peak Borough Council. HPBC, Glossop.

Pomfret, J., (2003). Wildlife Conservation. In IWA (Eds.),

Technical Restoration Handbook see website:

www.waterways.org.uk/library/restoration/tech_handbook/

Chap15.pdf

Rural Resources 2004. Rights of Way Improvement Plan

Demonstration Project Public Consultation. Final report

to Shropshire County Council and Telford and the Wrekin

Borough Council. See website:

www.iprow.co.uk/gpg_docs/Salop.Consult.Methods.pdf

Scott, P., Annett, J.A. 2006. A New Approach to Codes

for Responsible Enjoyment of the Countryside in Wales.

104

105

Report (unpublished at time of writing) to Countryside

Council for Wales.

Scottish Natural Heritage 1997. Rangers in Scotland –

SNH Operational Guidance 1997. SNH, Battleby.

ISBN 1 85397 275 4.

Scottish Natural Heritage 2004. Towards Responsible Use:

Influencing Recreational Behaviour in the Countryside.

SNH, Battleby. ISBN 1 85397 405 6

Shoard, M. 1999. This Land is Our Land. Gaia Books,

London. ISBN 1-856-75064-7.

Sidaway, R. 2005. Resolving Environmental Disputes:

From conflict to consensus. Earthscan, London.

ISBN 1-84407-013-1 and 1-84407-014-X

Sport Scotland 1997. Calmer Waters: Guidelines for

Planning and Managing Watersports on Inland Waters

in Scotland by the Scottish Sports Council.

SportScotland, Edinburgh

Studd, K. 2002. An Introduction to Deliberative Methods

of Stakeholder and Public Participation. English Nature

Research Report 474. English Nature, Peterborough.

ISSN 0967-876X

Taylor K, Anderson P, Taylor R, Longden K, Fisher P, 2005.

Dogs, Access and Nature Conservation. English Nature

Research Report 649. English Nature, Peterborough

Taylor, K., Anderson, P., Liley, D., Underhill-Day, J. in prep.

Access-Nature Conservation Good Practice Handbook.

Handbook prepared for Countryside Agency and English

Nature. Countryside Agency, Manchester.

Wales Tourist Board, Countryside Council for Wales,

Environment Agency Wales, National Trust, Milford

Haven Port Authority, Pembrokeshire Coast National

Park Authority and the Crown Estate (undated).

Pembrokeshire Marine Code. See website:

www.pembrokeshiremarinecode.org.uk.

Watkins, J. 2005. Saturation Points. A Question of Respect:

Conservation and Countryside Recreation: Proceedings

of the Countryside Recreation Network Seminar on 28th

June 2005 at Cardiff University. Eds: Bull, M., Powell, K.

Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.

Wildlife and Countryside Link 2005. Priorities for Marine

Spatial Planning: A working paper for Defra. WCL, London.

See website:

www.mcsuk.org/mcs_policy/download_files/marine_bill/W

CL_Priorities_MSP_16Sept05_final.doc

Wilson, G., Robinson, D. 2005. Towards Practical

Management of Motorised Recreational Vehicle Activity

in a National Park. The Lake District Hierarchy of Trails

Routes. Countryside Recreation 13, 2. pp12-18.

Woods, D. (undated). The Impact of Recreation.

Report for IWA. See website:

www.waterways.org.uk/library/restoration/tech_handbook/

Chap16.pdf

106

Appendix 5

Casestudies

107

Ashby CanalCase study 1

Waterway description

Built in 1804, it served mainly coal mines and experienced

a decline during the twentieth century due to subsidence.

The top 8 miles (out of 30) were closed by 1966, with

a current terminus at Snarestone. There is a new 2,100m

length at Moira managed by Leicestershire County Council

(LCC) and partners, which is isolated from the larger main

system managed by British Waterways (BW).

The BW length of canal has no locks and is essentially

rural in character apart from some recent development

in Hinckley. It is approximately 10m wide, 1.2 to 1.4m deep,

shallow at the sides and mainly puddle clay lined. Mooring

is difficult for deeper boats except at certain limited points.

There is sufficient depth for loaded working boats so long

as they keep to the channel.

M69M6

M42

M1

Coalville

Hickley

Nuneaton

Tamworth

AS

HB

Y C

AN

AL

Contributors - roles: Geoffrey Pursglove, Ashby Canal

Project Officer

Organisation(s): Leicestershire County Council (LCC)

Email: ashbycanal@tiscali.co.uk or gpursglove@leics.gov.uk

Website: www.leics.gov.uk and www.ashbycanaltrust.co.uk

Partners: British Waterways as a consultee. Funding for the

canal extension project is provided by LCC, East Midlands

Development Agency, Inland Waterways Association, Community

Foundation, Ashby Canal Trust, Ashby Canal Association,

National Forest Company, Measham Development Trust and

Ashby Canal Trust Supporters.

108

The Moira length has 1 lock (compensating for subsidence)

and is situated in mainly open countryside with strong

National Forest and industrial heritage influences. It is

approximately 12m wide, 1.4m deep and lined with either

MDPE liner, bentomat, or puddle clay.

Along the BW stretches, the canal has sedge banks, sheet

piling and some wooden bank protection installed mainly

to assist in reinstating the towing path in places.

Along the Moira stretch the canal has bank protection

consisting of concrete walling and galvanised sheeting,

along with natural banks protected by sedge and other

aquatics.

Some dredging has been carried out on the BW length over

last 4 years in accordance with a Natural England (NE)

management agreement, estimated at a maximum depth

of about 1.2m.

The main water source for the BW length is the River Swift

on the Northern Oxford; its water quality is generally good

with no known significant abstractions. For the Moira

length, there are 2 boreholes with a total licensed

abstraction of 26 cubic metres per hour. The water has a

high iron content and is treated by reed bed to meet the

Environment Agency discharge consent.

The canal’s current use along the BW length, whose top 6

miles are a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), is for

general boating, angling and passenger boats (4 at Sutton

Cheney Wharf.). Along the restored Moira length the canal

sees trip boats, work boats, trailable boats, some limited

angling and some canoeing by local groups.

Navigational use

Boating and other recreational activities are encouraged

in accordance with BW policies and plans, such as

Waterways 2025.

The objective for the Moira length is for it to be connected

to the main navigable network, potentially within the next

10 years, and LCC is currently preparing an outline

feasibility study to that effect.

The BW length has predominately leisure use, both private

and hire, with a hire base at Stoke Golding. It also hosts

a major historic working boat event at Shackerstone,

has very minor freight use by narrow boat and also

some canoeing.

The Moira length currently sees trip boats, limited trailable

boats and some canoeing.

The 2005 boat figure movements along the BW length

show that approximately 5,500 to 6,000 passed Market

Bosworth; about 4,000 passed the Snarestone Tunnel

portal in 2006. Boat numbers show seasonal variation,

being low in the winter.

Movements along the Moira length are presently low;

aiming to reach 3,000 to 4,000 boat movements a year

by 2015 should it become connected to the BW system.

There are no movement restrictions on the BW length;

at Moira the lock and swing bridge are padlocked and

opened on request.

109

Navigation restoration proposals

The Moira section has been restored to full

navigable condition.

Otherwise, there is a Transport & Works Act (TWA) Order

authorising the reconstruction of the 4,500m Snarestone

to Measham length. LCC is in the process of raising the

necessary funding and finalising the legal and planning

issues; these include water abstraction matters,

compliance with NE conditions, performing site

investigations and an archaeological survey.

Local navigation interest groups

Ashby Canal Trust, Ashby Canal Trust Supporters, Ashby

Canal Association, Measham Canal Restoration Group,

Inland Waterways Association Lichfield branch.

Nature conservation interest

The top 6 miles are an SSSI; BW has a management

agreement with NE. The SSSI has emergent aquatic

vegetation, crayfish and species of damsel fly.

Along the Moira stretch banks are, where practicable,

allowed to vegetate naturally so providing useful habitat,

particularly on the offside.

On the Snarestone to Measham length (the subject of the

TWA Order), the Gilwiskaw Brook (to be crossed by

aqueduct), is an SSSI and Special Area of Conservation

(SAC).

Copies of the SSSI designation for Ashby Canal and River

Mease/ Gilwiskaw Brook are appended to the LCC

Environmental Statement.

Specific conservation issues are turbidity, along the BW

length, and bank erosion, along the Moira length, which is

now largely resolved by planting of appropriate reed and

sedge species.

Local wildlife interest groups

Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust.

Relationship between navigation and nature

conservation interests

BW has a management agreement with NE.

NE requires LCC to provide off-line reserves, where

practicable, on the BW length to compensate for any

potential increase in traffic due to restoration.

Local waterway groups support wildlife protection

measures that are not at the expense of navigation; the

only real uncertainty is what, if any, increase in boat traffic

on an additional 4,500m of canal will generate and how

this would affect aquatic wildlife.

Management actions or proposals

On the BW length, trees were felled over a few hundred

metres north of Shackerstone to get more light into the

canal and encourage weed growth.

From Snarestone to Measham, offside planting areas are

incorporated in the restoration design.

Along the Moira length, bankside aquatic growth is

encouraged. Experimenting with coir matting and coils

showed coir coils to be satisfactory by allowing the

establishment of aquatics and also preventing erosion.

This method will be used where appropriate on the

Snarestone to Measham length.

Good practice lessons

A consensus building approach is done mainly through

meetings, to ensure agreement is reached.

This is a lengthy process, given the differing agendas of the

key stakeholders, e.g. NE and the SSSIs, BW in ensuring

navigation and Leics County Council wishing to restore

stretches of the canal with no SSSI on it, but affected by it.

Communication and consultation is important, taking care

that talks and meetings do not result in excessive

investigations and surveys which slow down the actual

planned restoration.

Sources of further information

Leicestershire County Council Environmental Statement,

Vols 1 and 2.

110

The BroadsCase study 2

Waterway description

The area known as the Broads is located in Norfolk and

Suffolk in the east of England. It extends over the lower

valleys of the Rivers Waveney, Yare and Bure, together with

the two tributaries of the Bure (the Ant and the Thurne)

and the tributaries of the River Yare. The nature of the

low-lying land in these valleys is diverse. The wetland

habitat includes rivers, streams, dykes and the open water

of the broads (shallow lakes), fens and carr woodland.

The Broads area covers some 30,000ha. There are around

63 broads, which range in size from tiny isolated lakes

to the huge expanse of water like Hickling Broad (120ha).

The majority of the Broads are tidal, but only the lower

reaches are saline/brackish.

NorwichNorwichThe

Broads

Acle

StalhamHoveton

Loddon

Bungay

Contributors - roles: Andrea Kelly,Conservation Officer (Waterways strategy)

Organisation(s): Broads Authority

Email: Andrea.Kelly@broads-authority.gov.uk

Website: www.broads-authority.gov.uk

Partners: A wide range of partners and stakeholders are involved in managing the Broadswetland. Some are represented at the Broads Authority consultative committee (the ‘BroadsForum’) which includes representation from the following areas: boating/water basedrecreation, commercial boating, land based recreation, angling, tourism, farming/landowning,environmental protection, conservation, drainage/flood prevention, culturalheritage/landscape, local charities and other societies such as the Broads Society which is acampaigning and volunteer organisation aiming to promote the future well-being of the area.

111

The shallow lakes known as the broads were created as

a result of peat digging (turf cutting) from the 12th to 14th

century. Throughout the history of the region, the waterways

linking the broads were essential for communication and

commerce. Commercial cargo traffic was at its heights

in the Broads in the 19th century. Changes in economic

conditions and the development of the railway system were

the main factors which brought about a gradual shift away

from commerce and trade to recreation and pleasure in the

region. The 20th century brought an explosion in commerce

based on recreation, helped by the development of the

railway system in Norfolk which brought many visitors

to the region. The recognition of alarming environmental

degradation in the late 1960s led to the creation of the

Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Authority through an Act of

Parliament in 1988. The organisation began operating

in 1989 and is responsible for conserving and enhancing

the natural beauty of the Broads, promoting their enjoyment

by the public and protecting the interests of navigation.

The potential for recreation in the Broads is immense and

includes sailing, motor-boating, rowing, canoeing, fishing

and bird watching. With more than 2 million visitors a year,

the area needs sensitive management for nature

conservation and amenity use to coexist successfully.

The majority of the Broads area is below high tide level and

defended by river embankments. Climate change and the

potential for sea level rise is therefore a big issue in the

Broads, which will shape future policy development and

management decisions, particularly with respect to the

cost and practicality of maintaining sea defences.

Important issues in the Broads are nutrient enrichment,

with the resultant loss of species and habitats, and

sediment accumulation. This is mainly due to treated

sewage effluent inputs and agricultural practices in the

upper part of the river catchments, although half of the

siltation that occurs is due to bank erosion partly caused

by boat wash. In order to maintain navigation, an intensive

dredging programme is required which has a huge cost

implication. The Broads Authority, as part of its Sediment

Management Strategy, is working with the Catchment

Sensitive Farming Initiative to try and minimise silt input

from agricultural fields in the upper catchment.

Navigational use

The Broads have some 200km of lock-free navigable

waterways and 400ha of navigable waters on 17 broads

(two of which are restricted to summer navigation),

with navigable links to the sea via Great Yarmouth and

via Mutford Lock at Lowestoft. The maximum depth of

the navigable rivers is 6m in small parts of the Port area,

but most are much shallower. For the broads the mean

depth is around 1.5m. All broads are privately owned, and

some have boat access restrictions or prohibition, although

around 75% of the water space is navigable. Some areas

within the Upper Thurne are voluntary exclusion zones

to protect wintering wild birds; these are usually well

respected by boaters. The Broads Authority provides

a free mooring network where boats can stay for 24 hours.

Moorings can also be found at public houses and

boatyards. Scheduled works to river navigations are

posted on their website.

