Scottish Natural Heritage Archive Report No. 175

LACON: Lake Assessment for Conservation Version 1 Manual

A R C H I V E R E P O R T

Archive Report No. 175

LACON: Lake Assessment for Conservation

Version 1 Manual

For further information on this report please contact:

Alison Lee Scottish Natural Heritage Silvan House 231 Corstorphine Road EDINBURGH EH12 7AT Telephone: 0131 316 2620 E-mail: alison.lee@nature.scot

This report should be quoted as: Palmer, M.A. 2008. LACON: Lake Assessment for Conservation – Version 1 Manual. Scottish Natural Heritage Archive Report No. 175.

This report, or any part of it, should not be reproduced without the permission of Scottish Natural Heritage. This permission will not be withheld unreasonably. The views expressed by the author(s) of this report should not be taken as the views and policies of Scottish Natural Heritage.

© Scottish Natural Heritage 2019.

Archive Reports Scottish Natural Heritage is committed to making the findings of all of its research publicly available whenever possible. In the past, a number of reports from staff and contractors were produced as paper documents and lodged in the SNH library or file systems. Some related to Site Condition Monitoring, others covered a range of subjects. These were not published as Research Reports for a number of reasons. In order to make these reports more available, we have decided to publish them online under the series title of Archive Reports. These will be numbered consecutively in the order that they are prepared for web publication. Their publication date, authors and title will be recorded as presented in the original report. The Archive Reports will be published as scanned PDF files of the original reports. They have not been subject to any new editing, formatting or other changes, other than the cover, title page and this page. Many of the reports published as Archive Reports were produced by contractors and were originally intended as internal documents to inform our policy and advice. As a result they may contain historical information that is no longer current or accurate, and may contain views of contractors or staff which do not represent the current views and policy of SNH. Many of the reports published as Archive Reports were produced by contractors and were originally intended as internal documents to inform our policy and advice. As a result they may contain historical information that is no longer current or accurate, and may contain views of contractors or staff which do not represent the current views and policy of SNH.

i

LACON: LAKE ASSESSMENT FOR CONSERVATION

CONTENTS

Page SUMMARY iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v INTRODUCTION 1 Background 1 Data requirements 2 The LACON evaluation system 2 Testing the LACON scoring system 5 Interpretation of the output 5 Possible future work 7 CONSERVATION CRITERIA 8 PHYSICAL DIVERSITY 8 Concept of Physical Diversity 8 Calculation of Physical Diversity Index 9 PDY 1. Littoral substrates 9 Table PDY 1. Littoral substrate types found in lakes 9 PDY 2. Structure of aquatic vegetation 10 Table PDY 2. Growth form categories of standing water vegetation 10 PDY 3. Other habitat features 11 Table PDY 3. Other habitat features of lakes 11 NATURALNESS 12 Concept of Naturalness 12 Calculation of Naturalness Index 13 NA 1. Physical features 14 NA 2. Aquatic macrophytes 15 Table NA 2.1. Alien aquatic vascular plants established in standing

waters in Great Britain 16 Table NA 2.2. Aquatic vascular plants native to Great Britain but not

to Scotland, established in standing waters in Scotland 17 Table NA 2.3. Standing water vascular plants native to Great Britain that are restricted in natural distribution, but are introduced elsewhere 17 NA 3. Adjacent habitat 18 Table NA 3. Natural and artificial Phase 1 Habitat Survey categories 19

REPRESENTATIVENESS 20 Concept of Representativeness 20 Calculation of Representativeness Index 22 RE 1. Aquatic macrophyte complement 23

ii

Table RE 1. Most typical submerged and floating macrophyte taxa in Lake Groups 24

RE 2. Plant Lake Ecotype Index (PLEX) 26 Table RE 2.1. PLEX scores for submerged and floating macrophytes 27

Figure RE 2. Range of PLEX scores for Lake Groups 29 Table RE 2.2. Range of PLEX scores for Lake Groups 29

RARITY 30 Concept of Rarity 30 Calculation of Rarity Index 34 RA 1. Bern Convention / Habitats Directive plant species 35 Table RA 1. Standing water plant species native to the UK listed in Appendix I of the Bern Convention and Annexes IIb and IVb of the Habitats Directive 35 RA 2. Scheduled plant species 36 Table RA 2. Standing water vascular plant and charophyte species included in Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and protected under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 36 RA 3. Red List plants 38 Table RA 3. Standing water vascular plants and charophytes

included in British Red Lists 39 RA 4. Habitats Directive Annex IIb plant species common in the UK 41 RA 5. Near Threatened, Nationally Rare and UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority plant species 41

Table RA 5. Standing water vascular plant and charophyte species that are Near Threatened, Nationally Rare or UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority 42

RA 6. Nationally Scarce plant species 43 Table RA 6. Standing water vascular plant, charophyte and liverwort species that are Nationally Scarce 44 RA 7. Plant species for which Britain has International Responsibility 45 Table RA 7. Standing water plants for which Britain has International Responsibility 45 RA 8. Plant species Uncommon in England, Scotland or Wales 46 Table RA 8.1. Standing water plant species Uncommon in England 47

Table RA 8.2. Standing water plant species Uncommon in Scotland 48 Table RA 8.3. Standing water plant species Uncommon in Wales 49 RA 9. Regionally Uncommon plant species 50 Table RA 9.1 Regionally Uncommon standing water plant species: Environment Agency Regions 52 Table RA 9.2. Regionally Uncommon standing water plant species: Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Areas 53

iii

SPECIES RICHNESS 54 Concept of Species Richness 54 Calculation of Species Richness Index 54 SR 1. Aquatic macrophytes 56 Table SR 1. Checklist of native aquatic macrophytes of standing water 57 SR 2. Marginal vegetation communities 63 Table SR 2. National Vegetation Classification swamp and tall-herb fen communities associated with standing water 64 IMPACTS 65 Quantifying impacts 65 Calculation of Impacts Index 66 IM 1. Acidification 68 IM 2. Eutrophication 68 IM 3. Water abstraction and water level management 69 IM 4. Recreational, educational and/or military pressures 69 IM 5. Introduced species 70 IM 6. Surrounding land use 70 IM 7. Modification of lake morphology 71

ADDITIONAL FEATURES OF IMPORTANCE (AFIs) 72 Concept of Additional Features of Importance 72 Table AFI 1. Additional Features of Importance 72

Table AFI 1.1 Some established alien vascular plants of wetlands and water margins 78

REFERENCES 79 ANNEX 1 The standard loch survey method 82 ANNEX 2 Results of tests on the LACON scoring system 83

ANNEX 3 Maps showing the distribution of Lake Groups A to J in Britain 93

ANNEX 4 Key to Lake Groups 104 ANNEX 5 Constancy table for Lake Groups: submerged and

floating vegetation 106

ANNEX 6 Rarity status of standing water plants in Britain 107 ANNEX 7 Maps of Environment Agency Regions and Scottish

Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Areas 118

iv

SUMMARY

LACON (Lake Assessment for Conservation) is a semi-quantitative method of assessing the nature conservation interest and value of standing waters in Great Britain. It is modelled on SERCON (System for Evaluating Rivers for Conservation), which was developed by the UK statutory nature conservation agencies, in conjunction with a number of other bodies, for the assessment of river conservation value. LACON is based on the most important and well-used of the 'classic' nature conservation evaluation criteria: naturalness, representativeness (typicalness), rarity and diversity. LACON elaborates this approach by using a range of attributes under each criterion and applying a scoring system to achieve rigour and repeatability in the assessment. Thus, the value of a site for a particular criterion is quantified in relation to that of other sites. LACON also attempts to quantify the impact of human activity on a water body. A comprehensive 'library' of reference data, on which the scoring is based, is incorporated in this manual. Since the mid 1970s, the British statutory nature conservation agencies have carried out botanical surveys of approximately 3500 standing waters throughout England, Scotland and Wales. These water bodies include lochs, lakes, meres, ponds, pools, lagoons, reservoirs and gravel pits. Most are fresh waters; a few are slightly saline. The data from these surveys are now incorporated in a computerised database held by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). LACON is a tool for assessing the nature conservation value of these and other lakes, using data collected in a standard manner. This manual deals mainly with habitat features and aquatic and marginal plant communities. It is hoped that other taxonomic groups might be more fully incorporated into LACON in the future.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks are due to Chris Preston and Henry Arnold, of the Biological Records Centre, CEH Monks Wood, for drawing up preliminary checklists of plants in Water Authority regions and SEPA areas. Phil Boon and Mary Hennessy, of Scottish Natural Heritage, commented on drafts of this manual. Nigel Holmes and Phil Boon provided invaluable insights into the intricacies of SERCON. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) gave permission for the use of distribution maps of Lake Groups (Annex 3) and other information from the lake classification work (Annexes 4 to 5). The Scottish Environment Protection Agency provided the map of SEPA areas (Annex 7).

1

INTRODUCTION Background LACON (Lake Assessment for Conservation) is a method of assessing the nature conservation value of standing waters. It is modelled on SERCON (System for Evaluating Rivers for Conservation) (Boon et al., 1996, 1997), which was developed by the UK statutory nature conservation agencies, in conjunction with a number of other bodies, for the assessment of river conservation value. SERCON is based on the most important and well-used of the 'classic' Nature Conservancy Council evaluation criteria (Ratcliffe, 1977): naturalness, representativeness (typicalness), rarity and diversity. These also form the basis of the criteria for the selection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (Nature Conservancy Council, 1989). SERCON elaborates this approach by using a range of attributes under each criterion and by applying a scoring system to achieve rigour and repeatability in the assessment. SERCON also incorporates a comprehensive 'library' of reference data on which the scoring is based. The system was designed principally as an application on PC, but it can also be used with the aid of a paper manual alone. Since the mid 1970s, the Nature Conservancy Council and its successors (Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature/Natural England and Scottish Natural Heritage) have carried out numerous surveys of standing fresh and brackish waters throughout Great Britain. These waters include lochs, lakes, meres, ponds, pools, lagoons, reservoirs and gravel pits. Most of the data collected have been on aquatic macrophytes, but a small amount of information on invertebrates has been gathered and limited chemical and physical observations have been made. Survey has been most systematic in Scotland, where the macrophytes of 3100 lochs (representing approximately half the total area of Scottish standing water) have been examined in detail (Lassière, 1995; Palmer and Roy, 2001a and 2001b; Duigan et al., 2006, 2007). In Northern Ireland, a similar botanical survey of loughs has been carried out (Wolfe-Murphy et al., 1992). Information from botanical surveys of standing waters in England, Scotland and Wales are now incorporated in a computerised database held by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Data from 3499 sites in this database were subjected to multivariate analysis, and a classification of British lakes was produced (Duigan at al., 2006, 2007). Other recent developments relevant to lake evaluation are the publication of the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora (Preston et al., 2002), the revision of the Red List of British vascular plants (Cheffings & Farrell, 2005), work on the distribution and status of charophytes (Nick Stewart, 2004), development of a lake habitat survey technique (Rowan et al., 2005, 2006) and the revision of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species list in 2007. In order to maximise the use of information in the lakes database and elsewhere, and to standardise the evaluation of sites, a system similar to SERCON was needed for standing waters. LACON has therefore been developed. It can be applied to any natural or artificial body of standing water, ranging from large lochs to small ponds, and including fresh and mildly saline waters.

2

Data requirements LACON relies heavily on botanical data because no other biological information of comparable quality and quantity exists at present for standing waters. (This is in contrast with SERCON, which uses data on invertebrates, fish, mammals and birds, as well as vegetation.) Other considerations are taken into account under Physical Diversity, Impacts and Additional Features of Importance (AFIs). The evaluation system described in LACON can be applied to any type of fresh or slightly saline (0.5 to 20 gL-1 NaCl, approximate conductivity 1,000 to 30,000 µScm-1) standing water body, natural or artificial in origin. Lakes are generally treated as single survey units in the SNH standard survey method (Lassière, 1995), so the assessment criteria in LACON are designed primarily for application to data from whole water bodies, not to discrete areas within them. However, in certain circumstances data from a very large or heterogeneous standing water body could be split and the sections evaluated separately. This is most appropriate for waters where the various sections are recognisable as belonging to different Lake Groups (Duigan at al., 2006, 2007) or when the water body crosses the boundary between countries (England, Scotland, Wales), Environment Agency Regions or Scottish Environment Protection Areas. Conversely, it may occasionally be appropriate (e.g. for small gravel pits or clusters of pools) to treat a group of similar or contiguous water bodies as a single site. The minimum of information needed for a LACON assessment is a detailed survey of submerged, floating and emergent vegetation. The methodology employed in the botanical survey of Scottish lochs (Lassière, 1995: Annex 1) is recommended. Field survey involves walking around the edge of the lake or using a boat, and recording the distribution and abundance of all aquatic macrophyte species, using the DAFOR (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional, Rare) scale. Deep water is sampled by means of a double-headed rake attached to a length of rope, thrown from the shore or dropped from the boat. The extent of each macrophyte community is mapped as far as possible and a series of target notes is compiled, detailing the extent and abundance of species at particular points around the lake and the location of rare species. A more complete LACON assessment also requires habitat data (e.g. substrate type and vegetation structure) derived from the Lake Habitat Survey (LHS) methodology (Rowan et al., 2005, 2006), information from ‘Phase 1’ survey (England Field Unit, 1990 / JNCC, 1993) of land immediately adjacent to the lake, and knowledge of impacts operating on the water body. The LACON evaluation system LACON employs a range of five Conservation Criteria for evaluating lakes: Physical Diversity, Naturalness, Representativeness, Rarity and Species Richness. The system produces a suite of Conservation Indices, one for each of the Conservation Criteria, derived from information on separate attributes within each criterion. The possible range of values for an index is 0 to100, with 0 representing no conservation value and 100 the highest value that can be assigned from the information available. A sixth criterion covers Impacts, for which a scoring system is given. Data collected during past conservation agency surveys of standing waters is generally insufficient

3

for scoring Impacts, but this section of the assessment can be used if appropriate information is available. A seventh section - Additional Features of Importance (AFIs) allows the user to draw attention to other unique, positive or negative features of the site. This is not part of the scored assessment, but can be highly influential in assessing conservation value. The output indices are kept separate to prevent the problem of double scoring, which could occur because the criteria are inter-related. Keeping scores for individual criteria separate also gives transparency to the assessment and is more informative than a single overall score. Some types of standing water have the potential to score highly for all conservation criteria, whereas others will be intrinsically poor when judged on a single criterion. Many nutrient-poor upland lakes, for instance, might be expected to have high scores for Naturalness and Representativeness, but a relatively low score for Species Richness. Gravel pits, on the other hand, could not be expected to attain a high score for Naturalness, but might score highly for Species Richness. The scoring system in LACON is designed to be comparable with that of SERCON, in which there is a six-point (0-5) scale for scoring each attribute. Sometimes there are insufficient features within an attribute to make full use of the score band. Part of the scale is therefore designated ‘Not Applicable’ (N/A). Calculation of the LACON Conservation Indices involves weighting the scores for individual attributes within

• Physical Diversity: three attributes: littoral substrates, structure of aquatic vegetation, other habitat features

• Naturalness: three attributes: physical structure, aquatic macrophytes, adjacent habitat

• Representativeness: two attributes related to the botanical classification of British lakes (Duigan et al., 2006, 2007): typical species and PLEX score (see RE 2 for an explanation of this term)

• Rarity: nine attributes relating to international, national (Britain), country (England, Scotland , Wales) and regional rarity

• Species Richness: two attributes: aquatic macrophytes and marginal vegetation communities.

The procedure for calculating each of the five Conservation Indices is indicated in the relevant section of this manual. To interpret the Conservation Indices, the user needs some indication of the completeness of the information about a site. A suffix is therefore assigned to an index to indicate the percentage completeness of the data. The % completeness is the proportion of the maximum possible weighted score represented by the dataset:

a* = data set complete a = data >80% to <100% complete b = data >60% to 80% complete c = data >40% to 60% complete d = data >20% to 40% complete e = data >0% to 20% complete.

4

LACON also addresses the problem of evaluation based on data of limited quantity or reliability by entering a 'level of confidence' ('A' for high, 'B' for moderate, 'C' for low) for each criterion score. This is a subjective scale, and the assessment will be influenced by factors such as the age of the data, the expertise of the surveyor, the time spent on the survey and whether a standard method was employed. Where stoneworts are identified only to genus it is impossible to tell whether a rare species is present, so this uncertainty would reduce the level of confidence at least to ‘B’ when assessing Rarity. The maximum rating for sites based on data over 10 years old is ‘B’, unless it is the historical conservation importance of the lake that is of interest. The following is an example illustrating how a Species Richness Index is derived:

A lake was surveyed in 1980 by expert botanists, who examined the open water vegetation in detail and recorded 25 aquatic plant species. Little recording was carried out in the emergent fringe. Twenty five aquatic macrophyte taxa give a score of 3 (see Guidance for scoring in SR 1). The data on emergents were considered inadequate to assess the number of swamp/tall-herb fen communities present, so no score was given for species richness of marginal vegetation (SR 2).

Species Richness of aquatic macrophytes is given a weighting of 2; that for marginal vegetation is 1. The Species Richness Index is calculated as follows:

Attribute Score Weight Weighted Maximum Maximum score possible possible score weighted score SR 1 3 2 6 5 10 SR 2 - 1 - 5 5

Species Richness Index (% of maximum possible weighted score for the attribute or attributes scored)

= 6 x 100 = 60 10

Because only one of the two attributes was scored, and this has twice the maximum possible weighted score of the unused attribute, the data are 67% complete. The suffix for completeness of the data is therefore 'b'. The data are over 10 years old but the existing records are reliable. The confidence level is therefore given as 'B'. The complete Species Richness Index is SR60/b/B.

The final assessment of the nature conservation value of a standing water site is an amalgam and overview of the whole suite of outputs, using all the Conservation Indices and the Impact Index, and taking into account the AFIs, which can play a significant role in the evaluation.

5

Testing the LACON scoring system The scoring system in LACON has been tested on aquatic macrophyte survey data gathered by the statutory conservation agencies from 70 standing waters: 40 Scottish lochs in East Ross and Orkney, 20 standing waters in England and 10 Welsh lakes. Only four conservation criteria (Naturalness, Representativeness, Rarity, Species Richness) were covered, because insufficient data were available to assess Physical Diversity, Impacts or AFIs. The data from the majority of Scottish and Welsh sites were obtained in the 1990s, whereas the data for many of the English sites were collected in the 1970s and 1980s. Where the first round of testing showed up anomalies in the initial allocation of conservation criteria score bands, adjustments were made to produce a more appropriate system. The results of testing the amended system are given as Annex 2. The ranges and means for the Conservation Indices were:

Range Mean Naturalness 20 to 100 86

Representativeness 0 to 100 69 Rarity 0 to 83 17 Species Richness 0 to 93 41 The high mean value for Naturalness reflects the bias to upland sites, which are generally less impacted than lowland sites, and the fact that many of the lowland sites were included in the surveys because they were recognised as having conservation value. The mean value for Representativeness was expected to be fairly high because information for the test sites contributed to the database that was used to produce the lake classification. The low mean Rarity value is due mainly to the fact that rare species are, by definition, not commonly found. Also, in many sites charophytes were not determined to species, so could not be taken into account when scoring for Rarity. Interpretation of the output Interpretation of the LACON output can be illustrated by the following examples, which are based on botanical data only and cover a range of different lake types. Llyn Idwal - an upland, soft water lake in North Wales.

Conservation Indices: Naturalness 100 (a natural lake in a mountain setting; no non-

native macrophytes present) Representativeness 80 Rarity 5 (awlwort Subularia aquatica present - Uncommon in

Wales) Species Richness 47

The Rarity Index is low. The modest score for Species Richness is not unexpected for an upland water body and is greater than that for most of the similar Welsh and English lakes used to test LACON. AFIs would include the facts that Llyn Idwal lies within a National Nature Reserve and is a classic corrie lake. Overall, the lake is assessed as a good example of its type, with high conservation value.

6

Fowl Mere - a calcareous water body in the Norfolk Breckland. Conservation Indices:

Naturalness 100 (a natural water body in unimproved pasture land; no non-native macrophytes present)

Representativeness 70 Rarity 0 Species Richness 33

The site is an example of an aquifer-fed naturally fluctuating water body - an internationally rare habitat. This AFI alone would elevate the site to one of conservation importance, despite the low values for two of the Conservation Indices. Greenlee Lough - a moderately base-rich lake in Northumberland Conservation Indices:

Naturalness 20 (the alien plant Elodea canadensis dominant) Representativeness 65 Rarity 10 (two plant species rare in England: red pondweed

Potamogeton alpinus and various-leaved pondweed Potamogeton gramineus; one species Uncommon in the North East Environment Agency Region: bladderwort Utricularia vulgaris)

Species Richness 87 Loch Ussie - a moderately base-rich lake in East Ross Conservation Indices:

Naturalness 80 (Elodea canadensis present; some of the surrounding habitat plantation woodland)

Representativeness 100 Rarity 68 (one Nationally Rare plant: Shetland pondweed

Potamogeton rutilus; one Near Threatened species: pillwort Pilularia globulifera; one Nationally Scarce species: slender-leaved pondweed Potamogeton filiformis; two ‘International Responsibility’ species: lesser marshwort Apium inundatum and needle spike-rush Eleogiton fluitans)

Species Richness 93 Loch Lundie - a moderately base-rich lake in East Ross Conservation Indices:

Naturalness 95 (no non-native plants, but some plantation woodland and arable land surrounding the loch)

Representativeness 80 Rarity 15 (one Nationally Scarce species: slender-leaved

pondweed Potamogeton filiformis) Species Richness 47

Overall, Loch Ussie appears from these results to have the greatest conservation value of the three moderatey base-rich lakes. The final comparison, however, would take into account information on Physical Diversity, Impacts and AFIs, none of which was available.

7

CONSERVATION CRITERIA PHYSICAL DIVERSITY Concept of Physical Diversity Physical Diversity in lakes is an important criterion in conservation assessment because habitat diversity has a profound impact on biological diversity. Some standing waters have a wide range of habitat features present, a few of which may be artificial, whereas other waters (e.g. bog pools) are naturally lacking in diversity. This consideration is addressed in other parts of LACON such as Naturalness, Representativeness and Impacts. Three attributes of Physical Diversity are incorporated in LACON: littoral substrates (PDY 1), structure of the aquatic vegetation (PDY 2) and other habitat features (PDY 3). These attributes are relevant not only to plant diversity but also to animal diversity, which at present is only considered in the AFI section. Each of the three attributes is given the same weighting in the scoring system for the Physical Diversity criterion. Calculation of Physical Diversity Index Where all three attributes are taken into account the Physical Diversity Index is calculated as follows: Attribute Score Weight Weighted Maximum Maximum score possible weighted score score PDY 1 a 1 a 5 5 PDY 2 b 1 b 5 5 PDY 3 c 1 c 5 5 Sum 15

Physical Diversity Index (% of maximum possible weighted score for the attributes scored) = (a + b + c) x 100

15 The suffix indicating the completeness of the data is 'a*'.

If data are available only for one of the three attributes, the calculation is as follows: Physical Diversity Index = a (or b or c) x 100 5

The maximum possible weighted score using this attribute alone would be 5 (out of the total of 15 for all attributes). The data are therefore only 33% complete and completeness of the data would be rated as 'd'.

If data are available on two of the attributes, the calculation is as follows: Physical Diversity Index = (b + c) x 100 10 The data are 67% complete, so completeness of the data would be 'b' See the previous section The LACON evaluation system for guidance on rating the level of confidence (A, B or C) of the score.

8

PDY 1. Littoral substrates Question: How diverse are the substrates of the littoral zone of the water body?

Table PDY 1 lists the types of substrate found in the littoral zone (waterline to wading depth) of lakes. These include natural and artificial substrates. The categories are based on the Lake Habitat Survey methodology. A diversity of substrates provides niches for a diversity of rooted plants and invertebrates. Certain substrates, such as gravel beds, are essential as spawning sites for some fish species. The assessment is confined to the littoral zone of the lake because profundal substrates may be out of reach in a routine survey and the majority of species inhabit the littoral zone. Guidance for scoring Score 0 Only one substrate type present

1 2 substrate types present 2 3 substrate types present 3 4 substrate types present 4 5 substrate types present 5 6 or more substrate types present

Table PDY 1. Littoral substrate types found in lakes Natural

Bedrock Boulder > 256 mm diameter Cobble > 64 – 256 mm diameter Pebble > 2 - 64 mm diameter Sand ≥ 0.063 - 2 mm diameter Silt/clay < 0.06 mm diameter Peat Marl deposit (active deposition in highly calcareous water)

Other natural substrate Artificial

Hard (e.g. concrete, stone, tipped debris) Soft (e.g. plastic, bio-engineering material) Other artificial material

Note

Artificial as well as natural substrates should be counted.

9

PDY 2. Structure of aquatic vegetation Question: How diverse is the aquatic vegetation stucture of the water body?

Diversity of vegetation structure is generally acknowledged to be associated with diversity of animals, especially invertebrates (Marshall & Westlake, 1978). Table PDY 2 is a list of the growth forms of aquatic plants found in lakes. The categories are those listed in the Lake Habitat Survey methodology for littoral vegetation structure. Guidance for scoring Score 0 No vegetation present

1 Only one growth form type present 2 2 – 3 growth forms present 3 4 – 5 growth forms present 4 6 – 7 growth forms present 5 > 7 growth forms present

Table PDY 2. Growth form categories of standing water vegetation

• Liverworts/mosses/lichens

• Emergent broad-leaved herbs

• Emergent reeds/sedges/rushes

• Floating-leaved (rooted)

• Free-floating

• Submerged broad-leaved

• Submerged short, stiff-leaved

• Submerged linear-leaved

• Submerged fine- and dissected-leaved (including stoneworts)

• Filamentous algae (including Enteromorpha)

• Phytobenthos

• Seaweeds Notes An assessment of the number of growth forms present in the aquatic vegetation should preferably be made in the field. Many plants can exist in more than one growth form and each form should be scored if present. However, a taxon may exhibit only one of the possible forms at a particular site. It is sometimes difficult to decide on the growth form (e.g. submerged leaves broad or linear), especially as plants vary in robustness depending on the nutrient status of the water. In such cases, a pragmatic decision should be made and a single category scored. Alien as well as native species should be considered when counting the number of growth forms present.

10

PDY 3. Other habitat features Question: How diverse are the habitat features (other than substrate) of the water body? Table PDY 3 is a list of the types of habitat features to be considered in this attribute, excluding substrate (PDY 1) and aquatic vegetation stucture (PDY 2). The categories are adapted from those used in the Lake Habitat Survey methodology. The term ‘habitat features’ is used here in its widest sense, to incorporate gross features such as islands and niches such as submerged tree roots. The habitat features listed are those found in a wide range of water body types, from lowland gravel pits to upland corrie lakes. Guidance for scoring Score 0 Only one habitat feature present

1 2 – 4 habitat features present 2 5 – 7 habitat features present 3 8 – 10 habitat features present 4 11 – 13 habitat features present 5 > 13 habitat features present

Table PDY 3. Other habitat features of lakes Water up to 3 m deep Water over 3 m deep Rock ledge(s) or sharp underwater drop-off(s) Gently shelving littoral zone Cliff face(s) Bay(s) Eroding shoreline(s) Poached margin(s) Drawdown zone(s) Island(s) (non-deltaic) Stable vegetated deltaic island(s) Deltaic deposits (e.g. gravel, sand, silt, clay) Beach(es) Inflow(s) Outflow(s) Overhanging vegetation close to water surface Exposed underwater tree roots Woody debris in the water Other natural feature(s)

11

NATURALNESS Concept of Naturalness Completely natural habitats are rare in Britain because human activity has had a profound effect on the countryside. Many standing waters, such as lakes formed through glacial processes, are natural in origin but their water quality may be affected by acid deposition or artificial enrichment, their hydromorphology may be modified by water abstraction or bank reinforcement, and their biota may be changed through the introduction of non-native species. Naturalness is difficult to define but it is regarded as an important aspect of nature conservation value (Ratcliffe, 1977; Margules & Usher, 1981). In LACON, three attributes of Naturalness are scored: physical structure, aquatic vegetation and adjacent habitat. Other aspects of naturalness (or the lack of it), such as pollution, are covered under Impacts and Additional Features of Importance. Naturalness of physical structure (NA 1) is assessed by considering the origin of a water body’s basin, any modifications to the hydrological regime, and the extent of artificial structures on its banks. Naturalness of aquatic vegetation (NA 2) is assessed by counting the number of introduced aquatic plant species that are present in a site and assessing their abundance. The definition of a non-native species (Defra, 2003) is: A species introduced (i.e. by human action) outside its natural past or present distribution. Foremost are alien species that have been introduced from abroad and are established in Britain (see Table NA 2.1). The occurrence of native British plants that have been introduced accidentally or deliberately from another part of the country is also taken into account in the scoring system (see Tables NA 2.2 and NA 2.3). Naturalness of marginal vegetation, about which less information has generally been gathered, is covered under Additional Features of Importance (see Table AFI 6). The impact of introduced species is dealt with under Impacts. A water body may be surrounded by a single habitat type (e.g. bog) or a mixture of habitats (e.g. woodland, heathland and a caravan site). Naturalness of adjacent habitat (NA 3) is evaluated by estimating the percentage of the perimeter of the water body abutted by natural, rather than artificial habitat. In order to do this, Phase 1 habitat survey categories (England Field Unit, 1990 / JNCC, 1993) have been defined broadly as natural or artificial (Table NA 3) and these definitions are used in the estimation. Semi-natural habitats (e.g. mixed woodland, ‘good’ semi-improved grassland, modified bog) are classified for this purpose as natural. Because botanical survey has concentrated on aquatic macrophytes rather than on adjacent land and physical features, NA 2 is given a weighting of 2 and NA 1 and NA 3 each a weighting of 1. It must be born in mind that a high score for Naturalness of aquatic vegetation may be obtained if there are no aliens present but communities are impoverished as a result of pollution or habitat destruction. To obtain a more complete picture of naturalness, other features such as Impacts and Additional Features of Interest should be considered alongside the Naturalness Index.

12

Calculation of Naturalness Index Where all three attributes are taken into account the Naturalness Index is calculated as follows: Attribute Score Weight Weighted Maximum Maximum score possible weighted score score NA 1 d 1 d 5 5 NA 2 e 2 2e 5 10 NA 3 f 1 f 5 5 Sum 20

Naturalness Index (% of maximum possible weighted score for the attributes scored) = (d + 2e + f) x 100

20 The suffix indicating the completeness of the data is 'a*'.

If data are available only for physical features, the calculation is as follows: Naturalness Index = d x 100 5

The maximum possible weighted score using this attribute alone would be 5 (out of the total of 20 for all attributes). The data are therefore only 25% complete and completeness of the data would be 'd'.

The same calculation would apply if there were data only for adjacent habitat. If data are available only for aquatic macrophytes, the calculation is as follows:

Naturalness Index = 2e x 100 10

The maximum possible weighted score using this attribute alone would be 10 (out of the total of 20 for all attributes). The data are therefore 50% complete and the suffix indicating completeness of the data would be 'c'.

If data were available on aquatic macrophytes and adjacent habitat, but not on physical features, the calculation would be as follows: Naturalness Index = (2e + f) x 100 15 Completeness of the data would be 'b' See the previous section The LACON evaluation system for guidance on rating the

level of confidence (A, B or C) of the score.

13

NA 1. Physical features Three aspects of naturalness are evaluated in NA 1: the origin of the water body, its hydrological regime and the structure of its banks. Usually a standing water body will be either entirely natural in origin (e.g. a corrie lake or a kettle hole mere) or entirely artificial (e.g. a gravel pit or a reservoir formed from damming a river). However, part of a natural basin may be modified, for instance substantially extended for mooring or fishing, or a man-made basin or flooded valley may incorporate a natural lake, as in some reservoirs. The hydrological regime may be totally natural, slightly modified by such things as small dams or modest amounts of water abstraction, or heavily modified, as in farm reservoirs or in lakes used as pump-storage reservoirs for hydroelectric schemes. The banks may all be natural or the margins may incorporate artificial structures such as concrete reinforcement, piling, dams, sluices, fishing stands or launching ramps, or they may have been resectioned. Each of these three aspects should be considered separately and the mean score taken as the score for NA 1. Guidance for scoring (a) Question: How natural is the origin of the water body? Score 0 The water body is totally man-made 1 N/A

2 N/A 3 The water body is partly natural, partly man-made 4 N/A 5 The water body is totally natural in origin

(b) Question: How natural is the hydrological regime of the water body? Score 0 The hydrological regime is heavily modified 1 N/A

2 N/A 3 The hydrological regime is slightly modified 4 N/A 5 The hydrological regime is totally natural

(c) Question: How natural are banks of the water body?

Score 0 25% or more of the perimeter of the water body is man-made or resectioned

1 N/A 2 Artificial structures or resectioned areas occupy 5% to <25% of the

perimeter 3 Some artificial structures or resectioned areas are incorporated in the

banks, but these occupy <5% of the perimeter 4 N/A 5 The banks are totally natural

Calculate the overall score for NA 1 as the mean score of parts (a), (b) and (c).

14

NA 2. Aquatic macrophytes Question: How natural is the complement of aquatic macrophytes?

The degree of naturalness of the aquatic plant assemblage is assessed by counting the number of introduced aquatic vascular plant species present in a water body and assessing their relative abundance or percentage cover. The aquatic macrophyte taxa introduced to Great Britain from abroad and established in the wild are listed in Table NA 2.1. Other alien plants may become established in the wild in the future, so this table should be amended from time to time. Native British aquatic plants that have been introduced to areas of Britain well outside their natural range are listed in Tables NA 2.2 and NA 2.3. Species in both these categories are taken into account in the scoring system. Information on the distribution and status of aquatic plants was obtained from the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora (Preston et al., 2002), Hill et al. (2005) and Defra (2007) (for Ludwigia). Some alien species are more invasive and more easily spread than others and therefore pose a greater risk to native flora and fauna. When Elodea species first colonise a water body they tend to grow very vigorously, to the detriment of native aquatic species. However, in sites where Elodea canadensis has been present for many years it may form a minor element in a diverse aquatic flora. Several of these alien species are new arrivals in Britain, which are commonly sold for use in garden ponds and aquaria. The most invasive of these newcomers are Crassula helmsii, Hydrocotyle ranunculoides, Ludwigia peploides (L. grandiflora) and Myriophyllum aquaticum. Azolla filiculoides, which was first recorded in Britain in 1883, can also become dominant very quickly and exclude other species. For these reasons, the Naturalness scoring system has been adjusted to ‘penalise’ sites containing even small quantities of Crassula helmsii, Hydrocotyle ranunculoides, Ludwigia peploides, Myriophyllum aquaticum or Azolla filiculoides. Guidance for scoring Score 0 N/A 1 N/A

2 3 or more aquatic macrophyte species alien to Britain present 3 2 aquatic macrophyte species alien to Britain present 4 1 aquatic macrophyte species alien to Britain present 5 No alien aquatic macrophyte species present

SUBTRACT 1 for each native species listed in Tables NA 2.2 and NA 2.3 where it is

outside the natural range indicated in these tables SUBTRACT 2 for each alien aquatic species listed in Table NA 2.1 that is present at

a DAFOR rating of abundant SUBTRACT 3 for each alien aquatic species listed in Table NA 2.1 that is present at

a DAFOR rating of Dominant SUBTRACT 4 if any of the following are present (at any DAFOR rating): Azolla

filiculoides, Crassula helmsii, Hydrocotyle ranunculoides, Ludwigia peploides (L. grandiflora), Myriophyllum aquaticum.

If subtractions produce a total less than 0, allocate 0 as the score.

15

Table NA 2.1. Alien aquatic vascular plants established in standing waters in Great Britain

Distribution 1970-1999 Acorus calamus Sweet-flag E S W Acorus gramineus Slender sweet-flag E Aponogeton distachyos Cape pondweed E S W Azolla filiculoides Water fern E S W Cabomba caroliniana Carolina water-shield E S(ex) Calla palustris Bog arum E S W Crassula helmsii New Zealand pygmyweed

(Australian swamp stonecrop) E S W Egeria densa Large-flowered water-thyme E W Elodea callitrichoides South American waterweed E W(ex) Elodea canadensis Canadian waterweed E S W Elodea nuttallii Nuttall's waterweed E S W Hydrocotyle ranunculoides Floating pennywort E W Lagarosiphon major Curly waterweed E S W Lemna minuta Least duckweed E S W Ludwigia peploides Water-primrose, floating (L. grandiflora) primrose-willow E W Myriophyllum aquaticum Brazilian water-milfoil E S W Nuphar advena Spatter-dock E S Nymphaea spp. (N. marliacea) Water lilies E S W? Pontederia cordata Pickerelweed E Sagittaria latifolia Duck potato E Sagittaria rigida Canadian arrowhead E W Sagittaria subulata Narrow-leaved arrowhead E Schoenoplectus pungens Sharp club-rush E Vallisneria spiralis Tapegrass E

E = established in England S = established in Scotland W = established in Wales (ex) = extinct in a particular country If other alien species become established in the wild in Britain they should be added to this list. Species that pose a potential threat are Eichhornia crassipes water hyacinth, Pistia stratiotes water lettuce and the aquatic fern Salvinia molesta. Other water primroses (Ludwigia hexapetala and L. x kentiana) have been reported but may not be established. This list excludes invasive bank species such as Impatiens glandulifera Himalayan balsam and Fallopia japonica Japanes knotweed. These are covered in Impacts and Additional Features of Importance (AFIs).

16

Table NA 2.2. Aquatic vascular plants native to Great Britain but not to Scotland, established in standing waters in Scotland

Butomus umbellatus Flowering rush Carex pseudocyperus Cyperus sedge Groenlandia densa Opposite-leaved pondweed Hottonia palustris Water violet Hydrocharis morsus-ranae Frogbit Luronium natans Floating water-plantain Nymphoides peltata Fringed water-lily Rorippa amphibia Yellow-cress Sagittaria sagittifolia Arrow-head Stratiotes aloides Water-soldier NB All the above species have been recorded in Scotland since 1986. Spirodela polyrhiza Greater Duckweed was introduced to Scotland, but now appears to be extinct. Groenlandia densa was recorded as a native before 1970, but a recent record is believed to be an introduction.

Table NA 2.3. Standing water vascular plants native to Great Britain that are

restricted in natural distribution, but are introduced elsewhere Ludwigia palustris Native to Dorset, Hampshire and (previously) Hampshire purslane Sussex. Introduced in a few places elswhere in England. Luronium natans Natural distribution Wales, West Midlands, North Floating water-plantain West England.

Introduced in Scotland and Norfolk. Nymphoides peltata Native to Thames valley and East Anglia. Fringed water-lily Introduced in Scotland and Wales and very widely

elsewhere in England. Potamogeton epihydrus Native in South Uist.

American pondweed Introduced in northern England. Stratiotes aloides Native in eastern England. Water-soldier Introduced in Scotland and Wales and widely

elsewhere in England.

17

NA 3. Adjacent habitat Question: How natural is the habitat directly surrounding the water body? Naturalness of adjacent habitat is assessed by estimating the percentage of the perimeter of the water body abutted by natural, rather than artificial Phase I Survey habitat types. For detailed descriptions of these habitat categories see Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey (England Field Unit, 1990/JNCC, 1993). The habitat categories and their classification as natural or artificial, for the purposes of LACON, are given in Table NA 3. This categorisation is a very simple one, which may be varied in practice, where there is justification. For instance, if marginal swamp vegetation is known to have been planted, it should be treated as artificial rather than natural. Guidance for scoring Score 0 No natural habitat present

1 Natural habitat present but occupying less than 25% of perimeter

2 25% to < 50% of perimeter occupied by natural habitat

3 50% to < 75% of perimeter occupied by natural habitat

4 75% to < 100% of perimeter occupied by natural habitat 5 Water body totally surrounded by natural habitat

18

Table NA 3. Natural and artificial Phase 1 Habitat Survey categories Broad Phase 1 Code Detailed description of Natural/ habitat type adjacent habitat category artificial

Woodland and scrub A1 Semi-natural woodland (deciduous, coniferous, mixed) Natural A1(P) Plantation woodland, planted trees Artificial A2 Scrub Natural A3 Parkland and scattered trees Natural or artificial! A4 Recently-felled woodland Artificial Grassland and marsh B1-3 Unimproved and good semi-

improved grassland (acid, neutral or calcareous) Natural

B4 Improved grassland Artificial B5 Marsh/marshy grassland Natural B6 Poor semi-improved grassland Artificial Tall herb and fern C1 Bracken Natural

C2 Upland species-rich ledges Natural C3.1 Tall herb and fern: ruderal Natural or artificial!! C3.2 Tall herb and fern: non-ruderal Natural

Heathland D1-2 Dry and wet dwarf shrub heaths Natural D3 Lichen/bryophyte heath Natural

D4 Montane heath/dwarf herb Natural D5-6 Dry & wet heath/acid grassland mosaic Natural

Mire E1 Bog (blanket & raised bog; wet & dry modified bog) Natural

E2 Flush and spring Natural E3 Fen Natural

E4 Bare peat (over 0.25 ha in extent) Artificial Swamp etc. F1-2 Swamp; marginal/inundation Natural Open water G1 Standing water: ditches only (rest excluded from consideration) Artificial

G2 Running water: rivers and streams (inflows and outflows) Natural

Coastland H1 Intertidal Not applicable H2 Saltmarsh Natural

H3 Shingle above high-tide mark Not applicable H4 Rocks/boulders above high tide Not applicable H5 Strandline vegetation Not applicable

H6 Sand dune Natural H8 Maritime cliff and slope Natural

Rock exposure/waste I1 Natural exposures Natural I2 Artificial exposures and waste tips Artificial Miscellaneous J1 Cultivated/disturbed land (including arable, ley, amenity grassland) Artificial J2 Boundaries (e.g. hedges, fences,

walls, dry ditches) Artificial J3 Built-up areas (including caravan sites) Artificial J4 Bare ground (not covered above) Natural or artificial!!!

J5 Other habitat Natural or artificial!!! ! A3 Classify as natural or artificial according to the habitat in which the trees stand (e.g. improved grassland - artificial; unimproved grassland - natural). !! C3.1 Classify as natural if all constituents of the vegetation are native; classify as

artificial if there are non-native species (e.g. Reynoutria japonica) present. !!! J4 J5 Classify as natural or artificial according to available evidence.

19

REPRESENTATIVENESS Concept of Representativeness 'Representativeness' is taken to be synonymous with 'typicalness', as used in A Nature Conservation Review (Ratcliffe, 1977). In LACON, an assessment is made of the typicalness of the aquatic plant assemblage by comparing the species list of a site with the national standard for the type of water body under consideration. A prerequisite for assessing representativeness is a classification system into which the lake or other standing water body can be fitted, and from which the normal complement of aquatic plants can be predicted. The system used here is the revised classification of British lakes (Duigan et al., 2006, 2007). This classification is based on a multivariate analysis of the submerged and floating plants of 3449 standing waters, 311 in England, 38 in Wales and 3100 in Scotland. It recognises ten major lake groups, one of which has two sub-groups. These groups are related chiefly to altitude, alkalinity, pH and conductivity.

Group A Small, predominantly northern dystrophic bog or heathland

pools, dominated by Sphagnum spp. Group B Widespread, usually low lying acid moorland or heathland

pools and small lakes, with a limited range of plants, especially Juncus bulbosus, Potamogeton polygonifolius and Sphagnum spp.

Group C1 Northern, usually small to medium sized, acid, largely mountain lakes, with a limited range of plants, but including Juncus bulbosus and Sparganium angustifolium.

Group C2 North western, predominantly large, slightly acid, upland lakes, supporting a diversity of plant species, often with Littorella uniflora and Lobelia dortmanna, in association with Myriophyllum alterniflorum.

Group D Widespread, often large, mid-altitude circumneutral lakes, with a high diversity of plants, including Littorella uniflora, Myriophyllum alterniflorum, Callitriche hamulata, Fontinalis antipyretica and Glyceria fluitans.

Group E Northern, often large, low altitude and coastal, above neutral lakes, with a high diversity of plant species, including Littorella uniflora, Myriophyllum alterniflorum, Potamogeton perfoliatus and Chara spp.

Group F Widespread, usually medium sized, lowland, above neutral lakes, with a limited range of species, but typified by waterlilies and other floating-leaved vegetation.

Group G Central and eastern, above neutral, lowland lakes, with Lemna minor, Elodea canadensis, Potamogeton natans and Persicaria amphibia.

Group H Northern, small, circumneutral, lowland lakes, with low species diversity characterised by the presence of Glyceria fluitans and Callitriche stagnalis.

20

Group I Widespread, mostly moderately large, base-rich lowland lakes, with Chara spp., Myriophyllum spicatum and a diversity of Potamogeton spp.

Group J Northern coastal, brackish lakes, with Potamogeton pectinatus, Enteromorpha sp., Ruppia maritima and fucoid algae.

Maps (from Duigan et al., 2006) showing the distribution of all the open water bodies so far typed using this classification are given as Annex 3. Whilst typical examples are clearly recognisable within this classification, the site series is a continuum, ranging from markedly acidic, largely upland systems, to base-rich lowland sites and brackish lochs. It is possible for a large standing water body to contain more than one lake type, but usually a site is considered as a single unit for classification purposes. A comprehensive botanical survey is a prerequisite for classifying a standing water body and assessing its representativeness. Submerged and floating macrophyte species should be recorded (see checklist, Table SR 1), each with a DAFOR (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional, Rare) rating. A key to the Lake Groups, based on submerged and floating taxa, is provided as Annex 4. All the sites used in the lake classification exercise, and therefore included in the JNCC lake macrophyte database, have already been allotted a Lake Group. This information is given in Annex D of Duigan et al. (2006). If the site to be assessed is not in this database, or if it has been resurveyed, it should first be classified, using the key in Annex 4. A constancy table for the classification, using submerged and floating taxa, is given in Annex 5. This table is useful for checking the fit of the Site Type produced by applying the key. The first attribute (RE 1) used in the assessment of representativeness is the aquatic macrophyte complement. To evaluate this, a comparison is made between species records for the survey site and the submerged and floating species most typical of the relevant Lake Group. The 'most typical' taxa are those that occur in more than 40% of the sites in a particular Lake Group, as indicated in Annex 5. Lists of these taxa for each Lake Group are given as Table RE 1. The second attribute (RE 2) is the mean Plant Lake Ecotype Index (PLEX) for the site. PLEX scores for common submerged and floating taxa were calculated (Duigan et al., 2006, 2007) using a modification of the Trophic Ranking Score (TRS) method (Palmer, 1989; Palmer et al., 1992). In order to calculate PLEX, lakes in the JNCC database were grouped into distinct ‘ecotype’ categories:

dystrophic lakes; low plant diversity (Group A) heathland-associated soft waters in lowlands and mountains (Groups B & C) circumneutral, mid to low altitude lakes; diverse flora (Groups D & E) hardwater lowland lakes; low to moderate plant diversity (Groups F, G & H) hardwater, lowlands lakes; typified by Chara (Group I) brackish water sites (Group J).