A total of 13,000 recreational vessels are registered in the

Broads, including private and hire boats. The majority

(about 75%) are motorised vessels but there is also much

sailing activity. There is a wide range of navigation related

activities on the Broads including sailing schools and

regattas, power boat racing (Oulton Broad) and water

skiing on designated sections of rivers. There is also a

large hire boat industry which caters for holiday-makers.

The majority of visitors come to the Broads in the summer

and holiday seasons.

The Broads Authority works with the Green Blue initiative

to encourage environmental friendly boating and some of

the Broads’ boatyards are at the forefront of development

and design of sustainable boating (e.g. new wash down

collection systems and the EcoBoat project). In total, there

are about 20 electric boats for hire on the Broads; the

Broads Authority provides a network of charging points

throughout the waterway network.

112

Navigation restoration proposals

The main rivers and majority of the broads are open

to navigation. The recent opening of Whitlingham Broads

provides new water space near Norwich. In addition,

a proposal to create a new broad for Great Yarmouth

is receiving considerable local support.

There are proposals for the restoration of some linked

navigations, particularly the North Walsham and Dilham

Canal, which linked the River Ant to Swafield and

Antingham Ponds via 6 locks. The East Anglian Waterways

Association (EAWA) has recently organised volunteer

working parties to undertake restoration work on the

canal. Other derelict navigation works include 5 locks

on the River Bure, between Coltishall and Aylesham,

and 3 locks on the River Waveney, between Geldeston and

Bungay. The examination of opportunities for extending

navigation on all three of these waterways is included

in the Broads Authority’s Action Plan.

Local navigation interest groups

EAWA, the Broads Society, Norfolk and Suffolk Boating

Association, Broads Hire Boat Federation.

Nature conservation interest

The Broads are one of Europe’s finest and most important

wetlands for nature conservation. Under national

legislation, there are 28 sites designated as Sites of

Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), and many of these are

also National and Local Nature Reserves (NNR and LNR).

Virtually all the SSSI network is also designated as Special

Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the Habitats Directive

or Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds

Directive and as a Ramsar site of international importance.

The Broads are renowned for their high biological diversity

and the presence of many rare species of wetland birds

such as the bittern, teal and widgeon.

Both ecological and chemical monitoring is carried out in the

Broads. Biological monitoring includes annual surveys of

aquatic plants around 24 broads. Wetland plants are a good

indicator of freshwater ecosystem health and this program

has shown slow recovery of the broads since their decline

30-40 years ago.

From an ecological perspective, the Broads system as a

whole is not stable and is affected by a wide range of factors.

There are a number of issues linking nature conservation

and navigation:

• The number of motor boats on the Broads has created

problems in the fragile Broads environment. Boat wash has

damaged river banks and mobilises silt, producing cloudy

water. This silt gathers at the bottom of the waterways,

increasing the need for dredging if the waterways are to

remain navigable.

• Restoration projects aimed at improving navigation and

water quality on some broads, for example projects on

Barton and Hickling Broads, have stimulated aquatic plant

growth which can interfere with navigation. To prevent

some of the past conflicts between various interests,

wide consultation and information dissemination has

been carried out. Water Space Management Plans have

also been prepared, which zone the waterway according

to use and allow a suitable macrophyte cutting regime

to be developed taking into account the needs of

various stakeholders.

• The application of antifouling paint is necessary for sea

going boats and fast sailing. Toxic compounds used in the

past and now banned, e.g. Tri-Butyl Tin, have contributed

towards the past ecological decline of the waterways.

Alternatives and their use are now being trialled and

monitored. The Broads Authority and the Green Blue

initiative have produced a leaflet and poster to raise the

awareness of boat owners and boatyards on this issue.

Local wildlife interest groups

Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Suffolk Wildlife Trust, the

Broads Society.

Relationship between navigation and nature

conservation interests

There is a big focus on conservation in the Broads, coupled

with a decline in tourism over the past 10 years or so. Overall,

there is a growing awareness that the Broads experience

needs to be sustainable and that environmentally friendly

holidays are more satisfying for customers, and consequently

for the local economy. The relationship between boaters and

nature conservation interests can be affected when it leads

to restrictions or hindrance to navigation, for example on

Barton Broad.

On most issues the Broads Authority has a good working

relationship with the various stakeholders. Its Waterways

Directorate facilitates close working of officers on joint issues.

Its strategy for the management of aquatic plants is to try and

identify problems before they occur, so that solutions can be

identified in advance and rapidly implemented should those

problems occur.

113

Management actions or proposals

The maintenance of navigation is a big issue. The Broads

Authority has prepared a Sediment Management Strategy

with a range of stakeholders, which aims to look at the source

as well as the settlement and removal of sediment. The

Waterway Specifications for navigation have been designed

by boaters and have been posted on a local boating society

website for wider consultation in the boating community.

Under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act (1988), the Broads

Authority is required to produce a Broads Plan and review

it at least once every five years. The Broads Plan 2004 sets

out a vision and long-term 20-year aims for the future of the

Broads. It also specifies short-term priority objectives towards

addressing these aims in the next five years, which are

supported by an Action Plan. A wide range of organisations

are involved in drawing up and implementing the plan and

many others are consulted. The effectiveness of the Action

Plan is monitored using a set of indicators to assess progress.

It is planned to establish a small representative panel of

partner organisations and other key stakeholders to assist the

Authority in overseeing the monitoring and assessment of the

implementation of the Broads Plan and Action Plan. There are

four main themes to both plans: Living Landscape, Water,

Habitats and Wildlife, Tourism and Recreation, and

Understanding the Broads.

The aims of the Broads Plan are to maintain and enhance

water quality and biodiversity along with promoting tourism

and recreation in a sustainable manner. These aims are to

be achieved through a comprehensive program of research,

monitoring and practical actions as set out in the Action Plan

and which cover both nature conservation and navigation.

For example, they include:

• review and analyse water quality and ecological data

from the last 20 years;

• identify sustainable levels of boat traffic;

• develop management strategies for controlling invasive

alien organisms;

• maintain and expand navigation through a dredging

program;

• promote the design and use of environmentally

friendly craft;

• promote boat etiquette to improve safety and reduce

environmental impacts;

• use soft engineering solutions, where practicable,

to protect banks from erosion;

• sustainably manage aquatic plants;

• encourage stakeholder and community participation.

Good practice lessons

Consultation via the Broads Forum and Broads Tourism

Forum was judged by the Beacon Council Awards judges

to be “innovative and appropriate” and the involvement

in the process of the boat hire industry and other commercial

businesses “impressive”.

Early consultation with stakeholders before any action

is taken is essential to minimise conflict.

Making time and resources available for the development of a

management plan with genuine involvement of all stakeholder

groups, to achieve maximum buy-in from interested parties,

yields benefits in the long term. Considerable efforts were

made to ensure that the process was transparent,

participatory and inclusive from the outset. The process was

designed to bring together a wide range of organisations and

individuals, create a common purpose and collective

responsibility for the future of the Broads, generate

consensus around a set of objectives based on a shared vision

for the future of the Broads and to engender a strong sense of

ownership among organisations.

Sources of further information

Broads Authority website

www.broads-authority.gov.uk

Broads Society website

www.broads-society.org.uk/index-2.html

The Green Blue Initiative website

www.thegreenblue.org.uk/practicalprojects/index.asp

114

Bude CanalCase study 3

Waterway description

The Bude Canal was built in the 1820s to take sea sand,

primarily, into the agricultural hinterland. Use ceased by

1900. Barges were used on the first section and tub boats

operated on the three inland arms of the canal.

The length was 57km in total, comprising the main line

from Bude to Blagdon Moor Wharf, near Holsworthy,

with a branch from Red Post to Druxton Wharf, near

Launceston, and a feeder arm from the newly constructed

Tamar Lake (now Lower Tamar Lake). The canal was

unusual in that it was constructed for agricultural

purposes: the transporting of lime rich sand for the

improving of soil.

Ri v e

r Ne

et

B UD

E C

AN

AL

Bude

Flexbury

Helebridge

Thorne

BudePoint

Bagbury

A39A3073

Helebridge

Contributors - roles: Charlie David, Public Space Manager

Organisation(s): North Cornwall District Council (NCDC)

Email: charlie.david@ncdc.gov.uk

Website: www.ncdc.gov.uk

Partners: Local interest groups, landowners, Devon and

Cornwall County Councils, Environment Agency, South West

Lakes Trust, Local Community Groups.

115

The canal engineer James Green and Thomas Sheaton,

a surveyor, concluded that because of rising land and

a poor supply of water most of the ascents would be by

inclined planes, which were cheaper to construct, saved

water and were quicker to use than a flight of locks.

The canal for the first 2 miles was a barge canal, 11.4m

wide at water level with a depth of 1.4m, accommodating

vessels of 40-50 tons. A sea lock and breakwater were

constructed to allow sailing vessels of 70-100 tons to be

admitted to the basin. The course of the River Neet was

changed from discharging along the northern edge of

Summerleaze Beach to its present course, to create

a channel to give depth for manoeuvring vessels.

Further inland the canal was narrower, 3m wide at water

level and 1m in depth, using tub boats which had wheels

to traverse the inclined planes in trains, towed by a

continuous chain. Inclined planes at Marhamchurch, Venn,

Merrifield, Tamerton and Werrington derived power from

underground waterwheels at the head of the plane. The

largest plane at Thurlibeer, now called Hobbacott Down,

which was 285m long and raised the level of the canal

69m, used water power in the form of counter-balancing

‘buckets of water’ (cysterns) in 2 wells of 69m depth. Each

‘bucket’, holding 15 tons of water, would rise and fall in the

well. A valve on the bottom of the ‘bucket’ released the

water which returned to the canal.

The canal banks have stone revetment at the Lower Wharf,

inland of which their construction comprises earth banks

with puddle clay lining. Part was dredged in 1995, otherwise

no dredging has taken place since the 1970s. The sea lock

gates were restored in 2000 and consolidation has been

undertaken of the sea lock walls damaged in 1996

by storms.

Water supply is from the Rivers Neet and Strat which

converge at Helebridge. At this point there is a weir; this

is overtopped at times of high flow water to supply the river

Neet which then continues down to Summerleaze beach in

Bude, adjacent to the canal. In times of low flow, no water

overtops the weir and the paddle in the weir allows water

to pass into the river. There is a concern about low flows.

The canal also leaks, supplying water into a Local Nature

Reserve (LNR), significantly enhancing its reed bed habitat.

The Environment Agency (EA) has required NCDC to apply

for, and has subsequently provided, an abstraction licence

to enable there to be a better share of the water resource

at times of low flow. NCDC is working on a methodology

to monitor and adjust flows.

Blue green algae has also occurred in both the canal and

the river, giving rise to health and safety concerns and

highlighting the need to consider water flows.

The canal is now used for leisure boating, outdoor activity

training, angling and nature conservation.

Navigational use

Currently the main navigation use of the canal is by

recreational boats including canoes, dragon boats and

kayaks, for water sports/training, and small rowing boats,

for general recreational use. The harbour (Lower Wharf)

is also used for visiting vessels of varying sizes and by local

boatmen when bringing their boats out of the seaward

harbour in times of bad weather, for repairs or during the

winter. It is also proposed to provide for small electrically

powered craft for trips up the canal.

For the first 1km from the sea lock gates, the use by water

sport trainees and by recreation rowing boats is intense

in the summer. There is an issue with the adjacent river

which was once used as a boating area; a weir retained

a navigable depth of water at all states of the tide as the

natural river is tidal. Now, for various reasons, the weir

is kept down and the users of the river have transferred

to the canal.

NCDC has had a carrying capacity study done to enable

it to understand the opportunities for managing current

and future demand. There is a licensing policy in place

for commercial users. There are currently no other

restrictions, but this is likely to change.

Principal issues to be addressed include the level of use

and resulting noise, low water flows in the summer and

derelict locks on the barge canal preventing use of the

canal further inland.

Navigation restoration proposals

The Bude Canal is subject to a comprehensive restoration

proposal, mainly focussing on restoring navigation along

the barge canal length. This includes dredging, repairs

to the lining, the restoration of two sets of locks, possibly

installing a lift bridge, reconnecting the end of the canal

close to its historic end point at the Helebridge wharf,

improvements to physical and intellectual access and

the development of a training and marketing strategy.

Technical feasibility studies have been undertaken and

a Conservation Plan prepared, some funded through a

Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) grant. The project has now

been awarded a Phase 2 pass by the HLF and grants have

been forthcoming from Europe, through the Objective

1 programme, and from the South West Regional

Development Agency. The £4.3m project is now well

underway and due to be completed in December 2008.

116

Local navigation interest groups

Bude Canal and Harbour Society, Bude Canal Trust

(owners of the Bude Aqueduct part of the canal system).

Nature conservation interest

The objective is to maintain and, where possible, enhance

the nature conservation interest of the canal. These

objectives have been articulated within the Conservation

Plan and the bid documentation.

The Canal passes through a LNR, closely associated with

the canal, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a

national nature reserve. Protected species associated with

the canal include the otter and marsh fritillaries, which are

also Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority species. The

Culm grasslands, a BAP priority habitat, adjoin the canal.

Some structures are important as bat roosting sites and

the canal is known as a feeding site for bat species.

No biological monitoring is routinely undertaken. Water

quality is tested regularly close to the side weir allowing

water to discharge into the river and thence onto the

adjacent beach. Full details and data can be obtained from

the NCDC Environmental Health Section.

Water quality has become an issue with the appearance of

blue green algae, not a direct nature conservation concern

in its own right but probably indicative that the aquatic

environment is stressed. Management of the seepage from

the canal into the adjacent LNR is critical in that this water

makes the LNR habitat special, but this has to be balanced

against water requirements of the canal and river.

There is also a perceived issue over potential disturbance

to the wildlife if the canal becomes used more intensively.