21

A taxon PLEX score is a measure of the ‘faithfulness’ of the taxon to a particular ‘ecotype’. The PLEX scores calculated for 62 aquatic plant taxa by Duigan et al. (2006, 2007) are given in Table RE 2.1. A PLEX score for a site is the mean of the PLEX scores of the species recorded there. It provides a measure of the environmental affinities of the whole plant assemblage of the water body. Changes in this index are likely to reflect environmental change. As a standard for comparison, the range of site PLEX scores for each Lake Group is given in Table RE 2.2 and illustrated in Figure RE.2 (taken from Duigan et al., 2006, 2007). Calculation of Representativeness Index The Representativeness Index is the percentage of the maximum possible score. Both typical species complement and PLEX score are given a weighting of 1. Where both attributes are taken into account, the Species Richness Index is calculated as follows: Attribute Score Weight Weighted Maximum Maximum score possible weighted score score RE 1 g 1 g 5 5 RE 2 h 1 h 5 5 Sum 10

Representativeness Index (% of maximum possible weighted score for the attributes scored) = (g + h) x 100

10 The suffix indicating the completeness of the data should be 'a*', except in the case of waters that contain none of the 62 taxa with PLEX scores. For these, the data are 50% complete, so the suffix indicating completeness of the data would be 'c'. See previous section The LACON evaluation system for guidance on rating the level of confidence (A, B or C) of the score.

22

RE 1. Aquatic macrophyte complement Question: How close is the complement of macrophyte taxa to that of the Lake Group to which the site belongs?

RE 1 is assessed by comparing the site’s complement of key species with the norm for the appropriate Lake Group. If the site is not in the JNCC database, or if it has been resurveyed since the database was drawn up, it is first keyed out to the appropriate lake group, using the key in Annex 4. The basis for the scoring system is a comparison of the list of the most typical submerged and floating taxa for the lake group (i.e. plants occurring in >40% of the sites in the group) with the list for a particular water body. Table RE 1 lists typical taxa for each of the Lake Groups. Scoring varies from group to group because some have a more diverse flora than others. Guidance for scoring Start with a score of 5, then LAKE GROUPS C2, D, E: SUBTRACT 2 for any species unrecorded from the site with a constancy of >80%

for the Lake Group SUBTRACT 1 for any species unrecorded from the site with a constancy of >60-

80% for the Lake Group SUBTRACT 0.5 for any species unrecorded from the site with a constancy of >40-

60% for the Lake Group LAKE GROUPS B, C1, F, G, I: SUBTRACT 3 for any species unrecorded from the site with a constancy of >80%

for the Lake Group SUBTRACT 2 for any species unrecorded from the site with a constancy of >60-

80% for the Lake Group SUBTRACT 1 for any species unrecorded from the site with a constancy of >40-

60% for the Lake Group LAKE GROUPS A, H, J: SUBTRACT 4 for any species unrecorded from the site with a constancy of >80%

for the Lake Group SUBTRACT 3 for any species unrecorded from the site with a constancy of >60-

80% for the Lake Group SUBTRACT 2 for any species unrecorded from the site with a constancy of >40-

60% for the Lake Group If subtractions produce a total less than 0, allocate 0 as the score.

23

Table RE 1. Most typical submerged and floating macrophyte taxa in Lake Groups

Lake Group Taxon Constancy A Sphagnum sp. >80% Juncus bulbosus >40-60% B Juncus bulbosus >60-80% Potamogeton polygonifolius >60-80%

Sphagnum sp. >60-80% Nymphaea alba >40-60% Potamogeton natans >40-60%

C1 Juncus bulbosus >80%

Sparganium angustifolium >60-80% Littorella uniflora >40-60%

Sphagnum sp. >40-60% C2 Juncus bulbosus >80% Littorella uniflora >80% Lobelia dortmanna >80%

Potamogeton natans >60-80% Potamogeton polygonifolius >60-80% Myriophyllum alterniflorum >60-80% Isoetes lacustris >40-60%

Sparganium angustifolium >40-60%

D Callitriche hamulata >60-80% Fontinalis antipyretica >60-80% Glyceria fluitans >60-80% Littorella uniflora >60-80%

Myriophyllum alterniflorum >60-80% Juncus bulbosus >40-60% Nitella sp. >40-60% Potamogeton natans >40-60% Sparganium angustifolium >40-60%

E Littorella uniflora >80% Myriophyllum alterniflorum >80%

Chara sp. >60-80% Potamogeton perfoliatus >60-80%

Fontinalis antipyretica >40-60% Glyceria fluitans >40-60% Juncus bulbosus >40-60% Potamogeton filiformis >40-60% Potamogeton gramineus >40-60% Potamogeton natans >40-60%

F Nuphar lutea >80% Lemna minor >60-80%

Callitriche stagnalis >40-60% Nymphaea alba >40-60% Persicaria amphibia >40-60%

24

G Lemna minor >60-80% Elodea canadensis >40-60% Glyceria fluitans >40-60% Persicaria amphibia >40-60% Potamogeton natans >40-60%

H Callitriche stagnalis >60-80% Glyceria fluitans >60-80% I Chara sp. >60-80% Myriophyllum spicatum >40-60%

Potamogeton pectinatus >40-60% Potamogeton pusillus >40-60%

J Enteromorpha sp. >40-60% Potamogeton pectinatus >40-60% Ruppia maritima >40-60%

25

RE 2. Plant Lake Ecotype Index (PLEX)

Question: How close is the Plant Lake Ecotype Index (PLEX) to that of the Lake Group to which the site belongs? RE 2 is assessed by comparing the PLEX score of the water body with the range for the appropriate Lake Group. The site is keyed out to its lake group, using the key in Annex 4. The PLEX score for the site is calculated by adding all the PLEX values for the individual species, then dividing the total by the number of scoring species present. PLEX scores for submerged and floating macrophytes are given in Table RE 2.1. Box plots of site scores for Lake Groups A to J (taken from Duigan et al., 2006, 2007) are shown in Figure RE 2. The range of PLEX scores for Lake Groups is given in Table RE 2.2. A site with a PLEX score that lies within the limits of the upper and lower quartiles around the median (i.e. inside the box in Figure RE 2) for the relevant lake group is regarded as highly representative of that group. For instance, a lake in Group D with a PLEX score of 4.87 to 5.88 would be highly representative. A site with a PLEX score outside the limits of these quartiles, but within the main range range (shown by the lines in Figure RE 2) is moderately representative. For instance, a lake in Group D with a PLEX score of 3.85 to <4.87 or >5.88 to 7.02 would be moderately representative. A site with a PLEX score outside the main range is unrepresentative. Sites containing no species with PLEX scores should be given a score of 0. Guidance for scoring Score 0 The PLEX score for the site falls outside the maximum or minimum

scores for the main range of sites in the appropriate Lake Group 1 N/A 2 N/A 3 The PLEX score lies outside the upper or lower quartiles around the

median, but within the main range of sites in the appropriate Lake Group 4 N/A 5 The PLEX score lies within the upper and lower quartiles around the

median for the Lake Group

26

Table RE 2.1. PLEX scores for submerged and floating macrophytes Taxon PLEX score

Apium inundatum Lesser marshwort 7.50 Callitriche hamulata agg. Intermediate water-starwort 6.15 Callitriche hermaphroditica Autumnal water-starwort 7.69 Callitriche stagnalis Common water-starwort 7.69 Ceratophyllum demersum Hornwort 8.85 Chara sp. Stoneworts 7.69 Elatine hexandra Six-stamened waterwort 5.38 Eleocharis acicularis Needle spike-rush 7.95 Eleogiton fluitans Floating club-rush 3.08 Elodea canadensis Canadian pondweed 7.95 Elodea nuttallii Nuttall’s pondweed 7.95 Enteromorpha sp. Gut-weed 8.85 Eriocaulon aquaticum Pipewort 3.08 Fontinalis antipyretica Willow moss 5.38 Glyceria fluitans Floating sweet-grass 6.53 Hippuris vulgaris Mare’s tail 7.88 Isoetes echinospora Spring quillwort 5.38 Isoetes lacustris Quillwort 4.23 Juncus bulbosus Bulbous rush 3.08 Lemna minor Common duckweed 8.85 Lemna trisulca Ivy-leaved duckweed 8.85 Littorella uniflora Shoreweed 4.23 Lobelia dortmanna Water lobelia 3.08 Myriophyllum alterniflorum Alternate water-milfoil 4.23 Myriophyllum spicatum Spiked water-milfoil 8.85 Nitella sp. Stoneworts 5.38 Nuphar lutea Yellow water-lily 6.92 Nuphar pumila Least yellow water-lily 5.38 Nymphaea alba White water-lily 3.08 Persicaria amphibia Amphibious bistort 7.95 Pilularia globulifera Pillwort 5.38 Potamogeton alpinus Red pondweed 5.38 Potamogeton berchtoldii Small pondweed 7.69 Potamogeton crispus Curled pondweed 7.95 Potamogeton filiformis Slender-leaved pondweed 7.69 Potamogeton friesii Flat-stalked pondweed 9.23 Potamogeton gramineus Various-leaved pondweed 7.31 Potamogeton gramineus x lucens 7.69 Potamogeton gramineus x perfoliatus 7.69 Potamogeton lucens Shining pondweed 7.88 Potamogeton natans Broad-leaved pondweed 4.23 Potamogeton obtusifolius Blunt-leaved pondweed 6.54 Potamogeton pectinatus Fennel-leaved pondweed 8.85 Potamogeton perfoliatus Perfoliate pondweed 7.69 Potamogeton polygonifolius Bog pondweed 3.08 Potamogeton praelongus Long-stalked pondweed 5.38 Potamogeton pusillus Lesser pondweed 7.95 Ranunculus aquatilis Common water-crowfoot 7.95 Ranunculus baudotii Brackish water-crowfoot 7.69 Ranunculus circinatus Fan-leaved water-crowfoot 8.85 Ranunculus hederaceus Ivy-leaved crowfoot 7.69

27

Taxon PLEX Score

Ranunculus peltatus Water crowfoot 7.69 Ranunculus trichophyllus Thread-leaved water-crowfoot 7.69 Sparganium angustifolium Floating bur-reed 4.23 Sparganium emersum Unbranched bur-reed 7.50 Sparganium natans Least bur-reed 3.08 Sphagnum sp. Bog-moss 1.54 Subularia aquatica Awlwort 4.23 Utricularia intermedia agg. Intermediate bladderwort 3.08 Utricularia minor Lesser bladderwort 3.08 Utricularia vulgaris agg. Great bladderwort 4.23 Zannichellia palustris Horned pondweed 8.85

28

Figure RE 2. Range of PLEX scores for Lake Groups

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

A B C1 C2 D E F G H I J

Lake Group

PLEX Scores

Table RE 2.2. Range of PLEX scores for Lake Groups

Group A B C1 C2 D E F G H I J

Min. main range

1.54 2.31 2.69 3.00 3.85 4.83 4.81 5.62 4.62 6.14 4.23

Lower quartile

1.54 3.02 3.27 3.65 4.87 5.55 6.39 6.82 6.54 7.25 7.31

Median 2.31 3.46 3.65 4.00 5.37 6.00 7.11 7.31 7.12 7.64 7.69

Upper quartile

2.89 4.23 4.08 4.40 5.88 6.40 7.80 7.76 7.60 7.93 8.27

Max. main range

5.34 6.13 5.25 5.81 7.02 7.60 8.28 8.85 8.05 8.85 8.85

29

RARITY Concept of Rarity The occurrence of native plant species that are threatened, protected or limited in their British distribution is the basis for the LACON assessment of rarity. The system of species status used is that in force in 2008, but status may change for reasons such as reform of legislation, improved information or modification to accepted criteria for assessing rarity. The lists of threatened vascular plants and charophytes have been re-assessed since the publication of British Red Data Books in the 1990s (Wigginton, 1999; Stewart & Church, 1992). The revised Red List of vascular palnts is given in Cheffings & Farrell (2005). The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) priority species list was reviewed in 2007. Current species status lists for British plants are given on JNCC’s web site (www.jncc.gov.uk). The status categories used in LACON (Tables RA 1 to RA 9) are based on this information and on data in the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora (Preston et al., 2002). The categories listed below form a nine-tiered hierarchy of attributes: species shown in a higher category are not listed in a lower one and thus contribute only once to the Rarity Index. Scoring of rarity is confined to charophytes and fully aquatic vascular plants and liverworts listed on the LACON checklist (Table SR 1). The taxa listed are all at species level apart from subspecies of Ranunculus and red listed hybrids of Potamogeton. Subspecies and hybrids of other genera (e.g. Carex, Equisetum, Schoenoplectus) and the commoner Potamogeton hybrids are not included because these taxa are generally under-recorded, making assessment very difficult. Although Red Lists and Nationally Rare and Scarce lists exist for bryophytes and lichens, at present there are no checklists of standing water species in these groups, and most are only semi-aquatic. Therefore the tables of species qualifying for the different degrees of Rarity in LACON exclude these groups, apart from two species of floating liverwort. Other bryophytes and lichens are covered under Additional Features of Importance. RA 5 includes plants on the UK BAP list. Separate biodiversity lists have been drawn up for England and Wales under Sections 41 and 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC Act) 2006 and for Scotland under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. For England, the biodiversity plant list comprises all the species on the UK BAP list that occur in that country. There is one stonewort species on the biodiversity list for Wales that is not included in the UK BAP list. For Scotland, the UK BAP list has been accepted but there are also several standing water species on the Scottish Biodiversity List that are not included in the UK BAP list. These species are considered under RA 8. The information in Tables RA 1 to RA 9 is summarised in Annex 6. RA 1 To qualify for the highest tier of Rarity a plant must be a native aquatic UK species protected under international statutes: the Bern Convention (covering Council of Europe states) and the Habitats Directive (covering the European Union). Plant species listed in Appendix I of the Bern Convention require full protection; species listed in Annex IIb of the Habitats Directive receive protection by means of the designation of a series of sites (Special Areas of Conservation); species listed in

30

Annex IVb of the Habitats Directive require full protection wherever they are growing. The Habitats Directive is implemented in the UK through the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994. Habitats Directive Annex Vb, which specifies plants that require general measures of protection if they are threatened by exploitation, is not relevant here, so these species are not listed. Inclusion in the highest LACON Rarity attribute (RA 1) is dependent on the species being

either included in Annex IVb of the Habitats Directive and/or Appendix I of the Bern Convention

and/or included in Annex IIb of the Habitats Directive and considered to be rare or to have a restricted distribution in Britain (i.e. Red List, Near Threatened, Data Deficient, Nationally Rare or Nationally Scarce) (c.f. RA 4, below).

In the case of aquatic plants, the same two species are at present listed in Appendix I of the Bern Convention and Annexes IIb and IVb of the Habitats Directive, and both have a restricted distribution in Britain. They are named in Table RA 1. RA 2 The second LACON Rarity attribute is for standing water plants protected under British legislation by inclusion in Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and/or the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. A variety of forms of protection is required for scheduled species, including picking, uprooting, destruction and sale. There is a statutory duty to revise Schedule 8 every five years, so the lists of protected plants change from time to time. The standing water plants protected in 2008 under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 are listed in Table RA 2. The two Bern Convention/Habitats Directive species both enjoy protection under these Acts, but are excluded from Table RA 2 because they qualify for attribute RA 1. RA 3 Vascular plants and charophytes in the British Red List form LACON Rarity attribute RA 3. A Red List comprises species threatened with extinction, as defined by the World Conservation Union. The current red listing system (IUCN Species Survival Commission, 2001; IUCN Species Survival Commission, 2003) assesses the threat of extinction using quantitative measures of decline, low population number and restricted occurrence, and can make use of statistical methods such as Population Viability Analysis. Thresholds for Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) and Vulnerable (VU) categories are laid down for each of these criteria. Data Deficient species (plants for which there are insufficient data to make an assessment of threat) are not included here. The standing water vascular plants and charophytes included in current British Red Lists (see www.jncc.gov.uk), and not listed under RA 1 or RA 2, are given in Table RA 3. One hybrid Potamogeton and two stonewort species are regarded as extinct in Britain. If any of these reappear or are rediscovered in the wild (as was the case

31

with Hydrilla verticillata) it is likely that they will be added to the existing Red List. RA 4 The fourth tier of Rarity covers plant species that are internationally threatened (i.e. on the global Red List) and/or internationally protected (under the Habitats Directive or Bern Convention) but are common and widespread in the UK. At present this category is redundant in LACON because the two UK plant species protected under international statutes are Nationally Scarce, so they are listed in Table RA 1. However, this category is included here in order to make LACON compatible with SERCON. RA 4 may become relevant in the future if international designations change. RA 5 The fifth Rarity attribute comprises three categories of standing water vascular plants and charophytes that are listed in Table RA 5:

• Near Threatened species: these are without a current British Red List designation, but which are regarded as close to qualifying or likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future.

• Nationally Rare species: these have been recorded as native since 1986 in 15 or fewer 10 x 10 km. squares in Great Britain. The few that are also Red List species are included under RA 3 and not RA 5.

• UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP): these species are listed in the UK BAP priority species list current in 2008. Only species that are not included in higher categories of rarity (RA 1 – RA 4) are scored under this attribute.

RA 6 The sixth Rarity attribute comprises the Nationally Scarce species. These have been recorded as native since 1986 in 16 to 100 10 x 10 km. squares in Great Britain. Some of these may also be Red List species, in which case they would be considered under RA 3. The distribution and ecology of Britain's Nationally Scarce vascular plants are described in Scarce plants in Britain (Stewart et al., 1994). A few of the species in this book have now dropped out of the Nationally Scarce list, as a result of recent data presented in the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora (Preston et al., 2002) and the revised list is given at www.jncc.gov.uk. Nationally Scarce aquatic vascular plants, charophytes and floating liverworts (excluding those in higher categories and listed in Tables RA 1 to RA 5) are given in Table RA 6.

RA 7 The seventh Rarity attribute concerns aquatic plant species (not listed in previous categories) that are endemic or near-endemic to Europe or very restricted in their European distribution and for which Britain has ‘International Responsibility’. Vascular plants qualify for this category if Britain supports a high proportion (i.e. certainly or probably more than 25%) of the European population (Cheffings & Farrell, 2005; Stewart & Church, 1992). Table RA 7 gives the species in this category.

32

RA 8 The eighth Rarity attribute consists of standing water vascular plants, floating liverworts and charophytes that are Uncommon in the three countries comprising Britain. These are species which are not in the higher rarity categories but which are recorded from 5% or less of the 10 x 10 km. squares in each of the constituent countries (England, Scotland or Wales. For England, Uncommon species occur in 74 or fewer 10 x10 km squares; for Scotland the standard is 55 or fewer squares; for Wales it is 14 or fewer squares. Lists of vascular plants in these sub-categories were drawn up with the help of information on the CD-ROM provided with the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora (Preston et al., 2002), using data for 1987 onwards for native occurrences. Data on liverworts and charophytes were provided by Nick Hodgetts and Nick Stewart. The Scottish Biodiversity List standing water species that are not on the UK BAP list are scored under RA 8 if they are not in higher RA categories. (All of these species also qualify for RA 8 under the criterion of occurrence in 55 or fewer 10 x 10 km. squares in Scotland). Chara curta is on the biodiversity list for Wales under Section 42 of the NERC Act, but is not on the UK BAP priority list. This species also qualifies under a higher RA category. Standing water species Uncommon in England, Scotland and Wales are listed in Tables RA 8.1, RA 8.2 and RA 8.3. RA 9 Native aquatic vascular plants, liverworts and charophytes that occur in 5% or less of the 10 x 10 km. squares in each Environment Agency (EA) Region (in England and Wales) and Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Area are considered under RA 9. These plants are listed in Tables RA 9.1 and RA 9.2 and form the lowest category of rarity: Regionally Uncommon species. The tables

exclude species listed in the higher tiers of rarity. Lists of vascular plants in Tables RA 9.1 and RA 9.2 were drawn up by querying the Biological Records Centre database, using data for 1987 onwards for native occurrences (Henry Arnold, pers. com.), and by consulting the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora (Preston et al., 2002). Data on charophytes were provided by Nick Stewart and information on liverworts was provided by Nick Hodgetts. The boundaries of Environment Agency Regions and SEPA Areas are shown in Annex 7. The boundaries of Environment Agency Regions used here are those based on water catchment and management areas, which are employed by the EA for data collection. (NB. Regions shown in Environment Agency publicity material have different boundaries, based on administrative areas. In these publications the boundaries for Wales and EA Wales coincide, so the upper Severn area lies in EA Wales, not in Midlands Region, as shown in Annex 7.)

33

Calculation of Rarity Index The Rarity Index is calculated as follows: Attribute Score Weight Weighted Maximum Maximum score possible weighted score score RA 1 i 9 9i 5 45 RA 2 j 8 8j 5 40 RA 3 k 7 7k 5 35 RA 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RA 5 l 5 5l 5 25 RA 6 m 4 4m 5 20 RA 7 n 3 3n 5 15 RA 8 o 2 2o 5 10 RA 9 p 1 p 5 5 Sum 195 Initial rarity score (% of maximum possible weighted score for the attributes scored)

= (9i + 8j + 7k + 5l + 4m + 3n + 2o + p) x 100 195 The chances of a water body supporting rare species are relatively low, so the scores for many sites would be very low using this system. In order to bring Rarity scores into line with those for the other criteria, the initial score is multiplied by 2.5 to give the Rarity Index.

Rarity Index = (9i + 8j + 7k + 5l + 4m + 3n + 2o + p) x 100 x 2.5 195 If this results in a value greater than 100, the Rarity Index is given as 100. If all eight possible attributes are scored, which would normally be the case, the suffix indicating the completeness of the data would be 'a*'. Occasionally, one of the attributes may not be scored, for instance if a particular rare species suspected as occurring in a site is seasonal and would not be in evidence at the time of the survey. If the missing attribute is for Bern Convention/Habitats Directive species, calculation of the criterion index would be as follows: Rarity Index = (8j + 7k + 5l + 4m + 3n + 2o + p ) x 100 x 2.5 150 The maximum possible weighted initial score using these seven attributes would be 150 (out of the total of 195 for all eight attributes). The data are therefore 77% complete and the first suffix, indicating completeness of the data, would be 'b'. The level of confidence would be given as 'B' either because charophytes are present but not determined to species (this has often been the case), or because the data are over ten years old. In sites with both these uncertainties the level of confidence is given as 'C'.

34

RA 1. Bern Convention / Habitats Directive plant species Question: How many aquatic plant species native to Great Britain and listed in

either Annex IVb of the Habitats Directive and/or Appendix I of the Bern Convention and/or Annex IIb of the Habitats Directive and rare or localised in Britain

are found in the standing water body? Table RA 1 gives the two aquatic plant species included in Appendix I of the Bern Convention and Annexes IIb and IVb of the Habitats Directive. Both species are localised in Britain (Nationally Scarce). Guidance for scoring 0 No species listed in Table RA 1 present. 1 N/A 2 N/A 3 N/A 4 1 or more species listed in Table RA 1 present.

ADD 1 for each species known to have populations that are well established (i.e.

rated as Frequent, Abundant or Dominant on a DAFOR scale and/or known to have been present in the site for at least ten years).

If additions produce a total greater than 5, allocate 5 as the score. The presence of these species is scored whether or not they are ‘native’ to the site (i.e. even if they are introduced from another site or another part of Britain). Table RA 1. Standing water plant species native to the UK listed in Appendix

I of the Bern Convention and Annexes IIb and IVb of the Habitats Directive

British status Luronium natans Floating water-plantain Nationally Scarce, UK BAP, International Responsibility Najas flexilis Slender naiad Nationally Scarce, UK BAP

35

RA 2. Scheduled plant species Question: How many aquatic vascular plant and charophyte species listed in Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (other than species protected only against sale) are found in the standing water body (excluding species in the previous category)? Table RA 2 lists the standing water vascular plant and charophyte species given special protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. These species are also protected under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. The table does not include the two species given in Table RA 1. Guidance for scoring 0 No species listed in Table RA 2 present. 1 N/A 2 N/A 3 N/A 4 1 or more species listed in Table RA 2 present. ADD 1 for each species known to have populations that are well established (i.e.

rated as Frequent, Abundant or Dominant on a DAFOR scale and/or known to have been present in the site for at least ten years).

If additions produce a total greater than 5, allocate 5 as the score. Table RA 2. Standing water vascular plant and charophyte species included

in Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and protected under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004

Other status

VASCULAR PLANTS Alisma gramineum Ribbon-leaved Critically Endangered,

water-plantain Nationally Rare, UK BAP Corrigiola litoralis Strapwort Critically Endangered, Nationally Rare, UK BAP Crassula aquatica Pygmyweed Vulnerable,

Scottish Biodiversity List Damasonium alisma Starfruit Critically Endangered,

Nationally Rare, UK BAP Leersia oryzoides Cut-grass Endangered, Nationally

Rare, UK BAP Najas marina Holly-leaved naiad Vulnerable, Nationally

Rare, UK BAP Ranunculus ophioglossifolius Adder’s-tongue Vulnerable, Nationally spearwort Rare CHAROPHYTES Chara canescens Bearded stonewort Endangered, UK BAP, Lamprothamnium papulosum Foxtail stonewort Near Threatened,

UK BAP

36

Notes

The presence of these species is scored whether or not they are ‘native’ to the site (i.e. even if they are introduced from another site or another part of Britain). Luronium natans and Najas flexilis (both Nationally Scarce) are not included because they are listed under RA 1. The following Scheduled species are excluded from the list because they are associated with rivers and not standing waters:

Creeping marshwort Apium repens (Vulnerable, BAP priority) (in riparian grassland subject to flooding) Welsh mudwort Limosella australis (possibly introduced) (estuarine) Triangular club-rush Schoenoplectus triqueter (Critically Endangered, BAP priority) (estuarine)

37

RA 3. Red List plants Question: How many aquatic vascular plant and charophyte species included in British Red Lists are found in the standing water body (excluding species in higher categories)? Red List (threatened) species are those in Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable categories, according to the revised IUCN threat criteria (IUCN Species Survival Commission, 2001). Schedule 8 plants (see RA 2), most of which are also red listed, are excluded. Red listed vascular plants and charophytes are given in Table RA 3. Guidance for scoring 0 No species listed in Table RA 3 present. 1 N/A 2 N/A 3 1 species listed in Table RA 3 present. 4 2 or more species listed in Table RA 3 present. ADD 1 for each species that is Critically Endangered or Endangered ADD 1 for each species known to have populations that are well established (i.e.

rated as Frequent, Abundant or Dominant on a DAFOR scale and/or known to have been present in the site for at least ten years).

If additions produce a total greater than 5, allocate 5 as the score. The presence of these species is scored whether or not they are ‘native’ to the site (i.e. even if they are introduced from another site or another part of Britain).

38

Table RA 3. Standing water vascular plants and charophytes included in British Red Lists

Other status VASCULAR PLANTS Callitriche palustris A starwort Endangered (NR) (Scottish Biodiversity List) Groenlandia densa Opposite-leaved pondweed Vulnerable Hydrilla verticillata Hydrilla Vulnerable (NR) (Scottish Biodiversity List) Hydrocharis morsus-ranae Frogbit Vulnerable Lycopodiella inundata Marsh clubmoss Endangered (UK BAP, NS) Myriophylllum verticillatum Whorled water-millfoil Vulnerable Oenanthe fistulosa Tubular water-dropwort Vulnerable (UK BAP) Potamogeton acutifolius Sharp-leaved pondweed Crit. Endangered (UK BAP, NR) Potamogeton x bennettii P. crispus x trichoides Vulnerable Potamogeton x billupsii P. coloratus x gramineus Vulnerable Potamogeton x cognatus P. perfoliatus x praelongus Vulnerable Potamogeton compressus Grass-wrack pondweed Endangered (UK BAP, NS) Potamogeton epihydrus American pondweed Vulnerable (NR) (Scottish Biodiversity List) Potamogeton x fluitans P. lucens x natans Vulnerable Potamogeton x gessnacensis P. natans x polygonifolius Vulnerable Potamogeton x olivaceaus P. alpinus x P. crispus Vulnerable Potamogeton x sudermanicus P. acutifolius x berchtoldii Vulnerable Potamogeton x undulatus P. crispus x praelongus Vulnerable Ranunculus reptans Creeping spearwort Vulnerable (NR) (Scottish Biodiversity List) Ranunculus tripartitus Three-lobed crowfoot Endangered (UK BAP, NS) Rumex aquaticus Scottish dock Vulnerable (UK BAP, NR) Sium latifolium Greater water-parsnip Endangered (UK BAP, NS) Wolffia arrhiza Rootless duckweed Vulnerable (NS)

CHAROPHYTES Chara baltica Baltic stonewort Vulnerable (UK BAP) Chara connivens Convergent stonewort Endangered (UK BAP) Chara fragifera Strawberry stonewort Vulnerable Chara intermedia Intermediate stonewort Endangered (UK BAP) Nitella gracilis Slender stonewort Vulnerable (UK BAP) Nitella tenuissima Dwarf stonewort Endangered (UK BAP) Nitellopsis obtusa Starry stonewort Vulnerable (UK BAP) Tolypella intricata Tassel stonewort Endangered UK BAP) Tolypella nidifica Bird’s-nest stonewort Endangered (UK BAP) Tolypella prolifera Great tassel stonewort Endangered (UK BAP) Notes The table excludes species in Table RA 2 that are red listed. Species marked NR are Nationally Rare. Those marked NS are Nationally Scarce. Current UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species are marked BAP.

39

Standing water charophytes regarded as extinct in Britain are Nitella capillaries slimy-fruited stonewort and Nitella hyaline many-branched stonewort. Chara muscosa mossy stonewort may also be extinct but is at present classified as Data Deficient. There are also a number of Potamogeton hybrids that are regarded as

extinct. If any of these species should reappear or be rediscovered in the wild, it is likely that they will be added to the Red List. The following plants vascular are not included in Table RA 3 because they are confined to rivers:

Carex recta - Vulnerable, Scottish Biodiversity List, estuarine Potamogeton nodosus - Vulnerable Potamogeton x bottnicus (P. pectinatus x vaginatus) - Vulnerable Potamogeton x schreberi (P. natans x nodosus) - Vulnerable

40

RA 4. Habitats Directive Annex IIb plant species common in Britain (and global Red List species not threatened in Britain) Question: How many Habitats Directive Annex IIb and globally Red Listed standing water plant species native to and secure or common in Britain, are found in the standing water body? At present there are no plant species in this category. The two species included in Annex IIb of the Habitats Directive are listed under RA 1, as these plants are both Nationally Scarce. The revised global Red List of plants is not yet available from the IUCN. RA 5. Near Threatened, Nationally Rare and UK Biodiversity Action Plan

priority plant species Question: How many aquatic vascular plants and charophytes included in lists of Near Threatened, Nationally Rare or BAP priority species are found in the standing water body (excluding species in higher categories)? Table RA 5 lists Near Threatened, Nationally Rare and BAP priority aquatic vascular plants and charophytes. Table RA 5 excludes species listed in Tables RA 1 to RA 4. Guidance for scoring 0 No species listed in Table RA 5 present. 1 N/A 2 N/A 3 1 species listed in Table RA 5 present. 4 2 or more species listed in Table RA 5 present. ADD 1 for each species known to have populations that are well established (i.e.

rated as Frequent, Abundant or Dominant on a DAFOR scale and/or known to have been present in the site for at least ten years).

If additions produce a total greater than 5, allocate 5 as the score.

41

Table RA 5. Standing water vascular plant and charophyte species that are Near Threatened, Nationally Rare or UK Biodiverisity Action Plan priority

Other status Near Threatened VASCULAR PLANTS Baldellia ranunculoides Lesser water-plantain International Responsibility Pilularia globulifera Pillwort Nationally Scarce, UK BAP Potamogeton freisii Flat-stalked pondweed Nationally Scarce Potamogeton praelongus Long-stalked pondweed - Ruppia cirrhosa (spiralis) Spiral tasselweed Nationally Scarce Scottish Biodiversity List Stratiotes aloides Water soldier Nationally Rare CHAROPHYTES Chara rudis Rugged stonewort Scottish Biodiversity List Nitella confervacea Least stonewort - Nationally Rare VASCULAR PLANTS Eriocaulon aquaticum Pipewort International Responsibility Scottish Biodiversity List Ludwigia palustris Hampshire purslane - Potamogeton x cooperi P. crispus x P. perfoliatus - Potamogeton x griffithii P. alpinus x P. praelongus - Potamogeton x lintonii P. crispus x P. friesii - Potamogeton rutilus Shetland pondweed International Responsibility, UK BAP Potamogeton x sparganiifolius P. gramineus x P. natans - Potamogeton x suecicus P. filiformis x P. pectinatus - Ranunculus flammula A lesser spearwort International Responsibility, ssp. minimus Data Deficient Stratiotes aloides Water soldier Near Threatened Notes Species listed in more than one RA 5 category should be scored only once. RA 5 species are scored whether or not they are ‘native’ to the site (i.e. even if they are introduced from another site or another part of Britain). Stratiotes aloides is regarded as Near Threatened and Nationally Rare on the basis of native occurrences. It has been widely introduced. Lamprothamnium papulosum (Near Threatened) is listed under RA 2. A number of Nationally Rare and BAP vascular plant species are not listed here because they are also Red Listed (see Table RA 3). Utricularia intermedia sens. str., Utricularia ochroleuca and Utricularia stygia, Data Deficient species for which there are few reliable records, and Potamogeton nericius (P. alpinus x P. gramineus), which is exclusively riverine, are not included in RA 5.

42

RA 6. Nationally Scarce plant species Question: How many aquatic vascular plant, floating liverwort and charophyte species included in the list of Nationally Scarce species are found in the standing water body (excluding species in higher categories)? Table RA 6 lists Nationally Scarce vascular plants, floating liverworts and charophytes that occur in standing waters. Nationally Scarce species listed in Tables RA 1 to RA 5 are excluded. Guidance for scoring 0 No species listed in Table RA 6 present. 1 N/A 2 N/A. 3 1 species listed in Table RA 6 present. 4 2 or more species listed in Table RA 6 present. ADD 1 for each species known to have populations that are well established (i.e.

rated as Frequent, Abundant or Dominant on a DAFOR scale and/or known to have been present in the site for at least ten years).

If additions produce a total greater than 5, allocate 5 as the score.

43

Table RA 6. Standing water vascular plant, charophyte and liverwort species that are Nationally Scarce

VASCULAR PLANTS Callitriche truncata Short-leaved water-starwort Cicuta virosa Cowbane Elatine hydropiper Eight-stamened waterwort Limosella aquatica Mudwort Nuphar pumila Least yellow water-lily Nymphoides peltata Fringed water-lily Potamogeton coloratus Fen pondweed Potamogeton filiformis Slender-leaved pondweed Potamogeton x salicifolius P. lucens x perfoliatus Potamogeton x zizii P. gramineus x lucens Ranunculus flammula ssp. scoticus A lesser spearwort LIVERWORTS Ricciocarpos natans Fringed heartwort CHAROPHYTES Chara aculeolata (pedunculata) Hedgehog stonewort Chara curta Lesser bearded stonewort Nitella flexilis sens.str Smooth stonewort Nitella mucronata Pointed stonewort Tolypella glomerata Clustered stonewort Notes The presence of these species is scored whether or not they are ‘native’ to the site (i.e. even if they are introduced from another site or another part of Britain). Nymphoides peltata is included on the basis of native occurrences. It has been widely introduced. Ranunculus penicillatus ssp. penicillatus is excluded from the list because in Britain it appears to be confined to flowing water.

Najas flexilis, Luronium natans, Lycopodiella inundata, Pilularia globulifera, Potamogeton compressus, P. friesii, Ranunculus flammula ssp. scoticus, Ranunculus tripartitus, Ruppia cirrhosa, Sium latifolium and Wolffia arrhiza are all Nationally Scarce, but are also covered by higher rarity categories. Chara aculeolata and C. curta are included in the Scottish Biodiversity List. Chara curta is on the biodiversity (NERC Act Section 42) list for Wales.

44

RA 7. Plant species for which Britain has International Responsibility Question: How many aquatic plant species for which Britain has International Responsibility are found in the standing water body (excluding species in higher categories)? Table RA 7 lists aquatic vascular plants for which Britain has International Responsibility and which are not covered in higher rarity categories. Guidance for scoring 0 No species listed in Table RA 7 present. 1 N/A 2 N/A 3 1 species listed in Table RA 7 present. 4 2 or more species listed in Table RA 7 present. ADD 1 for each species known to have populations that are well established (i.e.

rated as Frequent, Abundant or Dominant on a DAFOR scale and/or known to have been present for at least ten years).

If additions produce a total greater than 5, allocate 5 as the score. The presence of these species is scored whether or not they are ‘native’ to the site (i.e. even if they are introduced from another site or another part of Britain). Table RA 7. Standing water plants for which Britain has International

Responsibility VASCULAR PLANTS Apium inundatum Lesser marshwort Eleogiton fluitans Floating club-rush Ranunculus hederaceus Ivy-leaved crowfoot Ranunculus omiophyllus Round-leaved crowfoot Rorippa microphylla Narrow-fruited water-cress CHAROPHYTES Chara muscosa Mossy stonewort Notes Chara curta, Baldellia ranunculoides, Eriocaulon aquaticum, Luronium natans and Potamogeton epihydrus would qualify for this category if they were not already listed

under higher rarity categories. Ranunculus flammula ssp. minimus and R. flammula ssp. scoticus are endemic (Preston et al., 2002); Chara curta and C. muscosa are near endemic (Stewart & Church, 1992), although C. muscosa may be extinct in Britain. All four are covered under higher rarity categories. Elatine hexandra, Littorella uniflora, Oenanthe fluviatilis, Potamogeton coloratus and Potamogeton rutilus are not listed here because they are considered only possibly to qualify for the International Responsibility category (Cheffings & Farrell, 2005).

45

RA 8. Plant species Uncommon in England, Scotland or Wales Question: How many aquatic vascular plant, liverwort and charophyte species that are Uncommon in England, Scotland or Wales are found in the standing water body (excluding species in higher categories)? ‘Uncommon’ plants are ‘native’ species (i.e. not introduced, either from abroad or from another part of Britain) recorded recently from 5% or less of the 10 x 10 km squares in England, Scotland or Wales: i.e. 74 or fewer squares in England (Table RA 8.1), 55 or fewer squares in Scotland (Table RA 8.2) or 14 or fewer squares in Wales (Table RA 8.3). Species listed in Tables RA 1 to RA 7 are excluded. Guidance for scoring in England 0 No species listed in Table RA 8.1 present. 1 1 or 2 species listed in Table RA 8.1 present. 2 3 or 4 species listed in Table RA 8.1 present. 3 5 or 6 species listed in Table RA 8.1 present. 4 7 or more species listed in Table RA 8.1 present. ADD 1 for each species known to have populations that are well established (i.e.

rated as Frequent, Abundant or Dominant on a DAFOR scale and/or known to have been present in the site for at least ten years).

If additions produce a total greater than 5, allocate 5 as the score. Guidance for scoring in Scotland 0 No species listed in Table RA 8.2 present. 1 1 or 2 species listed in Table RA 8.2 present. 2 3 or 4 species listed in Table RA 8.2 present. 3 5 or 6 species listed in Table RA 68.2 present. 4 7 or more species listed in Table RA 8.2 present. ADD 1 for each species known to have populations that are well established (i.e.

rated as Frequent, Abundant or Dominant on a DAFOR scale and/or known to have been present in the site for at least ten years).

If additions produce a total greater than 5, allocate 5 as the score. Guidance for scoring for Wales 0 No species listed in Table RA 8.3 present. 1 1 or 2 species listed in Table RA 8.3 present. 2 3 or 4 species listed in Table RA 8.3 present. 3 5 or 6 species listed in Table RA 8.3 present. 4 7 or more species listed in Table RA 8.3 present. ADD 1 for each species known to have populations that are well established (i.e.

rated as Frequent, Abundant or Dominant on a DAFOR scale and/or known to have been present in the site for at least ten years).

Note: If additions produce a total greater than 5, allocate 5 as the score.

46

Table RA 8.1. Standing water plant species Uncommon in England No. 10 x 10 km squares

5% qualifying threshold 74 VASCULAR PLANTS (1987 – 1999) Callitriche hermaphroditica Autumnal water-starwort 44 Carex aquatilis Water sedge 7 Carex lasiocarpa Slender sedge 36 Carex limosa Mud sedge 20 Cladium mariscus Great fen-sedge (Saw sedge) 67 Elatine hexandra Six-stamened waterwort 34 Isoetes echinospora (setacea) Spring quillwort 11 Isoetes lacustris Quillwort 21 Lobelia dortmanna Water lobelia 18 Potamogeton alpinus Red pondweed 52 Potamogeton gramineus Various-leaved pondweed 36 Potamogeton x nitens P. gramineus x P. perfoliatus 15 Sparganium angustifolium Floating bur-reed 16 Sparganium natans Least bur-reed 25 Subularia aquatica Awlwort 4 Utricularia intermedia sens.lat. Intermediate bladderwort 10 Utricularia minor Lesser bladderwort 46 CHAROPHYTES (1985 onwards) Chara aspera Rough stonewort 27 Chara contraria Opposite stonewort 72 Nitella translucens Translucent stonewort 25 Notes Callitriche brutia is not included because is often not separated from Callitriche hamulata and its status in England is uncertain. Post-1986 records for vascular plants from the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora (Preston et al., 2002); post-1985 data on charophytes supplied by N. Stewart.

47

Table RA 8.2. Standing water plant species Uncommon in Scotland No. 10 x 10 km

squares 5% qualifying threshold 55 VASCULAR PLANTS (1987 – 1999) Alisma lanceolatum Narrow-leaved water-plantain 7 *Callitriche obtusangula Blunt-fruited water-starwort 3 Carex acuta Slender-tufted sedge 17 *Carex elata Tufted sedge 3 Carex riparia Great pond-sedge 34 Ceratophyllum demersum Hornwort 23 Eleocharis acicularis Needle spike-rush 45 Lemna gibba Fat duckweed 9 Potamogeton lucens Shining pondweed 21 *Potamogeton trichoides Hairlike pondweed 4 Ranunculus baudotii Brackish water-crowfoot 37 Ranunculus circinatus Fan-leaved water-crowfoot 7 Ranunculus penicillatus subsp. pseudofluitans Stream water-crowfoot 29 Rumex hydrolapathum Great water-dock 21 Typha angustifolia Lesser reedmace 17 Veronica catenata Pink water-speedwell 33 CHAROPHYTES (1985 onwards) Chara contraria Opposite stonewort 32 Chara globularis Fragile stonewort 41 Chara hispida Bristly stonewort 22 Notes * Species listed on the Scottish Biodiversity List that are not on the UK BAP list. Other species on the Scottish Biodiversity List qualify for higher RA categories. Six species are excluded from consideration because they have been recorded in Scotland, at least since 1969, only as introductions from south of the Border:

Butomus umbellatus Rorippa amphibia Carex pseudocyperus Sagittaria sagittifolia Hottonia palustris Spirodela polyrhiza.

Pre-1970 Scottish native records exist for fine-leaved water-dropwort Oenanthe aquatica. Should natural spread from the south into Scotland occur, this species would be considered for RA 8.2. Callitriche brutia is not included because is often not separated from Callitriche hamulata and its status in Scotland is uncertain. Baldellia ranunculoides (55 squares) and Ranunculus omiophyllus (62 squares) are included in higher categories so they are not in Table RA 8.2. Ranunculus fluitans is not included because it is confined to rivers. Post-1986 records for vascular plants from the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora (Preston et al., 2002); post-1985 data on charophytes supplied by N. Stewart.

48

Table RA 8.3. Standing water plant species Uncommon in Wales

No. 10 x 10 km squares

5% qualifying threshold 14 VASCULAR PLANTS (1986 – 1999) Callitriche hermaphroditica Autumnal water-starwort 5 Carex aquatilis Water sedge 12 Ceratophyllum submersum Soft hornwort 8 Hottonia palustris Water violet 12 Potamogeton alpinus Red pondweed 7 Potamogeton gramineus Various-leaved pondweed 5 Potamogeton lucens Shining pondweed 4 Potamogeton x nitens P. gramineus x P. perfoliatus 1 Potamogeton trichoides Hairlike pondweed 8 Rorippa amphibia Great yellow-cress 11 Ruppia maritima Beaked tasselweed 11 Sagittaria sagittifolia Arrow-head 11 Sparganium natans Least bur-reed 12 Subularia aquatica Awlwort 8 Utricularia intermedia sens.lat Intermediate bladderwort 1 LIVERWORTS (post-1950) Riccia fluitans Floating crystalwort 8 CHAROPHYTES (1985 onwards) Chara aspera Rough stonewort 5 Chara globularis Fragile stonewort 14 Chara hispida Bristly stonewort 10 Nitella translucens Translucent stonewort 14 Notes Chara curta is listed under Section 42 of the NERC Act. It qualifies under a higher category (RA 6). Post-1986 records for vascular plants from the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora (Preston et al., 2002). Post-1960 records for Riccia fluitans supplied by N. Hodgetts. Post-1985 data on charophytes supplied by N. Stewart.

49

RA 9. Regionally Uncommon plant species Question: How many Regionally Uncommon standing water plant species are found in the standing water body?

Regionally Uncommon plants are standing water vascular plant, liverwort and charophyte species recorded since 1986 as native (i.e. not introduced, either from abroad or from another part of Britain) from 5% or fewer of the 10 x 10 km squares in the relevant Environment Agency (EA) Region (Table RA 9.1) or Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Area (Table RA 9.2). These Regions and Areas are shown in Annex 7. Species covered by RA 1 to RA 8 are excluded. The threshold numbers of 10 x 10 km. squares for each Environment Agency Region and SEPA Area are: 10 x 10 km

squares EA Regions Wales (WA) 13

Anglian (AN) 15 Midlands (MD) 11 North East (NE) 13 North West (NW) 8 South West (SW) 13 South East (S) 13

SEPA Areas South East (Se) 10 South West (Sw) 15

Highlands, Islands and Grampian (HI) 31

Notes

Boundaries for Wales and EA Wales Region do not coincide. The EA Region is smaller than the country of Wales because the upper Severn is included in Midlands Region. If a water body lies within two or more EA Regions or SEPA Areas, use the combined species lists from all relevant Regions or Areas and apply the scoring system for the one with the largest total of listed species.