This is something that needs to be addressed.

There has probably been no change in chemical water

quality over the last 10-20 years. Agricultural run off is

likely to have enriched the water nutrient levels in the

past when farming was locally more intensive, but

agriculture is becoming more extensive, which is likely

to reduce nutrient rich run off. There are no known

sources of other contaminants.

Recreational use is seen as a pressure on nature

conservation interests but mitigation measures are

planned, such as the creation of new ponds and

wetland areas.

Local wildlife interest groups

Cornwall Wildlife Trust, Devon Wildlife Trust, Environment

Agency, Bude Marshes Management Committee.

Relationship between navigation and nature

conservation interests

The Bude Canal Regeneration Partnership embraces

all interests. The Environment Agency provides nature

conservation input, as does NCDC’s Coast and

Countryside Service.

The Bude Canal Regeneration Partnership began in 1997.

It meets regularly; all interests have been involved in

developing the regeneration plan and have been able to

comment on the various proposal documents that have

been developed, including the Conservation Plan and the

Feasibility studies. The waterway management has a high

regard to nature conservation. However, there is a

perception that additional navigation activity may increase

disturbance to wildlife.

As they are integral partners to the development of the

project, the nature conservation interests are well known

and addressed. There appears to be no conflict at this

time. Most issues are well covered through the detailed

feasibility work already undertaken in advance of the

possible implementation of the canal restoration project.

Management actions or proposals

The Bude Canal Conservation Plan aims to balance

recreational and nature conservation interests. All

regeneration proposals have been undertaken in light

of this plan.

The assessments of technical measures for minimising

adverse effects have been incorporated into contract

specifications. The development of appropriate mitigation

measures to counteract potential adverse effects on nature

conservation is important in that there is a duty of NCDC

to demonstrate that nature conservation has due regard

paid to it during the development and implementation phase.

The Bude Canal Regeneration Partnership is a major

vehicle for consensus building, as is the consultation

process which has engaged with the local community and

the various interest groups. The effectiveness of these

approaches is currently being analysed.

117

NCDC believes that the approach taken has been open,

transparent and, as all of the community has had an

opportunity to engage, successful. It believes that the

approach used has been successful in avoiding or resolving

conflict. The development of the canal regeneration project

has taken so long and involved so many people that,

realistically, NCDC feels little more could have been

done to encourage more involvement and contact with

users of the canal and the local community in building

a consensus approach.

The fact that the project has been awarded a stage two

pass from the HLF suggests to NCDC that its approach

to the project and the management of the canal is

satisfactory, when measured against the HLF criteria,

which are probably quite useful guidelines.

Good practice lessons

1) Bude Canal Users’ Forum

A number of years ago there was a Bude Canal Users

Committee which met at least once a year in order to

discuss matters relevant to the canal. This group consisted

of riparian owners, boat users, walkers, parish and town

councils, as well as elected members of the District

Council. When the committee structures changed a few

years ago, the Council decided to do away with sub

committees and chose to go to cabinet style management.

Consequently this forum disappeared at the very time that

the canal regeneration project started.

NCDC has now resurrected the user group as the Bude

Canal Users’ Forum, the chairman of which now sits on the

Partnership. The Forum meets at least twice a year and

sub (special issue) groups meet as and when required to

discuss specific issues.

2) Bude Canal Regeneration Partnership

The development of the regeneration project has taken a

long time. A Partnership was developed to take the project

forward. This Partnership, particularly as the time has

been so long, has required considerable management and

encouragement. There are probably lessons to be learnt

about how to manage expectations within a Partnership,

knowing now that project development can take

many years.

3) General consultation process

Much of what is described above is centred upon local

consultation. Where the canal is seen as an important local

asset there can never be enough local engagement. The

resources required for demonstrable consultation should

not be underestimated. At the start of any project, or

indeed when introducing a new management regime,

preparing a consultation strategy which identifies how local

people and the various statutory and non statutory bodies

can be kept involved, is strongly recommended. The

strategy needs to be realistic about the resources required,

which may be considerable.

Sources of further information

Please see the web page on www.ncdc.gov.uk

(use the search facility to search for Bude Canal).

118

Forth and Clyde CanalCase study 4

Waterway description

Built 1768-1790 as a ship canal linking east and west

coasts of Scotland, the Forth and Clyde became an

important transport route for goods (agricultural, industrial

including coal, wood, quarried stone and sand) and people

(up to 200,000 a year).

It spawned the development of numerous industries along

its length including shipbuilding, foundries, iron works,

engineering plants, distilleries, chemical works and

factories (glass, dye). Navigation rights were extinguished

on 1 January 1963.

Through navigation was re-established via the Millennium

Link project in 1999-2001, which involved the provision

of 25 new fixed and 12 opening bridges, dredging 150,000t

of sediment and dumped items, building 1km of new canal

channel, the renovation of 32 locks, building 6 new locks

(including the first drop lock in the world at Dalmuir) and

upgrading 55km of canal towpath. The link with the Union

Canal via the Falkirk Wheel boat lift was opened in 2002.

M9

M9

M8

M80

M77

M73Greenock

Paisley

Irvine

Hamilton

MotherwellLivingston

Airdrie

EastKilbride

Dumbarton

Stirling

Falkirk

Cumbernauld

AlloaM876

M80

M74

GlasgowGlasgowFORT H & C LYD

E C ANA L

Contributors - roles: Dr Olivia Lassière, Environmental Scientist Scotland

Organisation(s): British Waterways Scotland (BWS)

Email: olivia.lassiere@britishwaterways.co.uk

Website: www.britishwaterways.co.uk

119

This is a man-made canal: 18.0m wide at the top and 1.8m

deep with 39 locks which are mostly 20.9m x 6.0m, but

the sea locks at Bowling and the Carron and Dalmuir

Drop Lock are larger. The summit pound is 26km long at

47.5m AOD. It is principally clay lined in cutting or earth

embankment. Some areas are also as dug or lined with

concrete or bentonite clay matting. 70% of the bank is

protected, using various methods: vertical stone walls

24%, stone pitching 10%, wooden piles 20%, concrete

10%, sheet piling 2%, trench sheet piling 3% and gabion

baskets 1%. Where walls have collapsed, and along most

embankments, there is substantial development of

emergent vegetation fringes estimated to be around 65%

of the canal’s length.

The Millennium Link dredging project removed 150,000t

of contaminated sediment and larger items including cars,

furniture and shopping trolleys to provide a channel 6m

wide and mainly 1.8m deep. In some areas wall to wall

dredging was undertaken to allow for boat mooring. A wide

range of sediment contaminants was encountered on the

canal as a result of the industrial past, with high levels in

some locations. The disposal of dredged material is a key

management issue due to Waste Management Licensing

requirements and the recent EU Landfill Directive. Since

2001, major works have included further repairs and a new

link between Port Dundas and Spiers Wharf, completed

in October 2006, which includes a new basin, a new fixed

bridge and two new locks.

Hillend Reservoir, Lilly Loch and Black Loch feed into the

western end via the North Calder Water and the Monkland

Canal (some of which is piped). Two further reservoirs,

Birkenburn and Townhead, supply water to the summit

near Kilsyth. The side-long catchment also provides some

water supply. The whole supply system can support flows

of up to 35M litres per day, average flow velocities within

the canal are less than 0.1 metres per second.

Canal water quality ranges from Class A2 (Good) to Class C

(Poor) (2001 statistics - Scottish River Classification Scheme).

The main contributor to the poor classifications is the low

level of dissolved oxygen associated with slow flows, high

weed growth and organic enrichment. There are very

localised impacts of discharges, for example from septic

tanks, and very occasionally small algal blooms have

been reported.

The canal’s uses include boating (powered and unpowered),

angling (coarse), environmental and built heritage

education, nature conservation, bird/general wildlife

watching, practical conservation, limited freight carriage,

water supply and drainage.

Navigational use

Navigational objectives are to provide safe navigation for

inland and transit vessels and, through bringing ‘life to the

water’, stimulate regeneration and economic growth in the

area. British Waterways Scotland (BWS) is endeavouring

to deliver 1.8m water draught, 3.05m air draught, 19.2m

length and 5.94m beam to suit the use of both transit and

mixed inland craft, including cabin cruisers, narrow boats,

trip boats, de-masted yachts, canoes and freight vessels.

The main boating season is April to October. There were

165 long term moored boats, 12,000 lockages and 125

transit passages by yachts and motor boats in 2005. There

are localised closures for engineering works in the winter

months. There are tidal restrictions to entry at the sea

locks at Bowling and River Carron; boats are encouraged

to travel together through locks to save water where

possible. Boats are escorted through locks by BWS staff.

At the moment the number of boats transiting the canal

is relatively small and the market is developing since the

re-opening in 2001. There have been some very localised

problems where anglers have complained about boats

passing too close to angling equipment or free clumps of

aquatic vegetation hampering their sport. A small number

of boaters have formally complained about the aquatic

weeds/sediment/objects hampering movement in

some areas.

Navigation restoration proposals

The main line of the Canal was restored in 2001; the new

link between the Glasgow Branch at Spier’s Wharf and

Port Dundas occurred in October 2006.

Local navigation interest groups

Forth & Clyde Canal Society.

Nature conservation interest

Nature conservation objectives are defined in the BW web

based Biodiversity Action Plan for the Lowland Canals as:

• improve our knowledge of the distribution and

abundance of our key species;

• manage the waterway environment to reduce and

mitigate the threats to habitats and key species;

• develop a greater awareness amongst colleagues,

partners and visitors of key species and their

conservation requirements;

• effective management of invasive species;

• improved management of key habitats to maintain and

increase biodiversity value;

• develop a greater awareness amongst colleagues,

partners and visitors of key habitats and their

conservation requirements;

• develop and establish partnerships to benefit

biodiversity;

• where appropriate create new areas of key habitat

in line with country and national BAP objectives.

120

There are Sites Of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)

adjacent to some reservoirs and the linked estuaries of the

Forth and Clyde are SSSIs and Special Protection Areas

(SPAs). Possil Marsh SSSI is adjacent to the canal and

includes open water habitat but does not include the

navigable channel.

The canal supports the water vole, otter, Daubenton’s bat,

common toad, common frog, palmate newt and smooth

newt, as well as nationally scarce pondweeds Potamogeton

friesii and P. trichoides. Other species of interest include

Nuphar x spenneriana (a water lily), Alisma lanceolata,

Potamogeton x bennettii (endemic to the canal),

Bdellocephala punctata (a triclad), Alona weltneri (a

cladoceran) and Piscicola geometra (fish leech).

Potential and developing problems include: invasive

species out-competing and threatening native species (e.g.

Japanese knotweed, Himalyan balsam, water fern,

Canadian and Nuttall’s pondweeds, ruffe and mink);

diffuse pollution from adjacent land contributing to the

occurrence of filamentous algal growth and of blue green

algal blooms; shading from tall urban developments;

boat movements resulting in localised increased water

turbidity; disturbance of waterfowl by boat traffic and

increased bank erosion. In some areas formal walls have

collapsed creating soft embankments of high nature

conservation value.

The perceived ecological quality trends are both positive

and negative. Water quality has improved with the removal

of contamination and increased water flows. Water voles

have declined due to predation by mink, despite the

presence of suitable habitat. The incidence of

duckweed/water fern has decreased as the obstructions to

water flow have been removed. There are some anecdotal

reports of waterfowl numbers decreasing in the Glasgow

area. This trend has not been reported elsewhere.

Local wildlife interest groups

Scottish Wildlife Trust, Scottish Natural Heritage,

Biodiversity Action Plan steering groups of the local

authorities through which the canal passes, Scottish

Federation for Coarse Angling and Lowland Canals

Angling Partnership.

Relationship between navigation and nature

conservation interests

The nature conservation value of the Canal is recognised.

In general the low traffic intensity is not seen to have

a nature conservation impact on the greater part of the

Canal and nature conservation interests are not seen

as a threat to navigation.

Problems have been reported of aquatic vegetation causing

a navigation hazard and interfering with angling. BWS has

addressed these concerns successfully by implementing an

aquatic weed management strategy to keep the centre 6m

of the canal channel open. However, Glasgow City Council

and others are concerned about the effects of aquatic plant

management and about disturbance of waterfowl by boat

traffic. BWS’ management approach aims to balance its

navigation and nature conservation duties and this is

communicated regularly in presentations to user groups.

BWS liaises with local Scottish Natural Heritage officers

regarding works on SSSIs along the canal and is aiming to

agree on a management plan for Dullatur Marsh SSSI. This

will aim also to meet Water Framework Directive

requirements in protected sites.

Long term biological monitoring will assist in developing

methods for measuring nature conservation value and

identifying any links to particular management techniques.

The impact of invasive species, including disease causing

agents, on the ecology of the canal is difficult to predict.

Management actions or proposals

In 1995, the Forth & Clyde Canal Joint Advisory Committee

produced the Lowland Canals Sustainable Development

Strategy, Forth & Clyde Canal Nature Conservation

Strategy and Scottish Natural Heritage produced a draft

Strategy for the Millennium Link in 2000.

The Scottish Canals Development Group has proposed the

development of ‘A strategy for enhancing and protecting

the Environment of Scotland’s Historic Canals’ and

Glasgow City Council is preparing Canal Development

Planning guidance to address the competing issues of

adjacent land development, maintaining navigation and

furthering the cause of biodiversity.

Technical measures used to support both navigation and

nature conservation include: boat speed limits and boat

safety scheme requirements help to reduce direct impacts

on the nature conservation interest; boats carrying spill

kits to deal with oil pollution incidents; canal profiles to

promote emergent vegetation growth; soft bank details

(support matrix included rip-rap, coir matting, coir rolls

and man-made mesh alternatives), with native planting

using plants from elsewhere on the canal; positioning

of pontoons to allow for the development of emergent

vegetation fringe between them and the embankment; the

management of invasive emergent and aquatic vegetation,

to maintain the full range of habitats from open water to

hedgerow.