50

Scoring system for Regionally Uncommon plant species The scoring system differs from region to region, depending on the number of uncommon species present. Environment Agency: Wales and South East Regions 0 No species listed in the relevant column of Table RA 9.1 or RA 9.2 1 N/A 2 N/A 3 N/A 4 1 or more species listed in the relevant column of Table RA 9.1 or 9.2 ADD 1 for each species known to be well established (i.e. Frequent, Abundant or

Dominant on the DAFOR scale and/or present for at least ten years). If additions produce a total greater than 5, allocate 5 as the score. Environment Agency: Anglian, Midlands, North West and South West Regions SEPA: South East and South West Areas 0 No species listed in the relevant column of Table RA 9.1 or RA 9.2 1 N/A 2 N/A 3 1 species listed in the relevant column of Table RA 9.1 4 2 or more species listed in the relevant column of Table RA 9.1 ADD 1 for each species known to be well established (i.e. Frequent, Abundant or

Dominant on the DAFOR scale and/or present for at least ten years). If additions produce a total greater than 5, allocate 5 as the score. Environment Agency: North East Region SEPA: Highlands, Islands and Grampian Area 0 No species listed in the relevant column of Table RA 9.1 or 9.2 1 N/A 2 1 species listed in the relevant column of Table RA 9.1 or 9.2 3 2 species listed in the relevant column of Table RA 9.1 or 9.2 4 3 or more species listed in the relevant column of Table RA 9.1 or 9.2 ADD 1 for each species known to be well established (i.e. Frequent, Abundant or

Dominant on the DAFOR scale and/or present for at least ten years). If additions produce a total greater than 5, allocate 5 as the score.

51

Table RA 9.1. Regionally Uncommon standing water plant species: Environment Agency Regions EA Regions

WA AN MD NE NW SW SE

5% qualifying threshold of 10 x 10 km squares 13 15 11 13 8 13 13 VASCULAR PLANTS Alisma lanceolatum Narrow-leaved water-plantain + + + + X + + Callitriche obtusangula Blunt-fruited water-starwort + + + X + + + Carex elata Tufted sedge + + + + + X X Carex pseudocyperus Cyperus sedge + + + X + + + Ceratophyllum submersum Soft hornwort uw + + -! X X X Eleocharis acicularis Needle spike-rush + + + X + X X Eleogiton fluitans Floating club-rush + X + X + + + Littorella uniflora Shoreweed + X + + + + +

Myriophyllum alterniflorum Alternate water-milfoil + X + + + + + Oenanthe crocata Hemlock water-dropwort + X + + + + + Oenanthe fluviatilis River water-dropwort - + X X - + + Potamogeton lucens Shining pond-weed uw + + + X + + Potamogeton obtusifolius Blunt-leaved pond-weed + X + X + X + Potamogeton trichoides Hairlike pondweed uw + X X X + + Potentilla palustris Marsh cinquefoil + + + + + + X Ranunculus baudotii Brackish water-crowfoot + + X X + + X Ranunculus circinatus Fan-leaved water-crowfoot X + + + X + + Rorippa amphibia Great yellow-cress uw + + + + X + Ruppia maritima Tasselweed + + - X + X X Spirodela polyrhiza Greater duckweed + + + X + + + Utricularia vulgaris sens.lat. Bladderwort + + X X + + +

LIVERWORTS Riccia fluitans Floating crystalwort uw + + X + X +

CHAROPHYTES Chara globularis Fragile stonewort uw + + X X + + Chara hispida Bristly stonewort uw + X + X X X X species qualifies as Regionally Uncommon

+ species common: no. of records above the threshold for Regionally Uncommon - species absent from the Region ! pre-1987 records only uw species uncommon in Wales (so counted in RA 8)

52

Table RA 9.2. Regionally Uncommon standing water plant species: Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Areas

SEPA Areas Se Sw HI

5% qualifying threshold of 10 x 10 km squares 10 15 31 VASCULAR PLANTS Alisma plantago-aquatica Water-plantain - - X Apium nodiflorum Fool’s water-cress X + X Berula erecta Narrow-leaved water-parsnip + + X Callitriche platycarpa Various-leaved water-starwort + + X Carex acutiformis Lesser pond-sedge + + X Catabrosa aquatica Whorl-grass + + X Cladium mariscus Great fen-sedge (Saw-sedge) X + X Elatine hexandra Six-stamed waterwort X + X Glyceria notata Plicate sweet-grass + + X Isoetes echinospora (setacea) Spring quillwort X + + Lemna trisulca Ivy-leaved duckweed + + X Lythrum portula Water purslane + + X Nuphar lutea Yellow water-lily + + X Ranunculus aquatilis Common water-crowfoot + + X Ranunculus peltatus Water crowfoot + + X Ranunculus sceleratus Celery-leaved crowfoot + + X

Ruppia maritma Beaked tasselweed -! + + Zannichellia palustris Horned pondweed + + X

CHAROPHYTES Chara aspera Rough stonewort X + + Chara vulgaris Common stonewort X + + Nitella translucens Translucent stonewort X + +

X species qualifies as Regionally Uncommon

+ species common: no. of records above the threshold for Regionally Uncommon - species absent from the Area -! pre-1987 records

Se South East Area Sw South West Area HI Highlands, Islands and Grampian Area

53

SPECIES RICHNESS Concept of Species Richness Elements of Species Richness used in LACON are the number of native aquatic plant taxa recorded and the number of swamp and tall-herb fen communities present. Some types of site are naturally more species-rich than others. For example, dystrophic lochs are naturally species-poor, whereas unpolluted eutrophic lakes would be expected to contain far more species of vascular plant. Thus, the interpretation of Species Richness indices should be set in the context of site type. A thorough survey of the submerged, floating and emergent vegetation of the water body is required for the assessment of Species Richness. The standard SNH loch survey method (Annex 1) is recommended. In order to assess the richness of the marginal vegetation, NVC swamp and tall-herb fen communities should be identified (Rodwell, 1995). The length of a species list for a site is partly dependent on the thoroughness of survey. It is especially important that allowance is made for this by attaching a 'level of confidence' (A, B or C) to the LACON Species Richness score. Species Richness must be measured against a checklist. There are numerous plants that grow on the margins of standing waters that could be classified as either aquatic or 'wetland', and it is largely a matter of opinion where the line is drawn. The checklist of fully aquatic native vascular plants drawn up for LACON is based on that in Preston & Croft (1997), with the addition of Cicuta virosa, Leersia oryzoides, Limosella aquatica, Lycopodiella inundata, Sium latifolium and some hybrids (those of Potamogeton taken from Preston, 1995). All the British charophytes are included. A small selection of frequently recorded bryophyte taxa is included in the checklist. Table SR 1 lists all these macrophyte taxa. Nomenclature follows Stace (1997) and Preston et al. (2002) for vascular plants and Stewart (2004) for charophytes. The few aquatic species confined to flowing waters are included in a footnote, as some of these could occur in inflows or outflows associated with standing waters. Rarer borderline aquatic/wetland species, which were considered but ultimately rejected for Table SR 1, are taken into account in Additional Features of Importance. Table SR 2 is a list of National Vegetation Classification (NVC) swamp and tall-herb fen communities (Rodwell, 1995) associated with standing waters. An assessment of the richness of the marginal fringe of a standing water site is made by reference to the number of NVC swamp and tall-fen communities present. These are recognised either by using the standard NVC survey method (Rodwell, 1995) or by recording prominent stands of the dominant species after which the NVC communities are named. Acorus calamus swamp (S15) is not included in Table SR 2 because it is based on sweet-flag, an alien species. The number of NVC mire communities (Rodwell, 1992) associated with the water body is also relevant to species richness, but is covered under Additional Features of Importance.

54

Calculation of Species Richness Index Two attributes of Species Richness are considered in LACON: number of aquatic macrophyte taxa (SR 1) and number of marginal vegetation communities (SR 2). Because survey has concentrated more on aquatic macrophytes, SR 1 is given a weighting of 2 and SR 2 a weighting of 1. Where both attributes are taken into account the Species Richness Index is calculated as follows: Attribute Score Weight Weighted Maximum Maximum score possible weighted score score SR 1 q 2 2q 5 10 SR 2 r 1 r 5 5 Sum 15

Species Richness Index (% of maximum possible weighted score for the attributes scored) = (2q + r) x 100

15 The suffix indicating the completeness of the data is 'a*'. If data are available only for aquatic macrophytes, the criterion index is calculated as follows: Species Richness Index = 2q x 100 10 The maximum possible weighted score using this attribute alone would be 10 (out of the total of 15 for both attributes). The data are therefore 67% complete and the suffix indicating completeness of the data would be 'b'. If data are available only for marginal vegetation communities, the calculation is as follows: Species Richness Index = r x 100 5 The maximum possible weighted score using this attribute alone would be 5 (out of the total of 15 for both attributes). The data are therefore 33% complete and the suffix indicating completeness of the data would be 'd'. The LACON evaluation system (p. 3) gives guidance on rating the level of

confidence (A, B or C). See also the comment in SR 2 in relation to determining NVC communities.

55

SR 1. Aquatic macrophytes Question: How many aquatic macrophyte taxa native to Britain are found in the standing water body?

Table SR 1 should be used as a checklist to assess the number of aquatic macrophyte taxa in a standing water body. Plants native to Britain that are known to have been introduced to the site from elsewhere in the country are included in the count for Species Richness (c.f. Naturalness and Rarity). Alien species are not counted. If aggregates listed in Table SR 1 are separated, individual species are scored. Hybrids (which can occur in the absence of their parent species) are not listed in Table SR 1, but they should be counted as separate species for scoring purposes. Potamogeton hybrids are listed in Table AFI 4. Filamentous algae (e.g. Cladophora, Vaucheria, Spirogyra spp.) are not counted. Enteromorpha is counted only in brackish (Group J) sites. Guidance for scoring 0 0 - 3 taxa present. 1 4 - 9 taxa present. 2 10 - 19 taxa present. 3 20 - 29 taxa present. 4 30 - 39 taxa present. 5 40 or more taxa present.

56

Table SR 1. Checklist of native macrophytes of standing water Distrib. ALGAE: CHAROPHYTES (STONEWORTS) Chara aculeolata (pedunculata) Hedgehog stonewort E S W Chara aspera Rough stonewort E S W Chara baltica Baltic stonewort E S W Chara canescens Bearded stonewort E S Chara connivens Convergent stonewort E Chara contraria Opposite stonewort E S W Chara curta Lesser bearded stonewort E S W Chara fragifera Strawberry stonewort E Chara globularis Fragile stonewort E S W Chara hispida Bristly stonewort E S W Chara intermedia Intermediate stonewort E Chara muscosa Mossy stonewort S?x Chara rudis Rugged stonewort E S Wx Chara virgata Delicate stonewort E S W Chara vulgaris Common stonewort E S W Lamprothamnium papulosum Foxtail stonewort E S Nitella convervacea Least stonewort S Nitella flexilis Smooth stonewort E S W Nitella gracilis Slender stonewort Ex S W Nitella mucronata Pointed stonewort E S W Nitella opaca Dark stonewort E S W Nitella tenuissima Dwarf stonewort E W Nitella translucens Translucent stonewort E S W Nitellopsis obtusa Starry stonewort E Tolypella glomerata Clustered stonewort E S W Tolypella intricata Tassel stonewort E Tolypella nidifica Bird's-nest stonewort Ex S Tolypella prolifera Great tassel stonewort E ALGAE: ‘FILAMENTOUS’ Cladophora sp. E S W Enteromorpha sp. Gutweed E S W Vaucheria sp. E S W

Other filamentous species e.g. ‘blanketweed’ E S W ALGAE: 'SEAWEEDS' (brackish sites) Ascophyllum sp. E S W Fucus sp. E S W Other ‘seaweed’ species E S W LICHENS Any aquatic species E S W BRYOPHYTES: LIVERWORTS Riccia fluitans Floating crystalwort E W Ricciocarpos natans Fringed heartwort E Other aquatic species E S W BRYOPHYTES: MOSSES Fontinalis antipyretica Willow-moss E S W Sphagnum sp. Bog-mosses E S W Other aquatic species E S W

57

VASCULAR PLANTS Alisma gramineum Ribbon-leaved water-plantain E Alisma lanceolatum Narrow-leaved water-plantain E S W Alisma plantago-aquatica Water-plantain E S W Apium inundatum Lesser marshwort E S W Apium nodiflorum Fool’s water-cress E S W Baldellia ranunculoides Lesser water-plantain E S W Berula erecta Narrow-leaved water-parsnip E S W Bolboschoenus maritimus Sea club-rush E S W Butomus umbellatus Flowering rush E SI W Callitriche brutia Pedunculate water-starwort E S W Callitriche hamulata Intermediate water-starwort E S W Callitriche hamulata agg. (C. hamulata/brutia) E S W Callitriche hermaphroditica Autumnal water-starwort E S W Callitriche obtusangula Blunt-fruited water-starwort E S W Callitriche palustris A water-starwort S Callitriche platycarpa Various-leaved water-starwort E S W Callitriche stagnalis Common water-starwort E S W Callitriche truncata Short-leaved water-starwort E W Carex acuta Slender-tufted sedge E S W Carex acutiformis Lesser pond-sedge E S W Carex aquatilis Water sedge E S W Carex elata Tufted sedge E S W Carex lasiocarpa Slender sedge E S W Carex limosa Mud sedge E S W Carex paniculata Panicled sedge E S W Carex pseudocyperus Cyperus sedge E SI W Carex riparia Great pond-sedge E S W Carex rostrata Bottle sedge E S W Carex vesicaria Bladder sedge E S W Catabrosa aquatica Whorl-grass E S W Ceratophyllum demersum Hornwort E S W Ceratophyllum submersum Soft hornwort E W Cicuta virosa Cowbane E S W Cladium mariscus Great fen-sedge / saw sedge E S W Corrigiola litoralis Strapwort E Crassula aquatica Pygmyweed S Damasonium alisma Starfruit E Elatine hexandra Six-stamened waterwort E S W Elatine hydropiper Eight-stamened waterwort E S W Eleocharis acicularis Needle spike-rush E S W Eleocharis palustris Common spike-rush E S W Eleogiton fluitans Floating club-rush E S W Equisetum fluviatile Water horsetail E S W Eriocaulon aquaticum Pipewort S Glyceria declinata Small sweet-grass E S W Glyceria fluitans Floating sweet-grass E S W Glyceria maxima Reed sweet-grass E S W Glyceria notata Plicate sweet-grass E S W

58

Groenlandia densa Opposite-leaved pond-weed E SI W Hippuris vulgaris Mare’s tail E S W Hottonia palustris Water violet E SI W Hydrilla verticillata Esthwaite waterweed Ex S Hydrocharis morsus-ranae Frogbit E SI W Iris pseudacorus Yellow flag E S W Isoetes echinospora Spring quillwort E S W Isoetes lacustris Quillwort E S W Juncus bulbosus (aquatic form) Bulbous rush E S W Leersia oryzoides Cut-grass E Lemna gibba Fat duckweed E S W Lemna minor Common duckweed E S W Lemna trisulca Ivy-leaved duckweed E S W Limosella aquatica Mudwort E S W Littorella uniflora Shoreweed E S W Lobelia dortmanna Water lobelia E S W Ludwigia palustris Hampshire purslane E Luronium natans Floating water-plantain E SI W Lycopodiella inundata Marsh club-moss E S W Lythrum portula Water purslane E S W Menyanthes trifoliata Bogbean E S W Myosotis scorpioides Water forget-me-not E S W Myriophyllum alterniflorum Alternate water-milfoil E S W Myriophyllum spicatum Spiked water-milfoil E S W Myriophyllum verticillatum Whorled water-milfoil E W Najas flexilis Slender naiad E?x S Najas marina Holly-leaved naiad E Nuphar lutea Yellow water-lily E S W Nuphar pumila Least yellow water-lily E S Nuphar x spenneriana Nuphar lutea x N. pumila E S W Nymphaea alba White water-lily E S W Nymphoides peltata Fringed water-lily E SI WI Oenanthe aquatica Fine-leaved water-dropwort E W Oenanthe crocata Hemlock water-dropwort E S W Oenanthe fistulosa Tubular water-dropwort E S W Oenanthe fluviatilis River water-dropwort E Persicaria amphibia Amphibious bistort E S W Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary-grass E S W Phragmites australis Common reed E S W Pilularia globulifera Pillwort E S W Potamogeton acutifolius Sharp-leaved pondweed E Potamogeton alpinus Red pondweed E S W Potamogeton x bennettii P. crispus x P. trichoides S Potamogeton berchtoldii Small pondweed E S W Potamogeton x billupsii P. coloratus x P. gramineus Ex S Potamogeton x cadburyae P. crispus x P. lucens E?x Potamogeton x cognatus P. perfoliatus x P. praelongus E?x S Potamogeton coloratus Fen pondweed E S W Potamogeton compressus Grass-wrack pondweed E S W Potamogeton x cooperi P. crispus x P. perfoliatus E S Potamogeton crispus Curled pondweed E S W

59

Potamogeton epihydrus American pondweed EI S Potamogeton filiformis Slender-leaved pondweed E S Potamogeton x fluitans P. lucens x P. natans E Potamogeton friesii Flat-stalked pondweed E S W Potamogeton x gessnacensis P. natans x P. polygonifolius S W Potamogeton gramineus Various-leaved pondweed E S W Potamogeton x griffithii P. alpinus x P. praelongus Sx W Potamogeton x grovesii P. pusillus x P. trichoides E?x Potamogeton x lanceolatifolius P. gramineus x P. polygonifolius S?x Potamogeton x lanceolatus P. berchtoldii x P. coloratus E?x Potamogeton x lintonii P. crispus x P. friesii E S Potamogeton lucens Shining pondweed E S W Potamogeton natans Broad-leaved pondweed E S W Potamogeton x nitens P. gramineus x P. perfoliatus E S W Potamogeton obtusifolius Blunt-leaved pondweed E S W Potamogeton x olivaceaus P. alpinus x P. crispus E S W Potamogeton pectinatus Fennel-leaved pondweed E S W Potamogeton perfoliatus Perfoliate pondweed E S W Potamogeton polygonifolius Bog pondweed E S W Potamogeton praelongus Long-stalked pondweed E S W Potamogeton x prussicus P. alpinus x P. perfoliatus S?x Potamogeton x pseudofriesii P. acutifolius x P. freisii E?x Potamogeton pusillus Lesser pondweed E S W Potamogeton rutilus Shetland pondweed S Potamogeton x salicifolius P. lucens x P. perfoliatus E S W Potamogeton x sparganiifolius P. gramineus x P. natans E S W Potamogeton x sudermanicus P. acutifolius x P. berchtoldii E Potamogeton x suecicus P. filiformis x P. pectinatus E S Potamogeton trichoides Hairlike pondweed E S W Potamogeton x undulatus P. crispus x P. praelongus W Potamogeton x zizii P. gramineus x P. lucens E S W Potentilla palustris Marsh cinquefoil E S W Ranunculus aquatilis Common water-crowfoot E S W Ranunculus baudotii Brackish water-crowfoot E S W Ranunculus circinatus Fan-leaved water-crowfoot E S W Ranunculus flammula Lesser spearwort E S W Ranunculus flammula ssp. flammula E S W Ranunculus flammula ssp. minimus S Ranunculus flammula ssp. scoticus S Ranunculus hederaceus Ivy-leaved crowfoot E S W Ranunculus ophioglossifolius Adder’s-tongue spearwort E Ranunculus omiophyllus Round-leaved crowfoot E S W Ranunculus peltatus Pond water-crowfoot E S W !Ranunculus penicillatus ssp. pseudofluitans Stream water-crowfoot E S W Ranunculus reptans Creeping spearwort E S Ranunculus trichophyllus Thread-leaved water-crowfoot E S W Ranunculus tripartitus Three-lobed crowfoot E W Rorippa amphibia Great yellow-cress E SI W Rorippa microphylla Narrow-fruited water-cress E S W Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum Water-cress E S W

60

Rorippa sp. (R. microphylla/ nasturtium-aquaticum agg.) E S W Rumex aquaticus Scottish dock S Rumex hydrolapathum Great water-dock E S W Ruppia cirrhosa Spiral tasselweed E S Ruppia maritima Beaked tasselweed E S W Sagittaria sagittifolia Arrow-head E SI W Schoenoplectus lacustris Common club-rush E S W Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Grey club-rush E S W Sium latifolium Greater water-parsnip E Sparganium angustifolium Floating bur-reed E S W Sparganium emersum Unbranched bur-reed E S W Sparganium erectum Branched bur-reed E S W Sparganium natans Least bur-reed E S W Spirodela polyrhiza Greater duckweed E SI W Stratiotes aloides Water-soldier E SI WI Subularia aquatica Awlwort E S W Typha angustifolia Lesser reedmace / lesser bulrush E S W Typha latifolia Great reedmace / great bulrush E S W Utricularia australis Bladderwort E S W *Utricularia intermedia sens. lat. Intermediate bladderwort E S W Utricularia minor Lesser bladderwort E S W Utricularia vulgaris Greater bladderwort E S W Utricularia vulgaris sens. lat. (U. australis/vulgaris) E S W Veronica anagallis-aquatica Blue water-speedwell E S W Veronica beccabunga Brook-lime E S W Veronica catenata Pink water-speedwell E S W Wolffia arrhiza Rootless duckweed E W Zannichellia palustris Horned pondweed E S W Distribution: E = England S = Scotland W = Wales I = introduced x = extinct ?x = possibly extinct Notes * Utricularia intermedia sens. lat. is a complex of species (U. intermedia, U. ochroleuca, U. stygia) for which there are few reliable data. Lichens and most bryophytes are not listed at species level because no checklist of fully aquatic bryophytes and lichens is available. Nitella capillaris and N. hyalina are regarded as extinct in Britain, so are not included. A few of the stonewort species listed here may not currently occur in lakes (e.g. at present confined to ditches). A few species in Table SR 1 (Crassula aquatica, Oenanthe fluviatilis, Ranunculus fluitans, Ranunculus penicillatus ssp. pseudofluitans) are predominantly riverine but are occasionally found in standing water.

61

! Ranunculus penicillatus subsp. pseudofluitans var. pseudofluitans is usually found in rivers, whereas Ranunculus penicillatus subsp. pseudofluitans var. vertumnus is also found in canals, ditches and pools. The two are treated here as a single taxon. The following are exclusively riverine species, which are not included in the list: Apium repens Creeping marshwort (E) Carex recta Estuarine sedge (estuarine, S) Limosella australis (possibly introduced) Welsh mudwort (estuarine, W) Potamogeton x bottnicus P. pectinatus x P. vaginatus (E, S) Potamogeton x lanceolatus P. berchtoldii x P. coloratus (W, ?x) Potamogeton nodosus Loddon pondweed (E) Potamogeton x nericius P. alpinus x P. gramineus (S) Potamogeton x schreberi P. natans x P. nodosus (E) Ranunculus fluitans River water-crowfoot (E S W) Ranunculus penicillatus subsp. penicillatus Stream water-crowfoot (E W) Schoenoplectus triqueter Triangular club-rush (estuarine, E) Any aquatic plant is scored under SR 1, even if it can only be identified to genus (e.g. Potamogeton sp., Glyceria sp., Callitriche sp.). Aquatic hybrids of any of the species listed above should be scored. Only hybrids of Potamogeton (Preston, 1995) and Nuphar are listed.

62

SR 2. Marginal vegetation communities Question: How many National Vegetation Classification swamp and tall-herb fen communities are found in the margins of the standing water body? Table SR 2 lists the 27 NVC swamp and tall-herb fen communities associated with standing waters and based on dominants that are native species. S15 - Acorus calamus swamp - is excluded because the dominant species is an alien plant. Sub-communities are not distinguished for the purposes of LACON, so, for instance, the presence of both S10a (the Equisetum fluviatile sub-community of the Equisetum fluviatile community) and S10b (the Carex rostrata sub-community of the Equisetum fluviatile community) would score only once. In the absence of a standardised NVC survey of the margins of the water body, the aquatic species list can be used as a guide to indicate the probable presence of NVC communities. The occurrence of the dominant species after which an NVC community is named, at least at the level of 'Frequent’ on the DAFOR scale, usually indicates the presence of the relevant NVC community. Obviously, this information is not as reliable as standard NVC quadrat data, and it will not easily allow the user to distinguish between S9 and S27, nor between S4, S24, S25 and S26. Where doubt exists the level of confidence rating (A or B) should be reduced. Table SR 2 should be used as a checklist to assess the community richness of the marginal vegetation. Guidance for scoring 0 0 - 1 NVC communities present. 1 2 - 3 NVC communities present. 2 4 - 5 NVC communities present. 3 6 - 7 NVC communities present. 4 8 - 9 NVC communities present. 5 10 or more NVC communities present.

63

Table SR 2. National Vegetation Classification swamp and tall-herb fen communities associated with standing water

S1 Carex elata swamp S2 Cladium mariscus swamp and sedge-beds S3 Carex paniculata swamp S4 Phragmites australis swamp and reed-beds S5 Glyceria maxima swamp S6 Carex riparia swamp S7 Carex acutiformis swamp S8 Schoenoplectus lacustris swamp S9 Carex rostrata swamp S10 Equisetum fluviatile swamp S11 Carex vesicaria swamp S12 Typha latifolia swamp S13 Typha angustifolia swamp S14 Sparganium erectum swamp S16 Sagittaria sagittifolia swamp S17 Carex pseudocyperus swamp S18 Carex otrubae swamp S19 Eleocharis palustris swamp S20 Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani swamp S21 Scirpus maritimus swamp S22 Glyceria fluitans water-margin vegetation S23 Other water-margin vegetation (Glycerio-Sparganion) S24 Phragmites australis-Peucedanum palustre tall-herb fen S25 Phragmites australis-Eupatorium cannabinum tall-herb fen S26 Phragmites australis-Urtica dioica tall-herb fen S27 Carex rostrata-Potentilla palustris tall-herb fen S28 Phalaris arundinacea tall-herb fen Notes S15 Acorus calamus swamp is not considered in the evaluation because Acorus calamus is not native to Britain. Sub-communities and other assemblages (e.g. Carex acuta in swamps and fens)

are not used.

64

IMPACTS

Quantifying Impacts This section of LACON deals with the impacts of human activity on standing water sites. Naturalness per se has already been considered under Conservation Criteria, but the impact of artificially induced pressures on the standing water body has not been considered. This chapter attempts to provide a semi-quantitative measure of the intensity of the effects of these pressures. Impact scores are not used for calculating indices of conservation value, but they provide a context for the Conservation Criteria scores and can help in the development of appropriate management strategies for the standing waters under consideration. Seven types of Impact are covered: acidification (IM 1); eutrophication (IM 2); water abstraction and water level management (IM 3); recreational, educational and military pressures (IM 4); introduced species (IM 5); surrounding land use (IM 6); and modification to lake morphology (i.e. the form of the margins or basin (IM 7). In each case the impact on the aquatic and marginal flora is the only biological aspect considered. In many cases the available information will be insufficient to enable a complete assessment to be made, but a partial evaluation may be possible. In some situations the impact of a particular activity will be very obvious, for instance the effect of coarse fishing (e.g. fishing stands, ground baiting). If it is impossible to quantify an impact, scoring should not be attempted but the ‘negative feature’ should be recorded under Additional Features of Importance. The impact of toxic chemicals is not covered here, but should be recirded under Additional Features of Importance. It may be possible in future to use PLEX scores (see RE 2) to quantify the impacts of acidification and eutrophication. However, this has not yet been investigated. IM 1 covers deterioration in water quality and consequent changes in the macrophyte flora caused by acidification, usually as a result of aerial deposition but sometimes through pollution from other sources (e.g. mine effluent). Acidification can be exacerbated by the presence of surrounding conifer forest. IM 2 covers deterioration in water quality and consequent changes in the macrophyte flora caused by pollution leading to eutrophication (nutrient enrichment). Pollution may be diffuse (e.g. from fertiliser run-off) or from point sources (e.g. silage clamps, slurry pits, industry, sewage, fish farms, domestic waste tips). Pollution caused directly as a result of recreational use (e.g. ground baiting, effluent from boats) is covered under IM 4. Pollution from the droppings of native wild animals (e.g. gulls) is not included under IM 2, and eutrophication caused by alien species (e.g. Canada goose) is covered under IM 5. Enrichment caused by domestic stock grazing the lake margins is covered under IM 6. IM 3 covers the impact on the aquatic flora of artificial changes in water level caused by groundwater abstraction from the catchment or surface water abstraction (e.g. for agriculture, domestic or industrial use, hydropower, pump storage schemes), either directly from the water body or from inflows. Other means of manipulating water levels (e.g. using sluices) are also included in IM 3.

65

IM 4 covers the impacts of recreational, educational and/or military activities. It includes disturbance to wild animals; pollution (e.g. from ground baiting or boat effluent); turbidity caused by boat traffic or military vehicles; loss of aquatic or marginal vegetation (e.g. trampling or management by cutting, dredging or herbicide, for fishing posts, fish swims, launching areas); the effects of stocking with fish (including alien species such as rainbow trout and carp) for angling and fly fishing; and the impact of small structures such as jetties and staithes. Major modification to the margins or bed of the lake is covered under IM 7. IM 5 covers the impact on the aquatic flora of species non-native to Britain (e.g. Elodea species, Crassula helmsii, American signal crayfish, Canada goose). Fish stocked purely for recreational purposes are covered under IM 4, but the introduction of grass carp for vegetation control or escapes from fish farms are included under IM 5. The method of translocation may be deliberate transfer by human intervention, accidental transfer (e.g. on boats or fishing tackle) or natural spread from previous introduction sites. The introduction of domestic grazing animals is excluded (covered under IM 6). Impacts of introductions include loss of native plants through competition from alien plants and eutrophication resulting from large numbers of Canada geese. IM 6 is an assessment of the pressure on the lake flora from the use of the land immediately surrounding it. This includes the physical impacts of vegetation management (e.g. by grazing, cultivation or forestry) and of the built environment (e.g. urban areas, roads, factories). Acidification and eutrophication caused or exacerbated by surrounding land use are covered by IM 1 and IM 2, and modification of the water body basin is covered by IM 7. IM 7 covers the impact of partial or complete modification of the water body basin or its margins (e.g. through dredging, gravel extraction, solid engineering of the margins or lining the bed with artificial materials such as plastic or concrete). Minor modifications for recreational purposes are dealt with under IM 4. IM 7 is only relevant to waters whose origin is natural. Calculation of Impacts Index Seven attributes of Impacts are considered in LACON: IM 1 Acidification

IM 2 Eutrophication IM 3 Water abstraction and water level management IM 4 Recreation, education and military use IM 5 Introduced species IM 6 Surrounding land use IM 7 Modification to lake morphology All attributes are given the same weight, as each of the pressures can have a profound impact on aquatic and marginal flora. Where all attributes are taken into account the Impacts Index is calculated as follows:

66

Attribute Score Weight Weighted Maximum Maximum score possible weighted score score IM 1 s 1 s 5 5 IM 2 t 1 t 5 5 IM 3 u 1 u 5 5 IM 4 v 1 v 5 5 IM 5 w 1 w 5 5 IM 6 x 1 x 5 5 IM 7 y 1 y 5 5 Sum 35

Impacts Index (% of maximum possible weighted score for the attributes scored) = (s + t + u + v + w + x + y) x 100

35 The suffix indicating the completeness of the data would be 'a*'. Where it is possible to score only attributes IM 2, IM 3 and IM 6, the Impacts Index is calculated as follows:

Attribute Score Weight Weighted Maximum Maximum score possible weighted score score IM 2 s 1 s 5 5 IM 3 t 1 t 5 5 IM 6 x 1 x 5 5 Sum 15

Impacts Index (% of maximum possible weighted score for the attributes scored) = (s + t + x) x 100

15 As the data are only 43% complete, the suffix indicating the completeness of the data would be 'c'. See The LACON evaluation system for guidance on rating the level of confidence (A, B or C) of the scores.

67

IM 1. Acidification Question: How severe is the impact of acidification on the water quality and aquatic flora of the standing water body? Guidance for scoring 0 No deviation from the natural chemical regime as a result of acidification.

The aquatic plant community normal in comparison that of non-impacted sites in the local area.

1. Acidification just detectable; the impact on the aquatic flora minimal 2 N/A 3 pH lower than expected; some acid-tolerant aquatic plants (e.g.

Sphagnum species and Juncus bulbosus) unexpectedly abundant or known to have increased to some extent.

4 N/A 5 pH substantially lower than expected; Sphagnum species dominant and

few other macrophytes present. If liming has been carried out to counteract acidification, score 5. IM 2. Eutrophication Question: How severe is the impact of eutrophication caused by diffuse or point source pollution (e.g. from industry, sewage, agriculture,forestry, fish farming, domestic waste tips) on the water quality and aquatic flora of the standing water body? NB. Eutrophication as a result of recreational activity (e.g. ground baiting, effluent from boats) is dealt with under IM 4. Enrichment caused by domestic stock grazing the lake margins is covered under IM 6. Guidance for scoring 0 No diffuse or point source pollution that might cause eutrophication

entering the lake. The aquatic plant community normal in comparison that of unpolluted sites in the local area.

1 Some artificial nutrient enrichment of the water, but only a slight and/or localised deterioration in the aquatic flora.

2 N/A 3 The aquatic flora clearly affected by nutrient enrichment. Effects may

include an increase in growth or frequency of pollution tolerant species such as Potamogeton pectinatus, Zannichellia palustris, Lemna species, Enteromorpha intestinalis or filamentous algae, and/or a decline in charophytes, which are sensitive to nutrient enrichment. Phytoplankton may bloom. Affects visible over a substantial part of the water body.

4 N/A 5 Gross pollution leading to eutrophication and causing a deterioration in

the aquatic flora throughout the water body. In extreme cases charophytes and most vascular plants are absent and filamentous algae or phytoplankton dominate.

68

IM 3. Water abstraction and water level management Question: How severe are the impacts of water abstraction and/or water level management (including pump storage) on the aquatic and marginal flora of the standing water body? NB. Permanent dams are covered under IM 7. Guidance for scoring 0 No artificial modification of water levels as a result of surface water or

groundwater abstraction, drainage, pump storage, hydropower, artificial structures (e.g. sluices).

1 Water abstraction and/or water level manipulation being carried out, but little resulting drawdown or elevation of water level occurring. Minimal impact on the aquatic and/or marginal flora of the lake.

2 N/A 3 Water abstraction and/or water level manipulation causing moderate

periodic drawdown or elevation of water level. Littoral aquatic and/or marginal floras obviously affected but relatively intact.

4 N/A 5 Water abstraction and/or water level manipulation causing gross periodic

or semi-permanent drawdown or water level elevation. Littoral aquatic flora impoverished and/or marginal vegetation badly affected.

IM 4. Recreation, education and/or military use Question: How severe are the impacts of recreational, educational and/or military pressures on the aquatic and marginal flora of the standing water body?

NB. Small structures such as boat ramps, built in connection with recreational or educational uses, are covered here rather than under IM 7. The introduction of native or alien fish specifically for fly fishing or angling is dealt with here, rather than under IM 5. Guidance for scoring 0 No recreational use (e.g. fishing, rowing, sailing, motor cruising, water

skiing, swimming, camping, shooting), educational pursuits (e.g. pond dipping, botanical field study) or military (e.g. tank training, shelling) carried out on the site or in its immediate vicinity.

1 Recreational, educational or military pressures at a very low level, causing minimal impact on the aquatic and marginal vegetation. Examples might be localised trampling of bankside vegetation by fishermen; localisde deterioration of aquatic vegetation as a result of pollution from ground baiting; limited damage to reedbeds from boat launching; destruction of marginal vegetation for the construction of small jetties.

2 N/A 3 Moderate impact on the aquatic and marginal flora from recreational,

educational or military pressures. Effects might include trampling or cutting

69

of extensive areas of bankside vegetation; uprooting of delicate plants by boat traffic; reduction in plant growth through temporary turbidity caused by boat propellers or introduced bottom-feeding fish; localised damage from the discharge of fuel from motor boats.

4 N/A 5 Severe and widespread damage caused to aquatic or marginal floras by

recreational, educational or military activities. Effects may include damage to much of the bankside vegetation through trampling, cutting or boat wash; uprooting of much of the aquatic vegetation by boat traffic; reduction in aquatic plant biomass as a result of marked turbidity from heavy boat traffic or from introduced bottom-feeding fish; severe soil runoff into the water body as a result of tank training; displacement of large amounts of bank vegetation by boat launching ramps or staithes.

IM 5. Introduced species Question: How severe is the impact of alien animal or plant species on the aquatic and marginal flora of the standing water body? NB. The introduction of native or alien fish for fly fishing or angling is dealt with under IM 4. Guidance for scoring 0 No animal or plant species introduced to the water body. 1 At least one species of plant or animal introduced to the site, but the

impact on the flora is minimal (e.g. Elodea canadensis in a diverse aquatic macrophyte community) or very localised.

2 N/A 3 Introduced species having a moderate effect on aquatic and marginal

floras (e.g. Elodea canadensis competing vigorously; Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera spreading vigorously along the lake margin; Canada geese grazing and trampling marginal vegetation).

4 N/A 5 Introduced species having a severe impact on the water body. Examples

are Elodea species (especially when recently arrived) or New Zealand pigmyweed Crassula helmsii out-competing the original macorphyte flora; much of the natural bank flora eliminated by Rhododendron ponticum or Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica or Himalayan balsam Impatiens glandulifera; marked reduction in aquatic plants as a result of the introduction of grass carp for vegetation control.

IM 6. Surrounding land use Question: How severe is the pressure from use of the land in the immediate vicinity of the water body on its aquatic and marginal flora? Guidance for scoring 0 No unnatural pressure caused by surrounding land use. Surroundings

are entirely natural.

70

1. Pressure at a very low level, causing minimal impact on the aquatic and marginal vegetation. Effects might include localised reduction in macrophyte growth through shading from forestry on the lake margin; localised silt run-off from land drains, ploughed fields or roads; or light grazing of emergent vegetation.

2 N/A 3 Moderate impact on the aquatic and marginal flora from surrounding land

use. Effects might be due to shading or run-off from widespread forestry on the lake margin; run-off from a road running along a considerable length of the lake perimeter; heavy grazing of marginal vegetation.

4 N/A 4. Severe and widespread damage caused to aquatic or marginal floras as a

result of factors such as forestry totally surrounding the lake; cattle heavily grazing much of the emergent vegetation and fouling the shallows with droppings; arable land reaching to the water’s edge around much of the lake.

IM 7. Modification of lake morphology Question: How severe is the impact of modification of the basin or margins of the water body on its aquatic and marginal flora? NB. This attribute is applicable only to lakes of totally or predominantly natural origin. Small structures such as boat ramps, built in connection with recreational or educational uses, are covered under IM 4, sluices are included in IM 3, but permanent dams are covered by IM 7. Guidance for scoring

0. No impact. The lake basin and margins are entirely natural. 1. Impact at a very low level, causing minimal disturbance to the aquatic and

marginal vegetation. Effects might be due to the presence of localised turbidity caused by gravel dredging or small-scale bank reinforcement.

2. N/A 3. Moderate impact on the aquatic and marginal flora by modification of the

lake basin or margin. Effects might be due to some of the lake margin being reprofiled; sediment from dredging blanketing some macrophyte beds; zonation of vegetation being modified by the presence of a permanent dam.

4. N/A 5. Severe and widespread damage caused to aquatic or marginal flora as a

result of modification of the lake basin or its margins. This would be the case if macrophytes were eliminated from much of the lake through sedimentation from gravel extraction; or if plant growth was severely restricted because the majority of the perimeter had been hard-engineered.

71

ADDITIONAL FEATURES OF IMPORTANCE (AFIs) Concept of Additional Features of Importance Within some standing water bodies or their catchments there may be features of national or local importance which cannot be assessed adequately in the scoring system. By noting (but not scoring) AFIs, the user is alerted to their presence and can incorporate this information, together with the LACON Conservation Criteria and Impacts Indices, in the overall assessment of the site. A unique or positive AFI may be considered important enough to indicate high conservation value for a site with low values for all the criterion indices. AFIs are sub-divided into 'Unique Features', 'Other Positive Features' and 'Negative Features'. Unique and Other Positive Features add to conservation value; Negative Features detract from it. Table AFI 1 provides checklists of Unique, Positive and Negative Features. Other AFIs not included in this list and considered worthy of note should also be taken into account. Table AFI 1. Additional Features of Importance Unique features The particular features listed under 1 to 4 should be specified. An item should not be listed again under 'Other Positive Features' if it is recorded under 'Unique Features'. 1. The presence of a feature or features 'unique' at an international level. 2. The presence of a feature or features 'unique' at a national level (i.e. in

Britain). 3. The presence of a feature or features 'unique' at a country level (i.e. in

England, Scotland or Wales). 4. The presence of a feature or features 'unique' at a regional/local level

(e.g. in a Scottish Natural Heritage Zone, English Natural Area, Environment Agency Region or SEPA Area, catchment area, administrative county, Watsonian vice-county).

5. Other, as yet undefined, Unique Features of Importance. 'Uniqueness' is difficult to define, but it could, for instance, be a very rare plant population or site type that is the most northerly or southerly in the country, the largest, the highest, the deepest or the only example in Britain (eg the single turlough in Wales).

72

Other Positive Features 6. A site of a kind rare internationally, nationally or regionally. Examples are

aquifer-fed naturally fluctuating water bodies (rare internationally and nationally), arctic-alpine lakes (rare in Great Britain), brackish lagoons (internationally rare) and dystrophic waters in the lowlands of England and in Wales.

7. A site of geological or palaeolimnological interest. Geological interest

might cover good examples of shingle-bar lagoons or glacial features such as pingo ponds and corrie lakes. Undisturbed sediment is an example of a valuable palaeolimnological feature.

8. A wholly natural or semi-natural catchment. 9. A water body occupying a key position in an ecological series (e.g. a lake

in a series showing the transition from nutrient-poor to nutrient-rich conditions or fresh to brackish water).

10. Extensive reedswamp, schwingmoor, mire, wet woodland or salt marsh

associated with the water body, or a good example of a hydrosere present.

11. Five or more National Vegetation Classification mire communities

(Rodwell, 1992) associated with the water body. 12. Three or more of the seven National Vegetation Classification wet

woodland communities (Rodwell, 1991) bordering the water body. These communities are:

W1 Salix cinerea-Galium palustre woodland W2 Salix cinerea-Betula pendula-Phragmites australis woodland

W3 Salix penandra-Carex rostrata woodland W4 Betula pubescens-Molinia caerulea woodland W5 Alnus glutinosa-Carex paniculata woodland W6 Alnus glutinosa-Urtica dioica woodland W7 Alnus glutinosa-Fraxinus excelsior-Lysimachia nemorum

woodland 13. Islands that add to the ecological value of the standing water body. 14. A halocline in a brackish water body. 15. The occurrence of aquatic or semi-aquatic species of lichen or bryophyte

(apart from Ricciocarpus natans and Riccia fluitans, listed under rarity categories) that are legally protected, threatened (Red List), Data Deficient, Near Threatened, Nationally Rare, Nationally Scarce or Biodiversity Action Plan priority species. See the JNCC web site for lists of protected, threatened and rare bryophytes and lichens.

16. The occurrence of legally protected, threatened (Red List), Data Deficient,

Near Threatened Nationally Rare or Nationally Scarce marginal or

73

wetland plant species in the vicinity of the water body. See the JNCC web site for lists of protected and rare vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens.

17. Eight or more species (including hybrids) of Potamogeton present. 18. The presence of uncommon or distinctive forms or populations of algae,

forming a natural part of the biota. Examples are the balls of Cladophora sauteri that carpet the bed of the Loch of Harray, Orkney.

19. The occurrence of a population of a plant or animal (rare or common)

which is believed to be distinct genetically. 20. One or more nationally or internationally rare or protected species of

invertebrate supported by the water body or by associated wetland habitat. ‘Nationally rare or protected’ species comprise those included in national Red Lists (threatened species) or Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (except those listed only for trade). The categories regarded as ‘Internationally rare or protected’ and the invertebrate species qualifying are shown in the following table.

Native invertebrate species extant in the UK

Bern Convention Appendix II

Habitats Directive Annex IIa/ Annex IVa

IUCN global Red List (CR, EN or VU)!

A ramshorn snail Anisus vorticulus

- Annex II Annex IV

-

White-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes

- Annex IIa Vulnerable

Southern damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale

Appendix II Annex IIa Vulnerable

Fen raft spider Dolomedes plantarius

- - Vulnerable

Pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera

- Annex IIa Endangered

Narrow-mouthed whorl snail Vertigo angustior

- Annex IIa -

Round-mouthed whorl snail Vertigo genesii

- Annex IIa -

Geyer’s whorl snail Vertigo geyeri

- Annex IIa -

Desmoulin’s whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana

- Annex IIa -

! See www.redlist.org 21. A rich breeding assemblage of dragonflies. (See Nature Conservancy

Council (1989) for the numbers of species making up a rich assemblage in different parts of Britain.)

22. A rich aquatic invertebrate assemblage. (See Pond Conservation Trust

web site www.pondstrust.org.uk for information on PSYM (Predictive

74

System for Multimetrics), used in assessing the quality of invertebrate communities of ponds).

23. A rich or rare zooplankton fauna. 24. A rare or naturally rich phytoplankton or diatom assemblage. 25. A breeding site of a nationally or internationally rare species of aquatic

bird or a large overwintering population of wildfowl. 26. A breeding site of a nationally or internationally rare or protected

mammal. Nationally rare and protected species are the otter Lutra lutra and the water vole Arvicola terrestris. The otter also qualifies as internationally rare and protected, being listed on Bern Convention Appendix II and Habitats Directive Annexes IIa and IVa.

27. A rich assemblage of amphibians (i.e. at least four breeding species).

(See Nature Conservancy Council (1989) for the scoring system for rich assemblages).

28. A nationally or internationally rare and protected species of native

amphibian breeding in the water body or in associated freshwater habitat. These species are the natterjack toad Bufo calamita (Habitats Directive Annex IVa, WCA Schedule 5), native colonies of pool frog Rana lessonae (Habitats Directive Annex IVa, WCA Schedule 5) and great crested newt Triturus cristatus (Bern Convention Appendix II, Habitats Directive Annexes IIa and IVa, WCA Schedule 5).

29. A naturally fishless water body. 30. A water body supporting nationally or internationally rare or protected

species of freshwater or anadromous fish. These are listed in the following table.