121

Measures taken to improve communication with users and

others have involved: regular meetings with the Scottish

Government; establishment of the Highland and Lowland

Canal groups; public meetings for specific projects; talks

and presentations to groups/societies/ schools; public

notices on the canal bank and in newspapers, ‘The Link’

(regular Millennium Link project magazine); direct bank

staff contact with customers; BWS led user group

meetings; one to one meetings with customers and

contractors; direct liaison with regulators (Scottish Natural

Heritage, Scottish Environmental Protection Agency) and

with biodiversity plan steering groups and angling

organisations; Annual General Meetings including question

and answer session; media presentations; radio and TV

programmes/ interviews; a feedback reporting procedure

and a web-based enquiry service. These have been

effective and the aim is for continual improvement.

Practical conservation projects are undertaken on the

ground with volunteers, local community members, British

Trust For Conservation Volunteers.

Good practice lessons

Re-opening a waterway to navigation after nearly 40 years

is a continuing challenge. For BWS to demonstrate

sustainable management of the canal into the future,

it must take note of stakeholder aspirations, meet

legislative requirements, protect the canal’s built and

natural environment, be affordable and provide a catalyst

for appropriate economic regeneration and development.

This will be a continuing and dynamic process.

There is good evidence of reduced boat wash erosion in

areas where native planting was introduced, in particular

behind coir rolls, with untreated areas showing significant

signs of erosion. The coir breaks down as the emergent

vegetation becomes established. This approach reduced

boat wash effects, provided an attractive landscape feature

and created an important wildlife habitat with some

species that are known to be scarce elsewhere in the UK.

e.g. tufted loosestrife, Lysimachia thyrsiflora. Simple use

of man-made alternatives without planting was less

effective, with some material becoming detached and

a navigation hazard.

The communication approach uses transparent, open and

varied formats. Some customers have in addition asked

for better web based information and provision of policy

information in a customer accessible form.

Sources of further information

The following references provide additional background:

Bats and the Millennium Link survey 2000-2005.

See website for details www.batml.org.uk

British Trust for Ornithology WEBS counts of bird activity

– various dates.

British Waterways 1995 Environment and Heritage Report

– Part of Millennium Link Bid.

Forth & Clyde Canal Joint Advisory Committee, October

1995, Lowland Canals Sustainable Development Strategy,

Forth & Clyde Canal Nature Conservation Strategy,

Fozzard, Doughty & Clelland 1994, Invertebrates In The

Fresh Waters of Scotland, Wiley Eds Maitland, Boon

and McLusky.

Keane 2005 Aquatic Plant survey, University of Glasgow

MSc thesis (limited number of locations on Forth

& Clyde Canal).

Lassiere, O.L. 2001 Wildlife, Forth & Clyde

Canal Guidebook.

Lassiere, O.L. 2001, Conservation and Restoration Case

Study, the Millennium Link; in the State of Scotland’s

Environment and Natural Heritage, HMSO Edinburgh.

Scottish Wildlife Trust 1997, pre-Millennium Link survey

of habitats, plants, odonata and birds in 1km sections

along the entire canal corridor. Excel spreadsheets of

data available.

Scottish Executive (now Scottish Government), October

2002, Scotland’s Canals: An Asset for the Future; describes

the intended relationship between environmental

regulators and BWS as a navigation authority.

Scottish Natural Heritage 2000, draft Strategy for the

Millennium Link 2000.

Scottish Wildlife Trust 2000, Survey of Wester Common

wildlife site adjacent to the canal.

Watson K. 1988, Aquatic Plant Survey, MSc thesis,

Glasgow University.

Wildcru 2001, Scottish Natural Heritage commissioned

Water Vole survey 2000-2005 (Includes information on

minks, otters, bank voles and water shrews).

122

Grand Union CanalCase study 5

Waterway description

The modern Grand Union Canal (GUC)is a 1929 amalgamation

of several older, separate waterways. One of these was

the Warwick & Napton Canal built by engineer Wm Felkin

(replaced by Chas Handley 1795-1800) to link Warwick with

the Oxford Canal at Napton.

The Warwick & Napton Canal connected at Warwick with

the Warwick and Birmingham Canal, thus providing a new

route from Birmingham to Oxford and thence via the River

Thames to London. The Warwick canals were both opened

in 1800.

LondonLondon

BirminghamBirmingham

Cambridge

Huntingdon

StevenageBishop’sStortford

Bedford

Northampton

Leicester

RugbyCoventry

Redditch

Banbury

Oxford

Aylesbury

Luton

Watford

Slough

Reading

Swindon

MiltonKeynes

G R A N DU N I O NC A N A L

Contributors - roles: Mike Youé, Environment and

Heritage Manager

Organisation(s): British Waterways, West Midlands Waterway

Email: mike.youe@britishwaterways.co.uk

Website: www.britishwaterways.co.uk

123

The future GUC Main Line from Birmingham to London

was completed by the opening of the Grand Junction

Canal from Braunston to London in 1805. The 1929

amalgamation absorbed the Warwick canals and the

Grand Junction Canal into the Grand Union Canal

Company’s system.

The Warwick and Napton Canal and the Warwick and

Birmingham Canal were originally built with narrow

locks measuring 21.95m x 2.13m. The route from

Napton to Birmingham was widened in 1932-34 under

a modernisation scheme and new locks were built

measuring 27.73m x 4.68m, which would each

accommodate a larger barge or a pair of narrowboats.

The modernisation scheme is significant as being one

of the last attempts at improving a UK inland waterway

in the Midlands for 20th Century transport purposes.

The old narrow locks remained in use in parallel to the

new wider locks for some time and the disused lock

chambers still exist alongside the new locks in use as

bywash weirs and, in some cases, pumping chambers.

The canal banks comprise mainly of concrete piles dating

from the 1930s enlargement, with some natural bank

on the offside. There is a towing path on one side only.

Routine dredging takes place as part of the British

Waterways (BW) dredging programme. Other recent works

include the ongoing scheduled lock gate replacement

along with the embankment repairs at Long Itchington

in 2002/03. The towing path was upgraded to National

Cycle Route standard in 2002/03.

Water supply for the canal is from the Oxford Canal

summit (fed by reservoirs) and from Napton Reservoir,

with water used in lock operations discharged from the

sump pound through Leamington to the River Leam.

Backpumping has been installed to maintain water

supplies, the system comprising twenty pumps between

Radford Bottom Lock and Napton, operated automatically

in response to water level sensors.

The canal has 23 locks and 17 bridges and currently

accommodates boats of up to 23.77m long, 3.81m beam,

about 1m draught and 1.98m air draught.

Regular commercial freight use of the canal ceased in

1969, with the cessation of cement traffic from Southam

to Birmingham. Since then significant leisure boating use

has developed. The canal is also used for angling, cycling,

walking, nature conservation and keep-fit activities,

while the towpath provides a route for a national

fibre-optic cable network.

Navigational use

Currently the canal has ‘Cruising Waterway’ status under

the 1968 Transport Act, requiring BW to make it principally

available for cruising.

The canal is used by a variety of craft, including narrowboats

and broader beamed vessels. There are three off-line

marinas along its length (Stockton, Ventnor Farm and

Calcutt) as well as off-line moorings in Kaye’s Arm branch

canal near Stockton and lay-by moorings in Warwick.

Boat hire fleets operate from Stockton and Warwick;

boat building and repairs take place at Calcutt, Stockton,

Kaye’s Arm and Warwick.

In 2005, the annual boat movement count (one way)

at Calcutt Locks was 7600, with traffic density varying

from one or two a day during the winter period to an

average of 45 per day during August (peak period).

Closures have occurred in the past due to insufficient

water supply; this is now managed through backpumping.

The water space is also used by multiple fishing clubs

along the length.

Navigation restoration proposals

The canal has remained open to navigation throughout,

so restoration is not applicable.

124

Nature conservation interest

A full ecological report was undertaken and reported

in December 2001. BW’s West Midlands Waterway also

has a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) covering this section

with the following objectives, which include some actions

relating to the aquatic habitat:

• to survey, map and develop tree management principles

for every tree or group of trees;

• to implement a priority tree programme (5 years);

• to implement a new vegetation management regime

that will encourage wildflowers in verges;

• to ensure that bat roosts are considered during all

bridge refurbishments;

• to introduce a grassland management regime around

Napton reservoir;

• to survey and map water vole activity;

• to survey and map otter activity;

• to survey and map crayfish activity whenever the

opportunity arises during dewatering or development.

The waterway BAP will be monitored and updated as

necessary.

There are no statutory nature conservation sites along

the canal; the Calcutt meadows Site of Special Scientific

Interest (SSSI) designation is for being hay meadows.

The entire canal length is a County Wildlife Site.

There are a number of records of protected white-clawed

crayfish at Napton, Gibraltar Bridge and Bascote Bridge;

great crested newts are also recorded at Napton.

Although the canal does not qualify for statutory nature

conservation designation, wildlife benefits are recognised

and, where practicable, enhanced. Of particular note is the

retention of a broad reed fringe on the towing path side,

in front of hard bank protection, for most of the length

between Bascote and the Fosse Way, with breaks to allow

for boat mooring. This significantly enhances dragonfly

populations along this section. The areas of the canal

to the side of the main channel upstream of the former

narrow locks also provide good habitat for emergent plants

and their dependent ecosystems.

BW has a water quality action plan and regular water

quality testing is carried out by the Environment Agency.

Using the General Quality Assessment system for rivers

(although this is not entirely suitable for assessing water

quality in canals) the water quality moved from Class E

(poor) in 1994 to Class D (fair) in 2002.

Offside bank erosion is an issue for nature conservation,

including occasional cattle damage.

Local wildlife interest groups

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust.

Relationship between navigation and nature

conservation interests

BW undertakes an Environmental Code of Practice (ECoP)

assessment for ‘every’ project undertaken – this is an

ECoP ‘Short Form’ appraisal which helps to evaluate and

minimise likely impacts (positive or negative) from future

planned work along the canal corridor. Through this

process BW strives to minimise negative impacts and

maximise positive benefits for both built heritage and

environmental issues. For larger engineering projects over

£50k, wider sustainability issues are also considered.

The nature conservation value of the canal is generally

seen as a significant benefit, with use for bird watching,

visits by school parties and the like, and not as any threat

to navigation interests.

All groups, including BW as the management body,

take a positive approach to nature conservation. The BW

approach fulfils statutory and corporate responsibilities.

The West Midlands Waterway BAP provides adequate data

on which to base decisions so that nature conservation

interests can be protected and enhanced.

125

Management actions or proposals

Management actions or proposals Management actions

are guided by BW’s Environmental Code of Practice, its

Waterway Mooring Strategy and Towingpath Standards.

Specific management actions have included:

• coir roll bank protection;

• spot dredging carried out in isolated locations;

• back pumping to maintain an adequate supply of water.

These are all consistent with the maintenance of the

nature conservation interest of the canal.

The management regime BW employs aims to strike

a good balance between the needs of the environment

and those of an increasing volume of all sorts of visitors;

it appears to have been successful in avoiding and

resolving conflicts.

Consensus building methods employed have included:

• surveys & questionnaires (hire boat users and towing

path users);

• regular user group meetings;

• BW formal complaints procedures;

• responses to local issues where possible within BW’s

framework of corporate objectives & local business

plan targets.

This achieves a better understanding by all users of the

complexities that have to be managed and an appreciation

of the approach BW takes towards its responsibilities.

It also enables BW to gain a better awareness of the views

and concerns of visitors and to plan accordingly.

Given the resources available, the processes applied have

achieved encouraging results for nature conservation

on the waterway.

Good practice lessons

Early consultation and communication with stakeholders

is important.

The nature conservation value can be enhanced

significantly by relatively simple management measures

on heavily used waterways.

Sources of further information

British Waterways, West Midlands Waterway Biodiversity

Action Plan for the canal.

126

River Great OuseCase study 6

Waterway description

The River Great Ouse and its tributaries, the Rivers Cam,

Lark, Little Ouse and Wissey, comprise the major navigation

in the Fens and East Anglia, providing about 240 km

(150 miles) of navigable waterway.

Upstream of St Ives, the river passes through many areas

important for their landscape and nature conservation

value. The lower reaches (Old West River and then the

Ely Ouse) take boaters through the fenland landscape.

A1(M)

M11

King’sLynn

DownhamMarket

NewmarketCambridge

Huntington

Bedford

PeterboroughStamford

Spalding

Wisbech

RIV

E R

GR

EA

T O

US

E

Contributors - roles: John Adams, Waterways Development Manager

Organisation(s): Environment Agency

Email: john.adams@environment-agency.gov.uk

Website: www.environment-agency.gov.uk

127

The Great Ouse catchment represents a heavily regulated

lowland river. Much of it has been heavily engineered for

flood defence and land drainage purposes as well as for

navigation purposes. Modifications include completely

artificial cut-off channels, channel re-alignment and re-

sectioning, bank reinforcement, weirs/locks and a loss

of floodplain channel diversity. As a result of drainage,

fens were transformed from wetland with raised islands

of clay into some of the most productive arable land in

the UK. Overall, despite the extensive human influence

on the landscape, parts of the area have been designated

as Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Sites of Special

Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and Ramsar wetland sites.

The Great Ouse can be classed as a modified natural river,

canalised in the lower Fenland reaches, with its width

varying from 12m to 80m and its depth varying from 1m

to 6m. It is provisionally classed as a heavily modified

water body under the Water Framework Directive.

Its bank protection is mostly natural, with extended areas

of piling in the fenland reaches; its dredging regime is

limited, consisting mostly of localised shoal dredging.

Work done in the last 10 years has been mostly in the

fenland reaches: bank revetment, as detailed in the Ely

Ouse strategy, along with some soft engineering. There

has also been bank raising, as detailed in the Ouse washes

strategy (a £20m capital project).

The Great Ouse has a natural river flow with no significant

water quality issues. Its abstraction is regulated to prevent

adverse impact on the river’s ecology, water quality

or boating.

The river is used for boating, fishing, water resources and

is a habitat for wildlife.

Navigational use

Navigational objectives are to maintain navigation

infrastructure, improve facilities to the Association of

Inland Navigation Authorities’ standards and optimise

the economic, social and wildlife benefits of the river.

Around 3,500 recreational craft per year use the waterway,

mostly powered in the 6m to15m class; there is some

rowing and canoeing but no freight.

The Bedford Ouse is busier than the Ely Ouse; busy locks

have around 2,500 to 4,000 boat movements per year.

The waterway is navigable throughout the year, subject

to flows and work related stoppages.

There are some minor localised navigational issues

between power boaters and anglers, and rowers and

anglers. Water resources are not a major issue other

than in extreme droughts, for example in 1976.

Navigation restoration proposals

There has been some interest in the restoration of the

River Ivel, Little Ouse Brandon to Thetford. Major

regeneration proposals include the south reaches of the

‘Fens Waterway Link’ and the NORA project in Kings Lynn

(NORA is a partnership between the Borough Council

of King's Lynn and West Norfolk, English Partnerships,

East of England Development Agency, Norfolk County

Council and Morston Assets.)

Local navigation interest groups

Anglian Waterway Association, Association of Nene River

Clubs, Cambridge Marine Industries, Great Ouse Boating

Association, Inland Waterways Association, National

Association of Boat Owners.

128

Nature conservation interest

There are various riverside meadow locations with SSSI

designations; along the Ouse washes there are SPAs,

Special Areas of Conservation, Ramsar wetlands and

SSSI designations.

Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority species and habitats

on the Great Ouse include reed beds, wet grassland,

otters, water voles, bitterns, spined loach and

various invertebrates.

The Environment Agency performs biological monitoring of

the river’s fisheries and invertebrates and performs routine

chemical monitoring for nitrate, phosphate, BOD, turbidity

and other standard parameters. The river’s biology is also

monitored by Natural England and the Royal Society

for the Protection of Birds. Perceived trends include

an improvement to water and biological quality.

Key nature conservation issues are related to the Habitats

Directive, for example reviews of consents for water

abstraction and discharge.

Pressures on nature conservation include water resources

and eutrophication due to point source and diffuse pollution.

Local wildlife interest groups

Natural England, Royal Society for the Protection

of Birds, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Wildlife Trust.

Relationship between navigation and nature

conservation interests

Environmental Impact Assessments are completed

for all maintenance and capital schemes.

There are few issues of contention between navigation

and nature conservation interests; some which related

to restrictions on reed cutting on the Old West Bedford

(Ouse washes) are now largely resolved.

There is a low-level concern by some boaters that nature

conservation can lead to boating restrictions, though

no examples of this are given to support the case.

Both waterway managers and boaters are generally very

supportive of nature conservation; water resources and

eutrophication issues are far more important for

conservation than boating. There remain some questions

on the impact of boats on macrophyte growth.

Management actions or proposals

The Great Ouse Waterway Plan outlines the strategic aims

of managing the navigation.

Nature conservation measures used to mitigate impacts

include retaining marginal vegetation when weed cutting

and issuing best practice guidance with illustrated

methodologies for use by machine operators. This is

perceived to be effective from river habitat survey data

available for some reaches.

Formal meetings to share works programmes, presentations

and specific projects take place to ensure good and

continuous dialogue with all interested stakeholders.

These measures are deemed as successful, having in the

past 20 years protected the river environment without

compromising recreational activities. They have helped

to build trust between the Environment Agency,

conservation and boating groups; enabling all to listen

and help understand each of their needs.

Good practice lessons

The building blocks for success are dialogue, active

listening, consensus building and accurate science:

develop, consult and publish environmental good practice,

then deliver on promises.

The science and dialogue approach provides a general

framework to follow, however there is no “one size fits all”

approach to dealing with all specific issues.

Sources of further information

Environment Agency website

www.environment-agency.gov.uk

129

Waterway description

The Lancaster Canal was authorised by Act of Parliament

in 1792 to link Kendal with the Lancashire coalfield. It was

built in several stages and by 1826 extended from Preston,

through Lancaster, to Kendal and provided a link with the

Lune Estuary via a branch to Glasson Dock.

In 1948 the Canal was transferred to the British Transport

Commission which determined in 1955 that the canal had

‘insufficient commercial prospects to justify its retention’.

Shortly thereafter the northernmost section of the navigation

between Stainton and Kendal was closed and 3.5km of the

waterway approaching Kendal were drained and in-filled.

During the 1960s a further section of the canal in the centre

of Preston was in-filled and the length north of Tewitfield was

closed following the construction of the M6 motorway.

130

Lancaster Canal (section north of the Ribble only)

Case study 7

LA

NC

AS

TE

R

CAN

E L

M6M55

M65

Lancaster

Clitheroe

Preston

Blackburn

Burnley

Forest ofBowland

YorkshireDales

Contributors - roles: Cath Ferguson, Environment and

Heritage Manager

Organisation(s): British Waterways (BW)

Email: cath.ferguson@britishwaterways.co.uk

Website: www.britishwaterways.co.uk

Partners: Rural Regeneration Cumbria, South Lakeland District

Council, British Waterways, Kendal Town Council and the

Lancaster Canal Trust (LCT).

131

Today the Lancaster Canal between Preston and Tewitfield

Locks, including the Glasson Branch, remains navigable and

is promoted as a ‘cruising waterway’ under the 1968 Transport

Act. Under the same Act the length of waterway between

Tewitfield and Stainton, which forms part of the Northern

Reaches of the canal, is classified a ‘remainder waterway’

and is closed to through navigation. Both sections continue

to be owned and operated by British Waterways (BW). To the

north of Stainton, the tenure and extent of the waterway

is very fragmented.

The canal is a rural broad canal that follows land contours for

most of its length. There is a series of 6 locks on the Glasson

Branch and 8 (currently disused) locks at Tewitfield. The

Northern Reaches are severed in several places by the A6070,

M6, A65 and A590 roads. This section of the Canal is generally

12m wide at water level and 1.5m deep in the centre.

Where present, bank protection consists of masonry, timber

slabbing and trench sheeting. On the watered length of the

Northern Reaches there appears to be little bank protection

other than that provided by natural vegetation. Photographs

dating from the 1950s indicate wash-walls at the top of the

side slopes along the dry section of canal into Kendal. Each

bridge has sloping masonry wash-walls and, based on

photographic evidence, the wharves at the in-filled canal head

in Kendal appear to be masonry. At Crooklands a short length

of the towpath is fronted by a ‘Nicospan’ geo-textile, behind

which dredgings were deposited.

As a ‘remainder waterway’, the Northern Reaches are not

generally dredged for navigation, although a short section at

Crooklands was dredged about 5 years ago to accommodate a

trip boat operated by the LCT. Aquatic vegetation on this section

is controlled annually to maintain the water supply to the south

of Tewitfield. As a ‘remainder waterway’, the Northern Reaches

are not generally subject to a programme of major works. BW

undertakes work required by statute to ensure public health

and safety, land drainage and preservation of amenity.

The Northern Reaches receive water mainly from Killington

Reservoir and the Peasey Beck catchment via the Crooklands

Feeder, as well as from Stainton Feeder (Saint Sunday’s Beck)

and Farleton Feeder (Lupton Beck). The southern navigable

section receives water from the White Beck Feeder and the

Caterall Feeder from the River Calder, as well as water from

the Northern Reaches. Flows from several of the feeders can

be limited in times of drought. The Glasson Branch receives

water from the River Conder, as well as from the main line.

There are no significant water abstractions from the canal,

but there are numerous consented discharges to the canal

and its feeder streams. The canal between Stainton and

Galgate has fairly good water quality, as does the Glasson

Branch, but this deteriorates towards Preston.

Throughout its length the canal is used by anglers and canoeists.

The navigable length between Preston and Tewitfield is also

popular with powered craft. On the Northern Reaches between

Stainton and Crooklands, a powered trip boat is operated

by the LCT.

Navigational use

The navigation objectives are to maintain the currently

navigable section of the canal as a ‘cruising waterway’ and,

subject to the availability of funding to sustain its restoration,

to restore the Northern Reaches between Stainton and Kendal

to a navigable standard.

There are approximately 1,200 licensed powered craft based

on the navigable section of the Canal. Approximately 60%

are cruisers, with narrowboats accounting for the other 40%.

An additional 200 craft visit the waterway each year. There are

no official canoe clubs but it is a popular location due to the

absence of locks.

Historically, the general pattern of cruising was dominated

by short cruises in locations close to mooring facilities. There

is no recent data available to determine current patterns of

boat use since the opening of the Ribble Link. BW operates

a booking system for passages via the Ribble Link between

April to October to allow access to and egress from the canal.

During 2005 and 2006 there were some minor restrictions

to navigation due to constraints on water supplies caused

by low rain fall.

132

A summary of nature conservation interests on the Canal

and impacts of restoration is provided in the 2002 report

“Lancaster Canal: Towards restoration of the Northern

Reaches”, prepared by BW on behalf of the former

Northern Reaches Restoration Group (now the Lancaster

Canal Restoration Partnership).

Chemical water quality (including biological oxygen

demand, ammonia and dissolved oxygen) of the Lancaster

Canal is routinely monitored by the Environment Agency.

BW is not aware that any routine biological monitoring

is undertaken on the canal.

The trends in waterway chemical or biological quality have

not been reviewed in any detail by BW. However, there

is a perception that eutrophication caused by fertilisers

and increasing levels of boat traffic has caused deleterious

changes in the aquatic flora of the Lancaster Canal (see:

E.F. Greenwood (2005) The changing flora of the Lancaster

Canal in West Lancaster (v.c. 60). Watsonia, 25: 231-253).

Local wildlife interest groups

Cumbria Wildlife Trust, Lancashire County Council,

Lancashire Wildlife Trust, local naturalists’ groups.

Relationship between navigation and nature

Restoration of the dry section will create approximately

9km of open water canal habitat, including a fringe of

emergent vegetation on the off-side of the canal. This will

largely replace improved agricultural land and so will

contribute to national and local biodiversity objectives.

Phase 3 of the restoration is perceived as a potential

catalyst to increased boat movements, which may impact

on the aquatic flora and fauna of both the navigable

Southern Reaches of the Lancaster Canal and the currently

watered section of the Northern Reaches.

Many organisations represented on the Partnership and the

Steering Group (such as BW and the local authorities) have

both navigation and nature conservation interests. There is

an annual meeting of the Steering Group at which issues

may be aired and incorporated into the on-going restoration

planning where appropriate. The LCT organises annual

canal camps which include vegetation management.

Navigation restoration proposals

The restoration of the Northern Reaches is currently being

planned in 3 phases. Phases 1 and 2 include the dry length

between Kendal and Stainton and Phase 3 includes the

watered length south to Tewitfield.

Phase 1 includes the creation of a basin in Kendal and the

restoration of the canal to Natland and will provide a focus

for mixed-use development. A 2-year programme of

planning for Phase 1 has commenced, with funding from

partners, which will include engineering feasibility,

master-planning, economic appraisal and environmental

impact assessment (EIA), prior to submission of a planning

application. The outcomes will determine the project’s

viability.

Local navigation interest groups

Lancaster Canal Restoration Partnership, including BW,

Cumbria County Council, Lancashire County Council, South

Lakeland District Council, Kendal Town Council, Lancaster

City Council, Lancaster Canal Trust, Inland Waterways

Association and The Waterways Trust. The Northern

Reaches Restoration Steering Group includes local

authorities, Government departments and a wide range of

other public bodies and Non Governmental Organisations.

Nature conservation interest

Specific nature conservation objectives for the Northern

Reaches of the Lancaster Canal have not yet been defined.

There are no statutory nature conservation designations

directly relating to the canal. However, the conservation

and enhancement of both the natural and built heritage

is recognised as an important element of the restoration

proposals, which will aim to conserve or enhance the

nature conservation value of the Northern Reaches.

Specific objectives will be defined during restoration

planning and a biodiversity action plan prepared.

The canal supports a range of habitat types which are

home to a wide variety of plants and animals and the value

of the canal lies as much in its ecological diversity as it

does in the rarity of species recorded along it, although

there are records of water voles and bats (pipistrelle,

Daubenton’s, whiskered, long-eared and Brandt’s bats) on

the canal whilst great crested newts have been recorded

nearby. Other species of national conservation interest

recorded on the Northern Reaches include: mayfly Caenis

robusta, caddis-fly Setodes argentipunctellus, mud snail

Lymnaea glabra, Duke of Burgundy Hamearis lucina and

hairlike pondweed Potamogeton trichoides. The canal has

been particularly valued for its aquatic plants; in 1993,

several sections of the Northern Reaches of the canal met

the qualifying criteria for designation as Sites of Special

Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (see: Environmental Management

Consultants (1993) Lancaster Canal: A Botanical Survey

and Management Plan Phase 1 report for English Nature).

133

Local concern has previously been expressed about the

potential impacts of restoration and navigation of the

Northern Reaches on the nature conservation interests

of the canal, especially the aquatic flora. However, there

is also recognition that the restoration has the potential

to bring nature conservation benefits.

At the present time, the key nature conservation issues that

may impact upon restoration and navigation are understood

to be: water supply for Phases 1 and 2 (the Environment

Agency is being consulted on a potential abstraction and

return of water to the River Kent), the transfer of non-native

signal crayfish to the River Kent via the canal, and bats in

bridges (conservation measures will be incorporated into

the scope of restoration works).