75

Native freshwater fish species extant in the UK

Bern Convention Appendix II

Habitats Directive Annex IIa/ Annex IVa

IUCN global Red List (CR, EN or VU)!

Common sturgeon Acipenser sturio

- Annex IIa Annex IVa

Endangered

Allis shad Alosa alosa

- Annex IIa

-

Twaite shad Alosa fallax

- Annex IIa

-

Spined loach Cobitis taenia

- Annex IIa -

Bullhead Cottus gobio

- Annex IIa -

River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis

- Annex IIa -

Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri

- Annex IIa -

Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus

- Annex IIa -

Atlantic salmon Salmo salar

- Annex IIa -

! See www.redlist.org 31. The presence in the water body or in associated wetland habitat of a

population of a plant or animal listed in UK or country Biodiversity Action Plans as a priority species.

32. A designation of SSSI, SAC, SPA, NNR, LNR or Ramsar Site on the

water body, or on all or part of its catchment. 33. A positive trend, observed over a period of years, in physical, chemical or

biological features (e.g. improving water quality, increase in population size of an important species).

34. A long history of ecological research. 35. Other, as yet undefined, Positive Features of Importance. Negative Features The following list excludes features affecting aquatic and marginal vegetation that have already been scored under Impacts. If these features affect other elements of the biota or the physical environment they should be noted as AFIs. 36. Acidification causing a deterioration in water quality or affecting the biota

(if not scored under Impacts). 37. Pollution (e.g. from agriculture, industry, sewage effluent, fish farms or

domestic waste tips) causing eutrophication or toxic conditions, and affecting water quality or the biota (if not scored under Impacts).

76

38. Impacts of abstraction from the groundwater (if not scored under

Impacts). 39. Manipulation of water levels (e.g. abstraction for agriculture or potable

supply, pump storage in balancing reservoirs) adversely affecting the site (if not scored under Impacts).

40. Management of aquatic or marginal vegetation by cutting, dredging, herbicides, grazing or other means (if not scored under Impacts).

41. Recreational impacts (e.g. from fishing, water sports, shooting, etc.) (if not scored under Impacts)

42. The presence of alien species (e.g. New Zealand pigmyweed Crassula helmsii, signal crayfish Pasifastacus leniusculus, pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus) causing significant ecological damage or with the potential to do so (if not scored under Naturalness or Impacts).

43. The introduction of a native UK species to a water body from which it was

previously absent and where it is believed to be having a deleterious effect (e.g. ruffe Gymnocephalus cernua and fringed water-lily Nymphoides peltata in Scotland) (if not scored under Impacts).

44. The presence of one or more alien plant species in the marginal

vegetation of the water body, if not scored under Impacts. A list of some established alien water margin and wetland species is given in Table AFI 1.1, but many other alien species (e.g. Rhododendron ponticum) could occur close to water and their presence should be taken into account.

45. Algal blooms that are artificially induced and are having an adverse

impact on biota other than macrophytes (if not scored under Impacts). 46. The potential for human impact to affect the water body (e.g. proposed

fish farms, disused mines, urban development in the catchment, forestry plantation).

47. A negative trend, observed over a period of years, in physical, chemical

or biological features (e.g. deteriorating water quality, decrease in population size of an important species).

48. Large quantities of litter, household or industrial waste, etc. in or near the

water body. 49. Other, as yet undefined, Negative Features of Importance.

77

Table AFI 1.1. Some established alien vascular plants of wetlands and water margins Allium paradoxum Few-flowered Leek Anaphalis margaritacea Pearly everlasting Bidens connata London bur-marigold Bidens frondosa Beggar-ticks Claytonia sibirica Pink purslane Crocosmia x crocosmiflora Montbretia Epilobium brunnescens New Zealand willowherb Epilobium ciliatum American willowherb Fallopia japonica Japanese knotweed Fallopia sachalinensis Knotweed Heracleum mantegazzianum Giant hogweed Impatiens capensis Orange balsam Impatiens glandulifera Himalayan balsam Iris versicolor Purple iris Lupinus nootkatensis Nootka lupin Lysichiton americanus American skunk-cabbage Lysimachia terrestris Lake loosestrife Mimulus cupreus Copper monkey-flower Mimulus guttatus Monkey-flower Montia sibirica Pink purslane Petasites fragrans Winter heliotrope Petasites japonicus Giant butterbur Poa palustris Swamp meadow-grass Symphytum bulbosum Bulbous comphrey See also Table NA 2.1 for alien aquatic vascular plants established in standing waters in Great Britain. See the New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora (Preston et al., 2000) for other alien species and distribution maps.

78

REFERENCES

Boon, P.J., Holmes, N.T.H., Maitland, P.S. & Rowell, T.A. 1996. SERCON: System for Evaluating Rivers for Conservation: Version 1 Manual. Scottish Natural Heritage Research, Survey and Monitoring Report No. 61. Boon, P.J., Holmes, N.T.H., Maitland, P.S., Rowell, T.A. & Davies, J. 1997. A System for Evaluating Rivers for Conservation (SERCON): Development, Structure and Function in: Boon, P. J. and Howell, D. L. (eds) Freshwater Quality: Defining the Indefinable? Edinburgh: The Stationery Office. Cheffings, C. M. & Farrell, L. (eds.). 2005. The Vascular Plant Red Data List for Great Britain. Species Status No. 7. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Curtis, T.G.F. & McGough, H.N. 1988. Irish Red Data Book 1. Vascular Plants. Dublin: Stationery Office. Defra. 2003. Review of non-native species policy. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Defra. 2007. Development of eradication strategies for Ludwigia species. Report for Project PH0422. (Contractor: Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford). London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department of the Environment. 1994. Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Duigan, C., Kovach, W. & Palmer, M. 2006. Vegetation communities of British lakes: a revised classification. JNCC Report No. 364. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Duigan, C., Kovach, W. & Palmer, M. 2007. Vegetation communities of British lakes: a revised classification scheme for conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 17, 147-173. England Field Unit. 1990. Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey - a technique for environmental audit. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council. (Reprinted 1993 by Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.) Hill, M., Baker, R., Broad, G., Chandler, P.J., Copp, G.H., Ellis, J., Jones, D., Hoyland, C., Laing, I., Longshaw, M., Moore, N., Parrott, D., Pearman, D., Preston, C., Smith, R.M. & Waters, R. 2005. Audit of non-native species in England. English Nature Research Reports No. 662. Peterborough: English Nature. (Including accompanying CD) IUCN Species Survival Commission. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 3.1. As Approved by the 51st. Meeting of the IUCN Council, Gland, Switzerland. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN – The World Conservation Union.

79

IUCN Species Survival Commission. 2003. Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels Version 3.0. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN – The World Conservation Union. Lassière, O. 1995. Botanical survey of Scottish freshwater lochs. Scottish Natural Heritage Information and Advisory Note No. 4. Edinburgh: Scottish Natural Heritage. Marshall, E. J. P. and Westlake, D. F. 1978. Recent studies on the role of macrophytes in their ecosystem. In Proceedings of EWRS 5th Symposium on Aquatic Weeds, 43-51. Margules, C. R. and Usher, M. B. 1981. Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential. Biological Conservation, 31, 79-109. Nature Conservancy Council. 1989. Guidelines for Selection of Biological SSSIs. Peterborough: Nature Conservancy Council. Palmer, M.A. 1989. A botanical classification of standing waters in Great Britain and a method for the use of macrophyte flora in assessing changes in water quality. Research and Survey in Nature Conservation No. 19. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Palmer, M.A., Bell, S.L. & Butterfield, I. 1992. A botanical classification of standing waters in Britain: applications for conservation and monitoring. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 2, 125-143. Palmer, M.A. & Roy, D.B. 2001a. An estimate of the extent of dystrophic, oligotrophic, mesotrophic and eutrophic standing fresh water in Great Britain. JNCC Report No. 317. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Palmer, M.A. & Roy, D.B. 2001b. A method for estimating the extent of standing fresh waters of different trophic states in Great Britain. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 11, 199-216. Perring, F.H. & Farrell, L. 1977. British Red Data Books 1. Vascular Plants, 1st. edition. Lincoln: Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation. Preston, C.D. 1995. Pondweeds of Great Britain and Ireland. BSBI Handbook No. 8. London: Botanical Society of the British Isles. Preston, C.D. & Croft, J.M. 1997. Aquatic Plants in Britain and Ireland. Colchester: Harley Books. Preston, C.D., Pearman, D.A. & Dines, T. D. (eds.) 2002. New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Including accompanying CD) Ratcliffe, D.A. (ed.) 1977. A Nature Conservation Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

80

Rodwell, J.S. (ed.) 1992. British Plant Communities. Volume 2. Mires and Heaths. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rodwell, J.S. (ed.) 1995. British Plant Communities. Volume 4. Swamp, Tall-herb Fen and Aquatic Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rowan, J.S, Duck, R.W., Carwardine, J., Bragg, O.M., Black, A.R., Cutler, M. E. J. & Soutar, I. 2005. Lake habitat survey in the United Kingdom. Draft Survey Guidance Manual. Report for SNIFFER Project (WFD40), Edinburgh. Rowan, J.S, Carwardine, J., Duck, R.W., Bragg, O.M., Black, A.R., Cutler, M. E. J., Soutar, I & Boon, P.J. 2006. Development of a technique for lake habitat survey (LHS) with applications for the European Union Water Framework Directive. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 16, 637-657. Stace, C. 1997. New Flora of the British Isles. 2nd. edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stewart, A., Pearman, D.A. & Preston, C.D. 1994. Scarce Plants in Britain. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Stewart, N.F. 2004. Important Stonewort Areas of the United Kingdom. Salisbury: Plantlife International. Stewart, N.F. & Church, J.M. 1992. Red Data Books of Britain and Ireland: Stoneworts. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Wigginton, M.J. 1980. England Field Unit Project No. 1. Survey of Shropshire, Cheshire and Staffordshire meres. Part 1. Banbury: Nature Conservancy Council. Wigginton, M.J. (ed.) 1999. British Red Data Books 1. Vascular Plants. 3rd. edition. Peterborough: Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Wolfe-Murphy, S.A., Lawrie, E.W., Smith, S.L. & Gibson, C.E. 1992. Northern Ireland loughs survey. Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland. (Unpublished report).

81

ANNEX 1 The standard loch survey method

Taken from: Lassière, O. 1995. Botanical survey of Scottish freshwater lochs.

Scottish Natural Heritage Information and Advisory Note No. 4.

Site selection Lochs are selected for survey within areas based on the Scottish Natural Heritage administrative boundaries (Areas of Search). In some areas, particularly vulnerable or interesting sites are identified and survey is limited to these. In other areas, a synoptic survey approach is employed. All standing water bodies appearing on 1:50,000 Ordnance Survey maps are identified and fitted into a three-way matrix based on surface area, altitude and underlying solid geology. Priority sites are selected from this matrix following liaison with regional staff and include: • lochs lying within designated areas (e.g. SSSIs, National Nature Reserves or

proposed sites) • lochs with records of rare plants or Potamogeton (pondweed) species or

other previous survey information • sites of interest for other groups (e.g. birds) • a random selection • sites to ensure full coverage of the matrix and Area of Search • sites for which the regional staff require further information. This site selection occurs during the winter months and the regional staff are involved with arranging site access. Field survey Fieldwork is carried out during the summer months (June to September). The protocol involves a complete circumnavigation of the loch at wader depth, recording the shoreline and shallow water aquatic plant species. Deeper water is sampled by means of a double-headed rake thrown from the bank at frequent intervals along the shore. Where possible a boat is used and grapnel samples are obtained from the bottom along transects across the loch. All aquatic plants are recorded on a subjective DAFOR abundance scale (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional, Rare). Stands of vegetation are marked on a large-scale map of the site and the distribution of dominant and otherwise notable species in all three vegetation zones is indicated. Emergent stands are classified according to the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) scheme for swamps and tall-herb fens (Rodwell, 1995). Voucher specimens of plants that are not readily identifiable in the field are kept for verification by experts (e.g. Potamogeton spp., Utricularia spp. and charophytes). Other observations are made on substrate, water colour and clarity, adjacent land use, wetland edges, artificial features, use of or damage to the site, inflows and outflows and obvious fauna. Water samples are collected from the outflow and tested for pH, conductivity and alkalinity.

82

ANNEX 2 Results of tests on the LACON scoring system

ENGLAND Naturalness

Site Scores NA code NA1 NA 2 NA3 Index

E1 - 5 - 100/c/B E2 - 4 - 80/c/B E3 5 3 4 75/a*/B E4 2 5 5 85/a*/B E5 5 5 5 100a*/B E6 5 5 5 100/a*/B E7 5 5 5 100/a*/B E8 5 5 5 100/a*/B E9 4 1 - 40/b/B E10 - 5 5 100/b/B E11 5 5 - 100/b/B E12 5 5 5 100/a*/B E13 5 4 3 80/a*/B E14 2 5 - 80/b/B E15 5 4 - 87/c/B E16 2 5 5 85/a*/B E17 5 3 5 80/a*/B E18 - 4 - 80/c/B E19 5 4 - 87/b/A E20 - 1 - 20/c/B

Range: 20 – 100 Mean: 84

Representativeness Site Lake Site Scores RE code Group PLEX RE 1 RE 2 Index

E1 F 6.50 3 5 80/a*/B E2 G 7.35 4 5 90/a*/B E3 F 8.11 0 3 30/a*/B E4 G 7.44 2 5 70/a*/B E5 F 7.44 1 5 60/a*/B E6 C2 4.49 3.5 3 65/a*/B E7 B 5.71 1 3 40/a*/B E8 I 8.16 4 3 70/a*/B E9 D 6.21 4 3 70/a*/B E10 A 1.54 3 3 60/a*/B E11 I 6.72 3 3 60/a*/B E12 C2 4.18 2.5 5 75/a*/B E13 G 7.38 3 5 80/a*/B E14 G 8.27 1 3 40/a*/B E15 G 7.14 2 5 70/a*/B E16 C2 4.36 2.5 5 75/a*/B E17 F 6.01 1 3 40/a*/B E18 G 7.62 5 5 100/a*/B E19 C2 5.11 4.5 3 75/a*/A E20 E 6.5 3.5 3 65/a*/B

Range: 30 – 100 Mean: 66

83

Rarity Site Scores RA code RA 1 RA 2 RA 3 RA 5 RA 6 RA 7 RA8 RA9 Index

! E1 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 78/a*/B E2 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 72/a*/B E3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4/a*/B E4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 36/a*/B E5 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 15/a*/B E6 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 26/a*/B E7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B E8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/C E9 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 24/a*/C E10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7/a*/B E11 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 17/a*/C E12 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3/a*/B E13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B E14 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 15/a*/B E15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3/a*/C E16 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 23/a*/C E17 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 10/a*/C E18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B E19 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8/a*/A E20 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 13/a*/C

Range: 0 – 78 Mean: 18 Note ! The site is known to support Corrigiola litoralis (Schedule 8) and Chara

connivens (Endangered). These records are not in the database but are scored. Species Richness Site Scores SR

Code SR 1 SR 2 Index

E1 2 2 40/a*/B E2 3 5 73/a*/B E3 2 4 53/a*/B E4 3 2 53/a*/B E5 2 5 60/a*/B E6 2 1 33/a*/B E7 2 2 40/a*/B E8 2 1 33/a*/B E9 4 4 80/a*/B E10 1 1 20/a*/B E11 3 3 60/a*/B E12 1 0 13/a*/B E13 3 5 73/a*/B E14 0 0 0/a*/B E15 3 3 60/a*/B E16 2 1 40/a*/B E17 2 2 40/a*/B E18 4 5 87/a*/B E19 3 4 67/a*/A E20 4 5 87/a*/B

Range: 0 – 87 Mean: 51 Note Most confidence scores are B because the information used for assessment was

over 10 years old.

84

SCOTLAND Naturalness Site Scores NA

code NA 1 NA 2 NA3 Index

S1 5 5 4 95/a*/B S2 5 5 5 100/a*/B S3 5 5 5 100/a*/B S4 5 1 2 45/a*/B S5 5 4 3 80/a*/B S6 5 5 1 80/a*/B S7 5 5 5 100/a*/B S8 5 5 0 75/a*/B S9 4 5 4 90/a*/B S10 5 5 5 100/a*/B S11 5 5 5 100/a*/B S12 4 5 4 90/a*/B S13 5 5 5 100/a*/B S14 1 5 2 65/a*/B S15 3 4 3 70/a*/B S16 5 4 4 85/a*/B S17 3 5 5 90/a*/B S18 5 5 5 100/a*/B S19 5 5 5 100/a*/B S20 5 5 5 100/a*/B S21 3 4 3 70/a*/B S22 5 5 0 75/a*/B S23 4 5 4 90/a*/B S24 4 5 3 85/a*/B S25 5 5 5 100/a*/B S26 5 5 5 100/a*/B S27 5 5 5 100/a*/B S28 5 5 5 100/a*/B S29 5 5 5 100/a*/B S30 5 5 5 100/a*/B

S31 3 5 5 90/a*/B S32 5 5 3 90/a*/B S33 5 5 4 95/a*/B S34 1 5 0 55/a*/B S35 0 5 2 60/a*/B S36 2 5 5 85/a*/B S37 5 5 3 90/a*/B S38 3 5 2 75/a*/B

S39 3 5 - 87/b/B S40 5 5 - 100/b/B Range: 45 – 100 Mean: 88

85

Representativeness Site Lake Site Scores RE code Group PLEX RE 1 RE 2 Index

S1 E 5.58 3 5 80/a*/B S2 C2 4.23 0 5 50/a*/B S3 C2 4.21 1.5 5 65/a*/B S4 D 5.75 2 5 70/a*/B S5 E 5.75 5 5 100/a*/B S6 D 4.94 5 5 100/a*/B S7 B 4.01 4 5 90/a*/B S8 B 4.23 2 5 70/a*/B S9 C2 4.46 4 3 70/a*/B S10 C2 4.02 4 5 90/a*/B S11 C1 4.42 1 3 40/a*/B S12 D 6.06 1.5 3 45/a*/B S13 A 4.42 3 3 60/a*/B S14 D 4.31 1.5 3 45/a*/B S15 E 6.40 5 5 100/a*/B S16 C2 4.41 4.5 3 75/a*/B S17 C2 3.85 2 5 70/a*/B S18 C1 3.75 1 5 60/a*/B S19 C2 3.68 3.5 5 85/a*/B S20 C2 3.91 4.5 5 95/a*/B S21 E 6.06 4.5 5 95/a*/B S22 B 4.42 3 3 60/a*/B S23 G 6.54 2 3 50/a*/B S24 B 5.81 1 3 40/a*/B S25 E 5.78 3.5 5 85/a*/B S26 E 5.45 3 3 60/a*/B S27 B 5.38 1 3 40/a*/B S28 C1 3.27 5 5 100/a*/B S29 I 6.85 4 3 70/a*/B S30 A 2.95 5 3 80/a*/B

S31 J 8.08 1 5 60/a*/B S32 H 7.69 2 3 50/a*/B

S33 J 8.27 3 5 80/a*/B S34 J 8.27 1 5 60/a*/B

S35 H 7.00 5 5 100/a*/B S36 C2 5.49 1.5 3 45/a*/B

S37 E 6.71 4.5 3 75/a*/B S38 I 7.85 5 5 100/a*/B ! S39 E 6.83 4 3 70/a*/B ! S40 J 8.85 5 3 80/a*/B Range: 40 -100 Mean: 72

Note ! Unlike all the other sites, these two are not included in the JNCC database, so

they were keyed out to Lake Group using the key in Annex 4.

86

Rarity Site Scores RA code RA 1 RA 2 RA 3 RA 5 RA 6 RA 7 RA 8 RA 9 Index

S1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 15/a*/B S2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B S3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B S4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3/a*/B S5 0 0 0 5 4 4 0 0 68/a*/B S6 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 22/a*/B S7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B S8 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 12/a*/B S9 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 12/a*/B S10 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 19/a*/C S11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B S12 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 12/a*/B S13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B S14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B S15 0 0 0 5 3 3 0 0 38/a*/B S16 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 19/a*/B S17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B S18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B S19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B S20 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 12/a*/B S21 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 46/a*/B S22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B S23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3/a*/B S24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B S25 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 0 38/a*/B S26 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 0 41/a*/B S27 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5/a*/B S28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B S29 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 21/a*/B S30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B

S31 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5/a*/B S32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B S33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B S34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B S35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B S36 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 21/a*/B S37 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 23/a*/C S38 0 0 0 4 5 0 2 0 56/a*/B

S39 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 46/a*/C S40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/B Range: 0 – 68

Mean: 13

87

Species richness Site Scores SR code SR 1 SR 2 Index

S1 3 1 47/a*/B S2 1 0 13/a*/B S3 1 0 13/a*/B S4 3 3 60/a*/B S5 5 4 93/a*/B S6 4 3 73/a*/B S7 2 1 33/a*/B S8 2 2 40/a*/B S9 3 2 53/a*/B S10 2 1 33/a*/B S11 1 0 13/a*/B S12 2 1 33/a*/B S13 1 1 20/a*/B S14 2 2 40/a*/B S15 4 3 73/a*/B S16 3 2 53/a*/B S17 2 1 33/a*/B S18 1 0 13/a*/B S19 2 0 27/a*/B S20 2 1 33/a*/B S21 3 2 53/a*/B S22 2 1 33/a*/B S23 2 3 47/a*/B S24 2 0 27/a*/B S25 2 1 33/a*/B S26 2 1 33/a*/B S27 1 0 13/a*/B S28 1 0 13/a*/B S29 3 5 73/a*/B S30 1 0 13/a*/B

S31 1 0 13/a*/B S32 0 0 0/a*/B

S33 1 1 20/a*/B S34 0 0 0/a*/B S35 1 0 13/a*/B

S36 1 0 27/a*/B S37 2 1 33/a*/B S38 4 3 73/a*/B S39 3 2 53/a*/B S40 1 0 13/a*/B

Range: 0 – 93 Mean: 34 Note Most confidence scores are B because the information used for assessment was

mainly over 10 years old.

88

WALES Naturalness

Site Scores NA code NA1 NA 2 NA3 Index

W1 5 5 5 100/a*/B W2 - 5 - 100/c/A W3 - 5 - 100/c/A W4 - 1 - 20/c/B W5 - 4 - 80/c/A W6 - 5 - 100/c/B W7 - 4 - 80/c/B W8 5 5 5 100/a*/A W9 - 4 - 80/c/B W10 - 5 - 100/c/A

Range: 20 – 100 Mean: 87 Representativeness

Site Lake Site Scores RE code Group PLEX RE1 RE2 Index

W1 C2 4.49 5 3 80/a*/B W2 D 6.53 2 3 50/a*/A W3 D 5.17 3.5 5 85/a*/A ! W4 C2 6.27 0 0 0/a*/B W5 G 7.21 1 5 60/a*/A W6 I 7.34 5 5 100/a*/B W7 G 7.79 4 3 70/a*/B W8 F 6.71 1 3 40/a*/A ! W9 I 7.63 4 5 90/a*/B W10 C2 4.09 3 5 80/a*/A Range: 0 –100 Mean: 66

Note ! Unlike all the other sites, these two are not included in the JNCC database, so

they were keyed out to Lake Group using the key in Annex 4. Rarity

Site Scores RA

code RA 1 RA 2 RA 3 RA 5 RA 6 RA 7 RA 8 RA 9 Index

W1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5/a*/C !! W2 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 83/a*/A W3 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 48/a*/B W4 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 35/a*/B W5 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 4 28/a*/B W6 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 26a*/C W7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5/a*/B W8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0/a*/A W9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 8/a*/B W10 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 36/a*/A

Range: 4 - 86 Mean: 27 Note !! The site is known to support Limosella aquatica (Nationally Scarce).