The restoration of the Northern Reaches of the Lancaster

Canal has been well researched over the past decade or so.

Further work is planned to resolve some of the outstanding

issues, in consultation with stakeholders.

Management actions or proposals

A desk study of the environmental, cultural and social

resources of the Lancaster Canal was undertaken to

provide a preliminary assessment of the significance of

environmental resources in the waterway corridor. This will

form the basis for future work, including the Environmental

Impact Assessment (EIA).

Technical measures for mitigating or enhancing nature

conservation interests on the canal which may be impacted

by the restoration of the Northern Reaches will be

determined through the formal EIA. It is envisaged that the

design of the engineering works will provide for both

navigation and nature conservation interests. The designs

will draw from BW previous experience of canal restoration

to ensure the use of best practice techniques.

The technical measures for mitigating or enhancing nature

conservation interests have not yet been fully defined.

However, the desk study and the engineering feasibility

studies have proven valuable tools for identifying the likely

requirements/opportunities for such technical measures.

For many years the Northern Reaches restoration has

been coordinated by the Lancaster Canal Restoration

Partnership (formerly the Northern Reaches Restoration

Group) with assistance from a wider steering group which

includes both navigation and nature conservation interests.

The Partnership meets every quarter.

An Environment Focus Group, chaired by the Friends of the

Lake District, is being established to consider environmental

issues associated with the restoration of the Northern

Reaches.

Currently, it is too early to assess the effectiveness of the

communication or consensus building methods.

Good practice lessons

Progress with the restoration proposals, while maximising

nature conservation protection and enhancement, have

been facilitated by a diverse and well-coordinated

Restoration Partnership supported by broad stakeholder

representation on the Steering Group.

Early identification of key issues (including nature

conservation) affecting restoration is essential,

as is an early establishment of open dialogue to address

these issues.

It is important to identify and consider the positive aspects

of restoration on nature conservation, as well as

adverse impacts.

Sources of further information

See references above and BW website

www.britishwaterways.co.uk

(search for Lancaster Canal).

It was commenced around the same time as the Ellesmere

Canal, part of which was to become known as the

Llangollen Canal.

134

Montgomery CanalCase study 8

MO

NT

GO

ME

RY

CA

NA

L

M54

Llangollen Whitchurch

Telford

Bridgnorth

Shrewsbury

Newtown

Welshpool

Oswestry

Shropshire Hills

Contributors - roles: Stephen Lees, Project

Manager, Montgomery Canal Restoration

Organisation(s): British Waterways (BW)

Email: enquiries.wbc@britishwaterways.co.uk

Website: www.britishwaterways.co.uk

Partners: Montgomery Canal Partnership: (BW, Cadw, Countryside Council for Wales,

English Heritage, Environment Agency, Inland Waterways Association, Montgomery

Waterway Restoration Trust, Montgomeryshire Wildlife Trust, Natural England, Oswestry

Borough Council, Powys County Council, Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic

Monuments of Wales, Shropshire County Council, Shropshire Union Canal Society,

Shropshire Wildlife Trust, Welsh Historic Monuments).

Waterway description

The Montgomery Canal is notified as a Site of Special

Scientific Interest (SSSI) for much of its length and is

particularly important for its range of rare aquatic plants.

It is used for recreational and leisure purposes and

is a habitat for wildlife.

The canal runs from Welsh Frankton to Newtown and

was part of an extensive network of over 200 miles

of waterways once owned by the Shropshire Union

Railways and Canal Company.

135

Carreghofa marks the original junction between what was

then the Montgomeryshire Canal and the Llanymynech

Branch of the Ellesmere Canal; the curious feeder

arrangements from the River Tanat are indicative of the

jealous emphasis on water supply. Terminating for a while

at Garthmyl, its continuation to Newtown was delayed by

the Napoleonic Wars and it was left to a separate company

to construct the Western Branch, or Newtown Extension,

which opened in 1821. Completion of the Weston Branch of

the Montgomery, which was to connect with the Severn at

Shrewsbury, failed to materialise.

Competition from the railways led to a decline in trade and

when the Montgomery breached its banks near Perry in

1936, isolating it from the rest of the system, the cost of

repairs vastly exceeded the annual revenue and it was

closed in 1948. The line from Llangollen to Hurleston

become known as the main line of the Llangollen Canal,

with the derelict Montgomery perceived as merely a spur

off it at Welsh Frankton.

Plans to build a relief road on the canal bed led in 1969

to the ‘Big Dig' targeted restoration event at Welshpool

and the focus of efforts to reclaim the waterway. The

Montgomery Canal is being restored and just over half

of the line has been reinstated in various sections, with

a view to eventual full restoration.

Two sections of the canal are currently open to navigation.

The canal has been restored from its northern end - the

junction with the Llangollen Canal at Welsh Frankton -

south through Frankton and Aston Locks. There are then

extensive dry sections and some road blockages around

Llanymynech and Pant; although a 500-metre section at

Llanymynech is used by a trip boat. The canal is then

navigable for an 11-mile section around the town of

Welshpool.

A phased dredging programme is being drawn up to

reduce silt and mud clouding the water; fencing of offside

banks will prevent stock breaking the canal edges.

Water is currently supplied from three main points: the

Llangollen Canal for the English section, the Tanat feeder

at the northern end of the Welsh length, and the Penarth

feeder near Newtown in the south.

Current supplies will enable up to 5,000 boat movements

a year in England. Flows may be changed around Pant to

maintain separation of the different water types from

England and the River Tanat. Some channel works are

required to ensure water supplies in Wales in times of low

flow, including minimising leakage. If restoration extends

to Newtown, an additional supply will be needed for the

currently dry section above Freestone Lock.

Water quality is also an important issue for the

Montgomery Canal, and has contributed to its special

wildlife interest. Hence nature conservation measures

include a range of proposals to protect and enhance the

water quality of the canal.

The canal is a candidate artificial water body under the

Water Framework Directive; it generally maintains a width

of 10m and a depth in the centre of the channel of 1.2m.

The first section is a new trapezoidal section lined with

HDPE protected by concrete, with some gabion baskets at

the margins. The next two miles are cut through wet peat

farmland and unlined. Most of the channel is lined with

silt/clay excavated on site. For long lengths in Wales the

canal is perched on the side of a hill, part of the Severn

Valley.

Navigational use

Apart from a short section used by a trip boat at

Llanymynech, navigation is currently limited to two parts of

the canal: in England, a length of 7.5 miles (12km) from the

junction with the Llangollen Canal at Frankton down to

Bridge 82 south of Maesbury; in Wales, a length of 11 miles

(18km) around Welshpool, from Arddleen to Refail Bridge,

near Berriew. Current total figures for the two navigable

sections are around 2,500 boat movements (hire, trip and

private) for the Frankton to Maesbury section in England

and less than 500 boat movements for the Welshpool

section in Wales.

The canal is used for canoeing by Shropshire Paddlesports,

based at Queen’s Head, and also by visiting activity centres,

including the Red Ridge Centre, based near Welshpool.

Some private canoes also use the canal, although there

are no accurate records of numbers. An annual dinghy

dawdle, organised by the Shropshire Union Canal Society,

attracts in the region of fifty participants. The relatively low

number of movements by powered craft makes the canal

particularly attractive as a safe environment for canoes

and other small craft.

In Wales, boat numbers are largely limited by low demand

for the isolated section. BW has sought environmentally

friendly businesses, so the only commercial operator on

this length has a horse drawn boat offering luxury short

breaks. In England, passage on to the canal is through

Frankton Locks which are staffed from 12-2pm every day

in the summer and on request in winter. Boats have to

book passage, although they may do so up to 10am on

the day of travel in the summer and with 48 hours notice

in the winter.

Navigation on the canal will be gradually increased up

to the maximum capacity consistent with protecting the

natural and built heritage of the canal. In Wales, the target

level for navigation on the canal to build up to, subject

to annual monitoring, is 2,500 boat movements per year.

136

Nature conservation interest

The Montgomery Canal Conservation Management

Strategy (CMS) sets out the key principles for wildlife

as follows:

• wildlife interest will be safeguarded throughout

restoration works and future use;

• interest will be monitored annually, and management

of the canal adapted to ensure wildlife protection;

• the wildlife interest where there is enhancement

of overall value;

• water quality is integral to maintaining the interest

of the canal corridor;

• navigation levels will build up only on successful

establishment of the reserves and careful monitoring,

and will start lower than the target levels;

• there will be support for other wildlife schemes in the

canal corridor, especially where they help re-create

original wetland sites and ponds.

All of the Welsh section and part of the English length

of the Montgomery Canal have been notified as a Site

of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The Welsh section is

also designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

The SAC designation is because of the abundance of

Luronium natans (floating water plantain) in the Wales

length; the SSSI citation also refers to Potamogeton

compressus (grass-wrack pondweed), the whole

assemblage of aquatic plants and also the Odonata

(dragonflies) that the canal supports. The citation for

the English section of the canal refers to submerged

and emergent species of plant.

The canal supports a range of rare aquatic plants,

including floating water plantain and grasswrack pondweed.

It is also important for invertebrates, such as dragonflies,

and has otters and occasional water voles. Seen more

often, a high proportion of Wales’ mute swans breed

on the canal.

The two different feeds (River Dee via Llangollen canal

for England and River Severn via two feeders for Wales)

results in significantly different qualities in the two

sections.

The Environment Agency regularly monitors water quality

at a number of points on the Canal. Classifications are

geared towards assessments of river quality and do not

bear immediate relation to conservation value. This is

exemplified by the apparent significant failure against

water quality standards of the best section of canal

ecologically, around the Vyrnwy Aqueduct.

In England, the current limits on navigation will be lifted

after a new nature reserve has been constructed and

established. At this point, water supply will determine

the level of navigation possible. These figures are much

lower than on the adjacent Llangollen Canal, but very

similar to some other rural canals, for example much

of the Leeds & Liverpool Canal.

Numbers of boat movements can be managed by a

number of measures including:

• managed access at Frankton Locks;

• a system to manage the numbers of boats continuing

into Wales from Llanymynech;

• selective location of private moorings and commercial

hire or trip operations.

There is also a need to strike a balance between visiting

boats, locally moored private boats and hire craft. It is

proposed to maintain the numbers of boats visiting from

the Llangollen Canal, and look towards additional boats

moored on the canal, as this provides better returns to the

local economy.

Navigation restoration proposals

The major costs involved mean that the continued

restoration of the canal is likely to be undertaken in stages.

The first priority is to re-connect the navigable length of

canal at Welshpool, through Llanymynech, to join up with

the northern section at Gronwen Wharf, near Maesbury,

and thus to the national network.

This is likely to be undertaken as two separate stages of

work, Phase 1: England and Phase 1: Wales. The economic

impact from this section is expected to be great, as

restoring eight miles of canal will connect with a further

eleven miles which is currently under-used.

Restoration of the southern section (Phase 2: Wales) will

need to follow as a later phase or phases. Access to

funding will depend on demonstrating the success of

Phase 1.

In parallel to the major engineering, the restoration will

seek to deliver small scale local improvements to the

amenity, for example local footpath and signage

improvements; increased local access and use will support

and reinforce the case for further major restoration.

The capital costs of restoration will be met through a range

of grants likely to include heritage sources, local authorities

and economic regeneration packages. This means that

progress will be dependent on the availability of funding,

and it is not possible to give accurate timescales.

Local navigation interest groups

Friends of Montgomery Canal, Inland Waterways

Association, Montgomery Waterway Restoration Trust,

Shropshire Paddlesports, Shropshire Union Canal Society,

Waterway Recovery Group.

137

Measuring invertebrate fauna is one method by which

conservation assessment is made and the Agency’s data

and survey work has enabled a more canal-specific

assessment to be made. Suspended sediment

concentrations have not varied greatly either along

the canal or over the last decade or so. In general there

is a significant difference between lower water quality

and higher nutrient levels in the English length, when

compared to the canal in Wales.

A computer analysis, plotting the invertebrate results

for the ten sample sites from the 2005 survey, showed

a correlation with navigation and water transparency;

there was also a smaller correlation with dissolved oxygen

and amount of aquatic vegetation cover.

Results overall indicate a mesotrophic water canal,

with some tendencies to eutrophic, and an invertebrate

assemblage indicative of high water quality for a canal.

Local wildlife interest groups

British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV),

Montgomery Angling Association, Montgomeryshire

Wildlife Trust, Preston Montford Field Studies Centre,

Shropshire Botanical Society, Shropshire Wildlife Trust.

Relationship between navigation and nature

conservation interests

The key elements for the future management of the

Montgomery Canal are:

• a community resource, valued and used by all;

• a corridor of opportunity that will provide a driving

force for rural regeneration;

• a restoration to navigation that respects values and

enhances the unique nature of the Montgomery Canal;

• sustainability at the heart of all management and

development.

Wildlife has flourished since the closure of the canal

to navigation and so the aquatic plants are especially

sensitive to disturbance by boats. However, the plants

would not flourish in the long term if the canal is left

to nature, as it would eventually revert to swamp and

then woodland.

There has been overwhelming support for the restoration

of the canal, with careful safeguards, and the CMS maps

a way forward, providing practical solutions to resolve the

previous tensions between different interests e.g. boaters,

wildlife organisations and other recreational users.

Perceived threats to nature conservation include a lack of

dredging, structural failure, eutrophication and suspended

sediment from navigation.

Perceived threats to navigation include the risks associated

with ensuring that the canal restoration works in Wales

receive consent under the Habitats Regulations. This will

involve a twin track approach of seeking both an extension

to the SAC site boundaries from the UK Government and

an application to the EU for restoration approval on the

grounds of IROPI (Imperative Reasons of Overriding

Public Interest).

The attitude of waterway management and nature

conservation advisors is favourable to the canal restoration

based upon the CMS. The advantage of restoration, and

the sustainable future for the canal that it offers, requires

careful balancing with the need to conserve rare and

protected wildlife.

Following publication of the final CMS, attitudes between

different canal stakeholders have calmed down. It is

expected that other issues are likely to arise during

the Options Appraisal process and final negotiations

on the canal restoration.

Management actions or proposals

The CMS gives the following measures used to protect

nature conservation:

• a range of new nature reserves will be constructed,

to provide additional areas of habitat as far south

as Berriew. These new reserves will be spread over

a range of sites in Wales, and will total twenty seven

acres of aquatic habitat;

• boat barriers with silt screens will be provided along

some wider sections of canal, e.g. redundant winding

holes to maintain some aquatic plants within the canal;

• plants living in the margins of the canal will be protected

where possible along the banks;

• towpaths, hedges and dry land areas will be managed

for other wildflowers and animals;

• active measures will be used to improve water quality;

• best practice for environmentally friendly boat design

will be required for commercial craft based on the canal.

All craft will have to comply with local speed limits and

other controls in sensitive areas;

• managed navigation levels will be employed in Wales.

The Montgomery Canal Partnership has worked hard to

develop a willingness to share and understand the values

and interests of everyone with an interest in the canal,

both within the Partnership and in wider circles, and has

reached a shared way forward in the CMS which is based

on sustainable restoration.

Good practice lessons

The creation of a partnership representing a wide variety

of stakeholders with a common purpose has been important.

Seeking consensus through publication of a CMS can be

a lengthy process; issuing the initial consultation document

and producing the final Montgomery CMS took two years.

Sources of further information

Montgomery Canal Conservation Management Strategy:

www.britishwaterways.net/montgomery/conservation_

management_plan/conservation_management_plan.html

Waterscape:

www.waterscape.com/canals-and-rivers/montgomery-

canal

Waterway description

The River Thames has been a navigable river since time

immemorial. From the 12th century boats could reach

Oxford and flash locks were a feature from the 13th

century, with pound locks appearing in the 17th century.

The formation of the Thames Navigation Commissioners

in 1751 heralded the start of a period of improvement

in the navigation, with the construction of further pound

locks and the extension of the navigation upstream

of Oxford to link with the Thames and Severn Canal.

Further improvements followed the formation of the

Thames Conservancy in 1857, although the last flash lock

was not dismantled until 1937. Control passed to Thames

Water Authority in 1974 and subsequently to the National

Rivers Authority in 1989 and the Environment Agency in

1995.

138

River ThamesCase study 9

LondonLondon

g

Stevenage

BedfordBanbury

Oxford

Aylesbury

Luton

WatfordSlough

WokingNewbury

Basingstoke

Reading

Swindon

Guildford

Winchester

CrawleyRoyal

TumbridgeWells

MiltonKeynes

R I V E RT H A M E S

Contributors - roles: Eileen McKeever, Thames Waterway Manager

Organisation(s): Environment Agency

Email: eileen.mckeever@environment-agency.gov.uk

Website: www.visitthames.co.uk

and www.riverthamesalliance.com

Partners: All members of the River Thames Alliance,

comprising nearly 80 bodies including local authorities,

boat user groups, wildlife trusts and other recreational

interest groups.

139

The Thames had a major role in transporting freight but

this is virtually non-existent now. It had its heyday for

pleasure navigation in the late 19th century, as an escape

from London, and reached the peak in its more recent

usage in the 1970s. Since then, the Thames as a navigation

has been in decline; the most significant indicator of this

reduction is the number of holiday hire boats, which has

dropped from over 800 in 1980 to less than 130 in 2005.

We are now working to rejuvenate the Thames through

the River Thames Alliance, a public private partnership.

We have also succeeded in getting increased funding from

Defra to spend on critical maintenance and improvements

to the infrastructure.

The Thames is a managed river with 44 locks. The non-tidal

navigable section is 218km. The width varies considerably

from 18m at Lechlade to 100m at Teddington. The Lower

Thames cross-section is a relatively wide and shallow

river, with a substrate of predominantly coarse sediment.

The bank is a mixture of engineered and natural banks.

In the past there was extensive dredging but this is very

limited now. We dredge on a site by site basis when

necessary to achieve the navigable depth for the fairway.

We undertake a regular programme of capital works to

maintain the infrastructure of the Thames, mainly focussed

on locks and landings.

Flows during a typical summer are: Upper Thames (Buscot)

– 230 million litres per day (Ml/d), Middle Thames (Reading)

– 970Ml/d and Lower Thames (Kingston) – 1900Ml/d.

There are 36 licences to abstract water directly from the

non-tidal Thames. About 60% of the river length has been

classed as having medium sensitivity to adverse ecological

effects of low flows, with about 35% less sensitive than

this and a small section between Eynsham and Oxford

(5%) highlighted as being more sensitive.

Both the chemical and biological water quality of the

Thames have improved dramatically over the last 30

years. Generally, the Thames and its tributaries are graded

as A or B (very good or good), although two sites have been

classified as grade C (fair). Water quality in the Thames is

influenced by discharges from sewage treatment works,

diffuse agricultural run-off, urban run-off and accidental

or mischievous incidents of pollution. The Thames

Waterway Plan recommends that consideration should be

given to the need for bacteriological monitoring in lengths

where water contact sport is popular.

Current uses of the river include powered boating, sailing,

rowing, canoeing, angling, water supply, nature conservation,

camping and swimming (as part of organised events),

and as a drainage system for flood management.

Navigational use

Our vision is to increase the use of the Thames for

communities, wildlife, leisure and business. It is currently

used for recreation and by associated businesses. We plan

to investigate freight opportunities although we believe

these are limited.

The Thames is currently used by powered vessels (launches,

Dutch barges, passenger boats and narrowboats) and also

unpowered vessels for rowing, canoeing and sailing. A total

of 24,510 boats were registered in 2005, of which just over

75% were powered vessels.

Lock dimensions and bridge air draughts limit the size of

usable craft to 53m x 6m up to Windsor, 40m x 5.3m up

to Reading, 36.5m x 5.25m to Oxford and 33.2m x 4.2m

upstream of Oxford, with available headroom of 3.55m

to Oxford and 2.28m further upstream. Available draught

varies from 1.7m in the lower reaches to 0.9m upstream

of Oxford.

The Thames is open all the time as there is a public right

of navigation. There is no zoning or limitation on the

number of vessels. Teddington Lock is staffed 24 hours

every day; staffing at other locks varies seasonally,

although locks can be user operated out of hours.

The level of use and waterspace available means that

generally, conflicts between users are minimal. There are

some issues with rowers in busy rowing reaches, and with

anglers, but a system of River User Groups to coordinate

local activity has helped inter-user dialogue. River closures

for un-powered events are unpopular with powered boat

users. Some traditional Thames users are unhappy with

the increase in narrowboat numbers.

The increase in winter lock closures due to increased

capital spending is unpopular, as many modern boats are

useable all year round.

Navigation restoration proposals

There are no proposals for navigation restoration on the

Thames itself but there are proposals to restore the Wiltshire

and Berkshire Canal and the Thames and Severn Canal

(now referred to as part of the Cotswold Canals), which

will link to the Thames.

Local navigation interest groups

Association of Thames Yacht Clubs, Association of Thames

Valley Sailing Clubs, Cotswold Canals Trust, Electric Boat

Association, River Thames Boat Project, Thames Hire Cruiser

Association, Thames Traditional Boat Society, and Wilts

& Berks Canal Society.

Nature conservation interest

The Thames and its flood plain contain a diverse range

of valued habitats including flood meadows, wetlands and

reedbeds. Examples of aquatic Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)

priority species present include the otter, water vole and

depressed river mussel. Regional priority aquatic species

include the barbel, club-tailed dragonfly, Loddon lily and

Loddon pondweed. Some bat species are also water

dependent. The freshwater Thames has a diverse fish

community, with approximately 30 different species

comprising both coarse fish and salmonids. It supports many

species of birds such as the kingfisher, great crested grebe,

mute swan, coot and moorhen, as well as reed and sedge

warblers which nest in marginal vegetation. There is also

great diversity of aquatic plants.

140

Local wildlife interest groups

Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust, Surrey Wildlife Trust,

Thames Water and Thames Fisheries Consultative Council.

Relationship between navigation and nature

conservation interests

The main areas of conflict between navigation and wildlife

conservation are engineering works on the river, for example

bank protection and dredging. Where sheet piling is

necessary, various methods are being used to reduce

its sterility; success will be monitored over time.

Some people perceive a potential adverse impact on wildlife

from boat wash, hard-edged banks, marina development and

the potential for growth in boating. For the current ecological

status to be maintained and improved, navigation needs to be

constantly managed to ensure there is no threat to wildlife.

Wildlife interests can also be seen as a threat to navigation

if they block the development of boating facilities or insist

on mitigation which is prohibitively expensive.

We are continuing to seek ways of improving integration

between the different sector/functions within the Environment

Agency, so that compromise resolutions to problems are

found by discussion and the Agency’s high standards towards

nature conservation are maintained. Internal Thames

Champions groups help to improve integration, as do Capital

project workshops.

Key requirements to resolve uncertainties include improved

risk assessment tools to identify proportionate responses

to bank erosion and better understanding of the impact of

boat use on banks and on wildlife. Also, biological monitoring

of large heavily managed lowland rivers still presents many

challenges. Some existing data, for example from River

Corridor Surveys, are out of date; there is a paucity of

macrophyte data and a poor understanding of

river geomorphology.

The presence of locks and weirs protects some important

sites that are water flow and/or level dependent. The richest

areas are the shallow margins where plants like the yellow

water lily and the common reed are established, providing

habitats for invertebrates, fish and birds. Backwaters, such

as those in the Little Wittenham Site of Special Scientific

Interest (SSSI), often provide habitats for damselflies and

dragonflies, including the locally important club-tailed

dragonfly and white-legged damselfly. Little Wittenham’s

ponds also support the UK’s largest breeding population

of great crested newt. Wetland creation schemes have

been undertaken adjacent to the Thames at various

sites including Iffley, near Oxford, and Cholsey Marsh,

downstream from Wallingford.

There are 35 water related SSSIs, one National Nature

Reserve, three Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and

one Special Protection Area (SPA) within the River Corridor,

although none includes the main navigable channel.

Monitoring includes routine macro invertebrates, fisheries,

macrophytes, phytoplankton and river habitat surveys.

Chemical quality is graded using the General Quality

Assessment (GQA) system. Generally the upper Thames is

classed as good to very good though some lower stretches

are only fair. The majority of the Thames has good biological

quality measured through macro invertebrate scores (GQA),

although there are some exceptions on the lower sections

as a consequence of reduced water quality and the extent

of hard bank protection. Over the last 20 years the river

has seen improvements; these include an increase in water

clarity leading to the development of abundant and diverse

macrophyte communities, a decline in the amount of material

dredged and removed from the river, and improved water

quality. Further information is available on www.environment-

agency.gov.uk.

Key issues affecting the nature conservation value of the

river include: diffuse pollution, water abstraction and low

flows, habitat modification through hard bank protection

and dredging, invasive species, fragmentation of habitats,

impoundment, and barriers to species migration

and dispersal.

141

Management actions or proposals

The Thames Waterway Plan has been prepared to address

issues of navigation and recreation. The Plan has been

subjected to Strategic Environmental Assessment and was

developed in consultation with internal colleagues and River

Thames Alliance members.

The intention is that none of the Agency’s activities will result

in the loss of biodiversity and, by 2010, there will be a

substantial net gain in the region’s biodiversity resource.

Other plans and agreements will assist with this; for example

Water Level Management Plans address hydrological

requirements of water dependent SSSIs, the Lower Thames

operating agreement deals with some abstraction issues

and there is an agreed protocol on flow share between locks

and fish passes in drought conditions. Detailed proposals

to improve fisheries are developed through Fishery Action

Plans. These are drawn up in partnership with angling,

fisheries and conservation interest groups including the

Thames Fishery Consultative Council. There is also a special

Salmon Action Plan for the river. All capital works, such

as lay-bys, weir rebuilds and bank protection, are subject

to an Environmental Impact Assessment process.

Design guidance is provided for lock sites, with a pallet of

options available for bank protection; for example composite

hard and soft bank protection, habitat creation schemes that

can off-set damage in other areas and lock by-pass schemes.

Techniques include fish refuge pipes attached to the toe of

steel sheet piles, pile faces treated with geotextile materials,

spawning and refuge brushes or timber cladding to increase

structural diversity. Dredged gravels have been removed

and re-deposited where this will provide an enhanced habitat,

for example Romney Lock Cut dredgings were used to

enhance Romney Weir stream.

A naturalised by-pass channel was created on Penton Hook

island to mitigate for impacts of the weir structure as a

barrier to the movement of fish. This provided the opportunity

to create valuable and scarce Thames habitats previously lost

because of navigation management pressures. Ecological

surveys have shown that this has been very successful for

wildlife, including red data book invertebrates, macrophytes,

kingfishers and more species of fish in the channel than in

any other site on the river. Success as a migration route for

fish has been demonstrated by surveys showing 11 species

of fish using the channel for upstream migration.

Mitigating for the impacts of individual projects has often

been difficult to resolve due to a number of constraints, such

as land ownership. The Environment Agency has been very

proactive in recognising this issue and a process has been

developed to allow for mitigation banking. This has meant

that targeted offsite ecological mitigation opportunities can

be realised effectively.

An enforced speed limit of 8km/h is an excellent control

of boat wash. River User Groups have been very effective

at managing user conflicts. Educating users is important,

through mechanisms such as the Green Blue initiative of the

British Marine Federation and the Royal Yachting Association.

Good practice lessons

Face to face discussions are important, achieved through

River User Groups. Mutual understanding and respect helps

lead to consensus and compromise solutions.

There is a need to have agreed a strategy and objectives

to guide development, incorporating a holistic approach to

sustainability (environmental, economic, social and health).

There is a clear message that needs to be communicated:

an improved ecological resource equals an improved amenity

resource which leads to increased use of the waterway.

Sources of further information

Thames Waterway Plan available at

www.riverthamesalliance.com/plan.php

Waterway description

The Rochdale Canal is a broad canal which pioneered the

routes up the valleys on each side of Blackstone Edge

on to the magnificent rounded slopes of the Pennine

moors. Rail and modern road followed on, all packed

tightly into the available space.

The canal was reopened in 2002 and is a wonderful journey

for energetic boaters, especially as it is an integral part of

a 'Pennine Ring' including the Huddersfield Narrow Canal

or the Leeds & Liverpool Canal.

142

Rochdale CanalCase study 10

M62

M60

M66

Halifax

Oldham

RochdaleBury

ManchesterManchester

Huddersfield

RO

C HD

AL

E C

ANA

L

M62

Contributors - roles: Jason Leach, Project Manager

(formerly Project Ecologist Rochdale Canal Restoration)

Organisation(s): British Waterways (BW), North West Waterway

Email: jason.leach@britishwaterways.co.uk

Website: www.britishwaterways.co.uk

Partners: Environment Agency, Greater Manchester

Ecology Unit, Natural England (NE), Rochdale Canal

Society and local authorities.

143

It was the first of three Pennine crossings to be completed

(in 1804), the others being the Leeds & Liverpool and

the Huddersfield Narrow Canals, also recently reopened.

The engineers were Brindley, Rennie, Jessop and Crosley.

Running for 53km from Sowerby Bridge to Castlefield in

Manchester, through 92 broad locks and a short tunnel,

it was designed to take river craft from both sides of the

Pennines (lock size 22.5m x 4.27m). Payloads of up to 70

tons of coal, grain, salt, cotton and wool were carried around

the urban areas at each end, but a relatively small proportion

of trade went through all the locks ‘over the top’.

Despite competition from the railways, the Rochdale Canal

was busy until the First World War but eventually its

commercial use declined due to the development of better

road networks. The last through cargo was in 1937 and

trading ceased finally in 1958. Sections to the west of the

Pennines were partially filled in and locks converted to

weirs. The canal was never nationalised but the private

company was more inclined to develop the canal company's

land assets than waterways traffic.

Control was transferred to BW/The Waterways Trust in

2000 and full restoration to navigation has taken place

at a cost of £23.8 million, funded by grants of £11.9 from

the Millennium Commission, £10.8 million from English

Partnerships and contributions from Rochdale and Oldham

Councils. This required approximately 15 blockages to

be removed, new sections of channel to be excavated and

constructed plus dredging and associated environmental

work to be carried out. Since the restoration, many lock

gates have been replaced and a programme has been

undertaken to improve paddle gearing. A section of the

embankment at Whit Brook, Middleton has been repaired

to prevent a potential breach. A full account of the

restoration can be found at

www.penninewaterways.co.uk/rochdale. Reopening

occurred in July 2002, although there have been some

restrictions in use due to various factors including

breaches, lock gate failures and dredging.

It is a broad canal with a general width of approximately

15m. The offside is generally soft with a well developed

fringe of emergent vegetation. The tow-path side is a

mixture of original dry stone work, copings on wood, sheet

piling and concrete. There are some areas with emergent

vegetation on the towpath side. The majority of the urban

sections have a stone construction on both sides;

frequently the offside may comprise a mill wall and

foundations.

The canal was widely dredged during the restoration

period; additional dredging takes place to address shallow

areas at mooring sites and bridge holes.

Warland and Chelburn reservoirs feed the summit pound,

while Hollinworth Lake supplements this at the Manchester

side of the Littleborough Lock flight. Water supply can

be limiting during peak times, however BW operates

a booking system during these periods. Through the

‘Rochdale 9’ locks in Manchester, passage is assisted

due to anti-social behaviour.

The canal is used for recreational boating, angling and

canoeing, and the towpath has a moderately heavy use

for walking.

Navigational use

The objectives for navigation on the waterway are to develop

leisure use, balancing boat demand with nature

conservation objectives.

Use is mainly by recreational canal craft. There is one canoe

club based at Castleton. The canal is part of the South

Pennine Ring and is therefore appealing to recreational

users. There is also a community boat based at the top

of the Slattocks Lock flight.

Data on boat numbers through the Site of Special Scientific

Interest (SSSI)/Special Area of Conservation (SAC) are

collected using three webcams. At the time of writing,

since re-opening the highest number of boat movements

was in 2004, with 231 boats entering the SSSI/SAC section;

this number was limited as a result of infrastructure

failure leading to the closure of the canal during the

season. Due to the number of locks (3 per mile on average)

boat numbers are self regulating.

144

There is a rich but generally common-place invertebrate

assemblage in excess of 112 species; 13 of these species

are of local importance, including the locally uncommon

freshwater sponge Spongilla lacustris. Two species are

nationally scarce, a water beetle Agabus uliginosus and the

pea mussel Pisidium pulchellum. The canal also provides

habitat for a number of coarse fish and waterside bird

species, including the kingfisher.

As part of the management agreement between BW and

NE for the SSSI/SAC, the canal is subject to a suite of

surveys and monitoring activities. 34 aquatic macrophyte

survey plots along the canal are surveyed annually in

September, at the end of the main boating season, with

a subset of 10 sites surveyed in spring prior to the start

of the boating season. A summary of the information is

produced at the end of the season in a review document.

Eleven water quality sampling sites are sampled monthly

for pH, conductivity, secchi depth, phosphate and nitrate to

monitor seasonal and long-term variation. Data collected

to date indicate that chemical parameters are within the

agreed thresholds set during the restoration.

L. natans and other flora and fauna could be impacted

by a variety of factors, including boating, water quality and

external factors such as shading, pollution incidents and

vandalism. The monitoring undertaken covers all these

aspects to ensure that the true reasons for any potential

impact on the biology can be identified and the correct

management actions taken. The SSSI is currently

considered to be in a recovering condition following

restoration.

The main pressure on the nature conservation interest

is perceived to be navigation. It appears that a moderate

number of boat movements is required to sustain nature

conservation interests in the canal. Some of the important

aquatic macrophytes present on the canal, including L.

natans, are intolerant to competition from other vigorous

aquatic plants. Few or no boat movements allow the

dominant species to thrive, which may impact on the

abundance of these more sensitive species. Boats have

yet to reach the levels that may have a negative impact

on L. natans and other sensitive species.

There is a defined level of navigation within the SSSI/SAC

section at which BW is required, under the terms of a

management agreement with NE, to assess the impact

of boating on the submerged aquatic flora, currently set

at 800 boat movements per year. If no adverse impact

is identified then this number can be increased in 100

movement increments. Due to the number of locks, water

supply limitations and infrastructure problems, navigation

demand to date has been low resulting in few conflicts

between navigation and wildlife interests.

Navigation restoration proposals

The canal has been restored to navigation and was

reopened as a through route in 2002.

Local navigation interest groups

Rochdale Canal Society

Nature conservation interest

19km of the canal in Oldham and Rochdale Boroughs

are designated as a SSSI and SAC, due to its important

population of floating water plantain (Luronium natans

or L. natans) and associated aquatic plant assemblage.

L. natans is protected under UK and European law.

The nature conservation objectives for the waterway are

to maintain and enhance where appropriate the important

aquatic flora, while balancing this with its use as an

operational canal, and to achieve favourable condition

of the SSSI.

UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) habitats present on

the waterway channel include ‘standing open water and

canals’; UKBAP priority aquatic species present include

floating water plantain, grass wrack pondweed, white

clawed crayfish, water voles and bats.

As well as L. natans, the site supports a diverse assemblage

of aquatic flora, notably its pondweeds, Potamogeton spp.

The nine species of these found in the canal represent

a balanced community and reflect the quality of water,

which varies from acidic to neutral in pH, with low

to moderate levels of nutrients. Significant stands

of emergent plants also occur, including water violet

and a range of other flowering plants and some

uncommon ferns.

145

Local wildlife interest groups

Local wildlife lobby groups (e.g. wildlife trusts). Other key

players include NE and Greater Manchester Ecology Unit.

Relationship between navigation and nature

conservation interests

A document known as the exit strategy was produced by

BW and NE highlighting all the work that was undertaken

to protect L. natans and other species. It also includes

details of the monitoring required and maintenance

operations that can be carried out without impacting

on the features of interest, as well as the protocol to

be followed if activities that may impact on the interest

features are required. The supervisors and bank staff are

all briefed on the nature conservation issues and protocols

to be followed. They are assisted and advised by BW

ecologists.

The nature conservation interests were balanced against

the regeneration benefits of the restoration by having a very

close partnership between NE and BW. A jointly funded

project officer was employed to liaise between BW, contract

engineers and NE so ensuring that the agreed protection

and monitoring measures were put in place. The success

of the project depended on the ability of the project officer

to agree working methods that were practical and efficient

and allowed the engineering work to continue without

affecting the protected species. Flexibility, the ability to

develop new methods rapidly and getting approval from

both BW and NE were vital.

Some people initially expressed concern that the protected

species might jeopardise the restoration. As the project

developed this concern dissipated. The most recent issue

was dredging: to preserve L. natans in situ, the dredging

was restricted to a 6 metre channel adjacent to the

towpath even though the canal society preferred to have

the full width dredged.

Nature conservation bodies supported and continue to

support the restoration of the canal. They understand the

regeneration benefits the canal brings to very challenging

urban areas.

BW staff understand that a balance between nature

conservation and operation is required. There is regular

contact between BW’s ecological, bank and office staff

regarding conservation issues. Ecological staff also screen

proposals and works to ensure the BW Environmental

Code of Practice and other agreed procedures are followed.

Current levels of navigation, including a moderate increase,

are not considered a threat, although NE needs to be notified

of the number of boat movements at the end of the season

to allow them to determine trends. Current relationships

are good. Key uncertainties remain on the potential impact

of more than 800 boat movements per year on the nature

conservation interest of the SSSI; however, agreed

monitoring is in place.

Management actions or proposals

The exit strategy document covers the strategic aims and

includes the management plan. This document is approved

by NE and BW.

A wide range of methods was used to ensure that the

ecological works had the best chance of success. These

included conservation in situ, translocation to alternative

sites on the canal, translocation off site and culture and

return post restoration (population safeguard). The dredging

profile was restricted to a 6m channel on the tow path side.

20 in-channel reserves were created to act as refuges from

activities being undertaken in the channel. The technical

measures were vital in assuring conservation bodies that

all options and potential concerns were being addressed

and that all eventualities were considered, including the

very pessimistic. Should the restoration, including dredging,

have been undertaken without these measures then

important species would have been significantly impacted.

While working to preserve the protected species, a wide

range of other species has also benefited.

The restoration and ecological works were considered

a success. Monitoring shows continued development of

L. natans populations and stability of the chemical quality.

Several vigorous species are expanding and may have

potential to impact upon the protected species if left

unchecked. In this case, appropriate management

activities will be undertaken.

Regular ecological steering group meetings were held

between BW, NE and Greater Manchester Ecology Unit.

These were open and transparent which fostered trust.

All issues were looked at, no matter how contentious.

The project officer held regular progress updates with

all organisations to ensure all parties were appraised

of the state of the project and any issues. This led to

all parties feeling included in the day to day aspects

of the project.

The project was executed without any major problems

arising from nature conservation issues and communication

throughout the project was good, which was key to its

success. In the annual monitoring review meetings,

few issues are raised and relationships remain good.

Good practice lessons

It is important to ensure waterway staff are briefed on

progress and issues so that they buy-in to the process,

championing the nature conservation issues after the work

is finished. A close working partnership with NE through

the Project Officer proved successful.

In the early stages, it was found difficult to record

all meetings and site visits. This is an area that should

be looked at right at the start of the project. Good note

and record keeping is essential, especially when agreeing

potentially contentious issues.

Sources of further information

See SSSI citation on Natural England’s website

www.naturalengland.org.uk

See reports on BW’s website

www.britishwaterways.co.uk

146

Created in April 2007 by the Natural Environment and

Rural Communities Act 2006, IWAC is supported by Defra

and the Scottish Government. It succeeded the former

Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, created

in 1968 to give advice on the amenity and recreational

use of canals and rivers managed by British Waterways.

In England and Wales, IWAC’s remit covers all of the

inland waterways such as:

• canals (including those managed by British Waterways,

canal companies, local authorities and smaller

independent bodies);

• rivers (including those the responsibility of the

Environment Agency, British Waterways and

port authorities);

• the Norfolk & Suffolk Broads, and

• the navigable drains of the Fens.

In Scotland, IWAC’s remit covers inland waterways that

are owned or managed by, or which receive technical

advice or assistance from, British Waterways.

147

Photography acknowledgements

IWAC would like to thank everyone who

has supplied imagery for use in this report:

IWAC/John Pomfret Pages - 06, 08, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19, 20,

24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 36, 38, 39,

40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 55,

96, 110, 114, 122, 126, 138

British Waterways Pages - 18, 26, 29, 40, 52, 107, 118,

130, 134, 142

www.norfolk-broads.org Page - 26 (Hickling Broad)

angliaboatbuilding.org Pages - 80

Designed and produced: Honey Creative Ltd

www.honey-creative.co.uk

Published: June 2008

148

Inland Waterways

Advisory CouncilCity Road Lock, 38 Graham Street

London N18JX

Tel: 020 7253 1745

Fax: 020 7490 7656

Email: iwac@iwac.gsi.gov.uk

www.iwac.org.uk

Inland Waterways Advisory Council

City Road Lock, 38 Graham Street

London N1 8JX

Tel: 020 7253 1745

Fax: 020 7490 7656

Email: iwac@iwac.gsi.gov.uk

www.iwac.org.uk