This species was not included in the JNCC database but is counted here.

89

Species richness Site Scores SR code SR1 SR2 Index

W1 3 1 47/a*/B W2 2 1 33/a*/A W3 3 2 53/a*/A W4 3 2 53/a*/B W5 3 3 60/a*/A W6 3 2 53/a*/B W7 3 4 67/a*/B W8 1 2 27/a*/A W9 3 3 60/a*/B W10 2 0 13/a*/A

Range: 27 – 67 Mean: 47

90

Names and locations of trial sites and sources of information ENGLAND Site code and name GR EA Region Data source Year

E1 Slapton Ley SX84 SW Newbold, NCC 1977 E2 Westwood Pool SO86 Mid Day & Palmer, NCC 1984 E3 Rostherne Mere SJ78 Mid NCC England Field Unit 1979 E4 Castor Hanglands Pond TF10 Ang Palmer 1973 E5 Sweat Mere SJ43 Mid NCC England Field Unit 1979 E6 Wastwater NY10 NW English Nature 2000 E7 Oak Mere SJ56 NW NCC England Field Unit 1979 E8 Fowl Mere TL88 Ang ITE, Palmer 1976 E9 Bassenthwaite Lake NY22 NW Newbold & Palmer, NCC 1981 E10 Woolmer Ponds SU73 Th Newbold & Palmer, NCC 1980 E11 Crag Lough NY76 NE Palmer, NCC 1982 E12 Stickle Tarn NY20 NW Palmer & Wade, NCC 1982 E13 Betton Pool SJ50 Mid NCC England Field Unit 1979 E14 Clumber Park SK67 Mid Newbold & Palmer, NCC 1984 E15 Semer Water SD98 NE Palmer, NCC 1980 E16 Hodson's Tarn SD39 NW Palmer & Wade, NCC 1982 E17 Hawes Water SD47 NW Newbold, Palmer & Wade, NCC 1982 E18 Urnswick Tarn SD27 NW Charter, NCC 1983 E19 Elter Water NY30 NW Newbold, English Nature 1997 E20 Greenlee Lough NY76 NE Palmer, NCC 1982

Botanical data are taken from field recording forms. Assessments for NA1 and NA3 were carried out using NCC England Field Unit maps (Wigginton, 1980) and/or from personal knowledge of the sites. Data for all the sites are included in the JNCC database. English Environment Agency Regions

Ang Anglian NW North West Mid Midlands SW South West NE North East Th Thames WALES Site code and name Grid ref. Data source Year

W1 Llyn Idwal SH65 Countryside Council for Wales 1993 W2 Llyn Tegid SH93 Countryside Council for Wales 1996 W3 Llyn Fanod SN66 Countryside Council for Wales 1994 W4 Llyn Llywenan SH38 Newbold & Palmer, NCC 1988 W5 Llyn Coron SH37 Countryside Council for Wales 1994 W6 Llyn Dinam SH37 Countryside Council for Wales 1993 W7 Llyn Penrhyn SH37 Countryside Council for Wales 1993 W8 Llyn yr Wyth Eidion SH48 Countryside Council for Wales 1996 W9 Bosherston Lake SR99 Newbold, NCC 1984 W10 Llyn Fach (Glam.) SN90 Countryside Council for Wales 1995 Data (for vegetation only) taken from field recording forms. W4 and W9 are not included in the JNCC database. All the lakes are in the Environment Agency Wales Region

91

SCOTLAND Site Site Grid Site Site Grid code name ref. code name ref.

S1 Loch Lundie NH65 S16 Loch Gowan NH15 S2 Loch Bealach Culaidh NH47 S17 Loch na Moine Beag NH16 S3 Loch nan Druidean NH47 S18 Loch Gainemhach NH04 S4 Loch Kinellan NH45 S19 Loch Dubh nam Biast NH24 S5 Loch Ussie NH55 S20 Loch Airigh Lochan NH24 S6 Loch Garve NH45 S21 Bayfield Loch NH87 S7 Loch Luaisgeach NH44 S22 Breun Loch NH56 S8 Loch Culbrokie NH65 S23 Black Loch NH77 S9 Loch Achilty NH45 S24 Black Pond NH78 S10 Loch a Gharbhrain NH27 S25 Loch nan Tunnag NH88 S11 Loch a Choire Ghranda NH28 S26 Loch na Muic NH88 S12 Ord Loch NH55 S27 Loch Preas an Uisge NH88 S13 Loch Gun Toin NH55 S28 Lochan Dubh NH38 S14 Loch Meig NH35 S29 Loch Achnacloich NH67 S15 Loch Eye NH87 S30 Un-named loch NH1505 S31 Loch of the Stack HY34 S32 Little Vasa Water HY41 S33 Loch of Ayre HY40 S34 Peerie Sea HY41 S35 Wideford Reservoir HY41 S36 Sandy Loch HY20 S37 Peerie Water HY32 S38 Loch of Wasbister HY33 S39 Loch of Harray HY21 S40 Loch of Stenness HY21 Data for Sites S1 – S30 were taken from recording sheets drawn up during the Scottish Natural Heritage Scottish lochs survey of East Ross, 1994. Data for Sites S31 – S 38 were taken from recording sheets drawn up during the Nature Conservancy Council Scottish lochs survey of Orkney, 1986. Data for sites S39 and S 40 (Orkney) are records made in 1979 by M. Palmer, and are not in the JNCC database. All sites are in the SEPA Highlands and Islands and Grampian Area.

92

ANNEX 3

Maps showing the distribution of Lake Groups A to J in Britain

(from Duigan at al., 2006)

Group A

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Predominantly northern small dystrophic peat or heathland pools, dominated by Sphagnum sp.

93

Group B

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Widespread, usually low lying acid moorland or heathland pools and small lakes, with a limited range of plants, especially Juncus bulbosus, Potamogeton

polygonifolius and Sphagnum sp.

94

Group C1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Northern, usually small to medium sized, acid, largely mountain lakes, with a limited range of plants, but Juncus bulbosus and Sparganium angustifolium

dominant

95

Group C2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

North western, predominantly large, slightly acid, upland lakes, supporting a diversity of plant species, Juncus bulbosus dominant, often with Littorella uniflora

and Lobelia dortmanna, in association with Myriophyllum alterniflorum

96

Group D

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Widespread, often large, mid-altitude circumneutral lakes, with a high diversity of plants, including Littorella uniflora, Myriophyllum alterniflorum, Callitriche

hamulata, Fontinalis antipyretica and Glyceria fluitans

97

Group E

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Northern, often large, low altitude and coastal, above neutral lakes with high diversity of plant species, including Littorella uniflora, Myriophyllum alterniflorum,

Potamogeton perfoliatus and Chara sp.

98

Group F

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Widespread, usually medium sized, lowland, above neutral lakes, with a limited range of species, but typified by waterlilies and other floating-leaved vegetation

99

Group G

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Central and eastern, above neutral, lowland lakes, with Lemna minor, Elodea canadensis, Potamogeton natans and Persicaria amphibia

100

Group H

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Northern, small, circumneutral, lowland lakes, with low species diversity characterised by the presence of Glyceria fluitans and Callitriche stagnalis

101

Group I

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Widespread, mostly moderately large, base-rich lowland lakes, with Chara sp., Myriophllum spicatum and a diversity of Potamogeton species

102

Group J

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Northern coastal, brackish lakes, with Potamogeton pectinatus, Enteromorpha sp., Ruppia maritima and fucoid algae

103

ANNEX 4 Key to Lake Groups

(from Duigan at al., 2006)

Negative indicators (-1) Positive indicators (+1) Score Go Group to

1. Juncus bulbosus Potamogeton pectinatus 1 or less 2 - Ruppia maritima 2 or more - J 2. Juncus bulbosus Lemna minor -1 or less 3 - Lobelia dortmanna 0 or more 4 - Littorella uniflora Myriophyllum alterniflorum Potamogeton polygonifolius

Sparganium angustifolium 3. Sphagnum sp. Littorella uniflora -1 - A

Lobelia dortmanna 0 or more 5 - Myriophyllum alterniflorum Potamogeton natans Potamogeton polygonifolius 4. Lemna minor Chara sp. 1 or less 6 -

Myriophyllum spicatum 2 or more - I Potamogeton filiformis Potamogeton pectinatus Potamogeton pusillus

5. Juncus bulbosus Callitriche hamulata 0 or less 7 - Lobelia dortmanna Fontinalis antipyretica 1 or more 8 - Potam. polygonifolius Glyceria fluitans

(at least Occasional) Nitella sp. 6. Elodea canadensis Callitriche stagnalis 0 or less 9 - Lemna minor Glyceria fluitans 1 or more - H Nuphar lutea Persicaria amphibia Potamogeton berchtoldii 7. Sphagnum sp. Isoetes lacustris 0 or less - B

Littorella uniflora 1 or more 10 C Lobelia dortmanna Myriophyllum alterniflorum

Sparganium angustifolium

8. Callitriche hamulata Chara sp. 0 or less - D Nitella sp. Potamogeton filiformis 1 or more - E

Potamogeton gramineus Potamogeton perfoliatus

104

Negative indicators (-1) Positive indicators (+1) Score Go Group to

9. Nuphar lutea Glyceria fluitans -1 or less - F

Nymphaea alba Elodea canadensis 0 or more - G (at least Occasional) Potamogeton crispus Potamogeton natans Potamogeton obtusifolius 10. Sphagnum sp. Littorella uniflora 0 or less - C1

(at least Occasional) 1 or more - C2 Lobelia dortmanna

(at least occasional) Myriophyllum alterniflorum

Potamogeton natans Potamogeton polygonifolius Nymphaea alba Presence/absence records are used unless an indication of minimum abundance levels is given, according to the DAFOR scale (Dominant, Abundant, Frequent, Occasional, Rare). Score -1 for every record of a negative indicator; score +1 for every record of a positive indicator.

105

ANNEX 5 Constancy table for Lake Groups

(from Duigan at al., 2006)

Taxon A B C1

C2 D E F G H I J

Sphagnum sp. V IV III II Juncus bulbosus III IV V V III III Utricularia minor II Eleogiton fluitans II II Potamogeton polygonifolius IV II IV II II Nymphaea alba III II II III Potamogeton natans III IV III III III II Lobelia dortmanna II V II Sparganium angustifolium IV III III II Isoetes lacustris II III II II Myriophyllum alterniflorum II IV IV V Littorella uniflora III V IV V II Subularia aquatica II Fontinalis antipyretica II IV III Nitella sp. II III II Glyceria fluitans II IV III III IV II Callitriche hamulata IV II Chara sp. II IV II IV Potamogeton perfoliatus II IV II Potamogeton berchtoldii II II II II Elodea canadensis II II III II Callitriche stagnalis II II III II IV II II Potamogeton gramineus III Apium inundatum II Potamogeton gramineus x perfoliatus II Persicaria amphibia II III III II Callitriche hermaphroditica II II Potamogeton filiformis III II Nuphar lutea V Lemna minor IV IV II Zannichellia palustris II II Lemna trisulca II Potamogeton obtusifolius II Myriophyllum spicatum II III Potamogeton crispus II II Potamogeton pusillus III Ranunculus baudotii II Potamogeton pectinatus III III Enteromorpha sp. III Ruppia maritima III Fucoid algae II

Constancy classes: V - >80 to 100%; IV - >60 to 80%; III - >40 to 60%; II - >20 to 40%

106

ANNEX 6 Rarity status of standing water plants in Britain

1. VASCULAR PLANTS AND LIVERWORTS RA 1 RA 2 RA 3 RA 5 RA 6 RA 7 RA 8 RA 9

EC/ Sch Red NT/NR NS IR Uncm Reg Uncm Bern 8 List /UKBAP Coun EA SEPA

VASCULAR PLANTS Alisma gramineum Ribbon-leaved water-plantain - Sch [CR] [NR BAP] - - - - - Alisma lanceolatum Narrow-leaved water-plantain - - - - - - S NW - Alisma plantago-aquatica Water-plantain - - - - - - - - HI Apium inundatum Lesser marshwort - - - - - IR - - - Apium nodiflorum Fool’s water-cress - - - - - - - - Se HI Baldellia ranunculoides Lesser water-plantain - - - NT - [IR] - - - Callitriche hermaphroditica Autumnal water-starwort - - - - - - E W - - Callitriche obtusangula Blunt-fruited water-starwort - - - - - - S SBAP NE - Callitriche palustris A starwort - - EN [NR] - - [SBAP] - - Callitriche platycarpa Various-leaved water-starwort - - - - - - - - HI Callitriche truncata Short-leaved water-starwort - - - - NS - - - - Carex acuta Slender-tufted sedge - - - - - - S - - Carex acutiformis Lesser pond-sedge - - - - - - - - HI Carex aquatilis Water sedge - - - - - - E W - - Carex elata Tufted sedge - - - - - - S SBAP SW SE - Carex lasiocarpa Slender sedge - - - - - - E - - Carex limosa Mud sedge - - - - - - E - - Carex pseudocyperus Cyperus sedge - - - - - - - NE - Carex riparia Great pond-sedge - - - - - - S - - Catabrosa aquatica Whorl-grass - - - - - - - - HI Ceratophyllum demersum Hornwort - - - - - - S - - ! Ceratophyllum submersum Soft hornwort - - - - - - W NW SW SE - Cicuta virosa Cowbane - - - - NS - - - - Cladium mariscus Great fen-sedge (Saw sedge) - - - - - - E - -

107

RA 1 RA 2 RA 3 RA 5 RA 6 RA 7 RA 8 RA 9 EC/ Sch Red NT/NR NS IR Uncm Reg Uncm

Bern 8 List /UKBAP Coun EA SEPA

Corrigiola litoralis Strapwort - Sch [CR] [NR BAP] - - - - - Crassula aquatica Pygmyweed - Sch [VU] [NR] - - [SBAP] - - Damasonium alisma Starfruit - Sch [CR] [NR BAP] - - - - - Elatine hexandra Six-stamened waterwort - - - - - [?IR] E - Se Elatine hydropiper Eight-stamened waterwort - - - - NS - - - - Eleocharis acicularis Needle spike-rush - - - - - - S NE SW SE - Eleogiton fluitans Floating club-rush - - - - - IR - - - Eriocaulon aquaticum Pipewort - - - NR - [IR] [SBAP] - - Glyceria notata Plicate sweet-grass - - - - - - - - HI Groenlandia densa Opposite-leaved pondweed - - VU - - - - - - Hottonia palustris Water violet - - - - - - W - - Hydrilla verticillata Esthwaite waterweed - - VU [NR] - - [SBAP] - - Hydrocharis morsus-ranae Frogbit - - VU - - - - - - Isoetes echinospora (setacea) Spring quillwort - - - - - - E - Se Isoetes lacustris Quillwort - - - - - - E - - Leersia oryzoides Cut-grass - Sch [EN] [NR BAP] - - - - - Lemna gibba Fat duckweed - - - - - - S - - Lemna trisulca Ivy-leaved duckweed - - - - - - - - HI Limosella aquatica Mudwort - - - - NS - - - - Littorella uniflora Shoreweed - - - - - [?IR] - AN - Lobelia dortmanna Water lobelia - - - - - - E - - Ludwigia palustris Hampshire purslane - - - NR - - - - - Luronium natans Floating water-plantain EC/B [Sch] - [BAP] [NS] [IR] - - - Lycopodiella inundata Marsh club-moss - - EN [BAP] [NS] - - - - Lythrum portula Water purslane - - - - - - - - HI Myriophyllum alterniflorum Alternate-flowered water-milfoil - - - - - - - AN - Myriophyllum verticillatum Whorled water-milfoil - - VU - - - - - - Najas flexilis Slender naiad EC/B [Sch] - [BAP] [NS] - - - - Najas marina Holly-leaved naiad - Sch [VU] [NR BAP] - - - - - *Nuphar lutea Yellow water-lily - - - - - - - - HI Nuphar pumila Least yellow water-lily - - - - NS - - - -

108

RA 1 RA 2 RA 3 RA 5 RA 6 RA 7 RA 8 RA 9 EC/ Sch Red NT/NR NS IR Uncm Reg Uncm

Bern 8 List /UKBAP Coun EA SEPA

*Nymphoides peltata Fringed water-lily - - - - NS - - - - Oenanthe crocata Hemlock water-dropwort - - - - - - - AN - Oenanthe fistulosa Tubular water-dropwort - - VU [BAP] - - - - - !! Oenanthe fluviatilis River water-dropwort - - - - - [?IR] - MD NE - Pilularia globulifera Pillwort - - - NT BAP [NS] - - - - Potamogeton acutifolius Sharp-leaved pondweed - - CR [NR BAP] - - - - - Potamogeton alpinus Red pondweed - - - - - - E W - - Potamogeton x bennettii P. crispus x P. trichoides - - VU [NR] - - - - - Potamogeton x billupsii P. coloratus x P. gramineus - - VU [NR] - - - - - Potamogeton x cognatus P. perfoliatus x P. praelongus - - VU [NR] - - - - - Potamogeton coloratus Fen pondweed - - - - NS [?IR] - - - Potamogeton compressus Grass-wrack pondweed - - EN [BAP] [NS] - - - - Potamogeton x cooperi P. crispus x P. perfoliatus - - - NR - - - - - Potamogeton epihydrus American pondweed - - VU [NR] - [IR] [SBAP] - - Potamogeton filiformis Slender-leaved pondweed - - - - NS - - - - Potamogeton x fluitans P. lucens x P. natans - - VU [NR] - - - - - Potamogeton friesii Flat-stalked pondweed - - - NT [NS] - - - - Potamogeton x gessnacensis P. natans x P. polygonifolius - - VU [NR] - - - - - Potamogeton gramineus Various-leaved pondweed - - - - - - E W - - Potamogeton x griffithii P. alpinus x p. praelongus - - - NR - - - - - Potamogeton x lintonii P. crispus x P. friesii - - - NR - - - - - Potamogeton lucens Shining pondweed - - - - - - S W NW - Potamogeton x nitens P. gramineus x P. perfoliatus - - - - - - E W - - Potamogeton obtusifolius Blunt-leaved pondweed - - - - - - - AN NE SW - Potamogeton x olivaceaus (P. alpinus x P. crispus) - - VU [NR] [NS] - - - - Potamogeton praelongus Long-stalked pondweed - - - NT - - - - - Potamogeton rutilus Shetland pondweed - - - NR BAP - [?IR] - - - Potamogeton x salicifolius P. lucens x P. perfoliatus - - - - NS - - - - Potamogeton x sparganifolius P. gramineus x P. natans - - - NR - - - - - Potamogeton x sudermanicus P. acutifolius x P. berchtoldii - - VU [NR] - - - - - Potamogeton x suecicus P. filiformis x P. pectinatus - - - NR - - - - -

109

RA 1 RA 2 RA 3 RA 5 RA 6 RA 7 RA 8 RA 9 EC/ Sch Red NT/NR NS IR Uncm Reg Uncm

Bern 8 List /UKBAP Coun EA SEPA

Potamogeton trichoides Hairlike pondweed - - - - - - S W SBAP MD NE NW - Potamogeton x undulatus P. crispus x P. praelongus - - VU [NR] - - - - - Potamogeton x zizii P. gramineus x P. lucens - - - - NS - - - - Potentilla palustris Marsh cinquefoil - - - - - - - SE - Ranunculus aquatilis Common water-crowfoot - - - - - - - - HI Ranunculus baudotii Brackish water-crowfoot - - - - - - S MD NE SE - Ranunculus circinatus Fan-leaved water-crowfoot - - - - - - S WA NW - Ranunculus flammula ssp. minimus A lesser spearwort - - [DD] NR - [IR] - - - Ranunculus flammula ssp. scoticus A lesser spearwort - - [DD] - NS [IR] - - - Ranunculus hederaceus Ivy-leaved crowfoot - - - - - IR - - - Ranunculus omiophyllus Round-leaved crowfoot - - - - - IR - - - Ranunculus ophioglossifolius Adder’s-tongue spearwort - Sch [VU] [NR] - - - - - Ranunculus peltatus Water crowfoot - - - - - - - - HI Ranunculus penicillatus ssp. pseudofluitans Stream water-crowfoot - - - - - - S - - Ranunculus reptans Creeping spearwort - - VU [NR] - - [SBAP] - - Ranunculus sceleratus Celery-leaved crowfoot - - - - - - - - HI Ranunculus trichophyllus Thread-leaved water-crowfoot - - - - - - - - Sw Ranunculus tripartitus Three-lobed crowfoot - - EN [BAP] [NS] - - - - Rorippa amphibia Great yellow-cress - - - - - - W SW - Rorippa microphylla Narrow-fruited water-cress - - - - - IR - - - Rumex aquaticus Scottish dock - - VU [NR BAP] - - - - - Rumex hydrolapathum Great water-dock - - - - - - S - - Ruppia cirrhosa (spiralis) Spiral tasselweed - - - NT [NS] - [SBAP] - -

!!! Ruppia maritima Beaked tasselweed - - - - - - W NE SW - Sagittaria sagittifolia Arrow-head - - - - - - W - - Sium latifolium Greater water-parsnip - - EN [BAP] [NS] - - - - Sparganium angustifolium Floating bur-reed - - - - - - E - - Sparganium natans Least bur-reed - - - - - - E W - -

110

RA 1 RA 2 RA 3 RA 5 RA 6 RA 7 RA 8 RA 9 EC/ Sch Red NT/NR NS IR Uncm Reg Uncm

Bern 8 List /UKBAP Coun EA SEPA

Spirodela polyrhiza Greater duckweed - - - - - - - NE - *Stratiotes aloides Water-soldier - - - NT/NR - - - - - Subularia aquatica Awlwort - - - - - - E W - - Typha angustifolia Lesser reedmace / bulrush - - - - - - S - - Utricularia australis Bladderwort - - - - - - - MD NE - Utricularia intermedia sens.lat. Intermediate bladderwort - - - - - - E W - - Utricularia intermedia sens.str. Intermediate bladderwort - - [DD] - - - - - - Utricularia minor Lesser bladderwort - - - - - - E - - Utricularia ochroleuca Pale bladderwort - - [DD] - - - - - - Utricularia stygia Nordic bladderwort - - [DD] - - - - - - Utricularia vulgaris sens.lat. Bladderwort - - - - - - - MD NE - Utricularia vulgaris sens.Str. Bladderwort - - - - - - - MD NE - Veronica catenata Pink water-speedwell - - - - - - S - - Wolffia arrhiza Rootless duckweed - - VU - [NS] - - - - Zannichellia palustris Horned pondweed - - - - - - - - Sw HI LIVERWORTS Riccia fluitans Floating crystalwort - - - - - - W NE SW - Ricciocarpos natans Fringed heartwort - - - - NS - - - - ! Ceratophyllum submersum Absent from Scotland and North East Environment Agency Region !! Oenanthe fluviatilis Absent from Scotland, Wales and North West Environment Agency Regions !!! Ruppia maritima Absent from Midland and Thames Environment Agency Regions Utricularia intermedia sens. lat. is a complex of species (U. intermedia sens. str., U. ochroleuca, U. stygia) for which there are few reliable data. Utricularia vulgaris sens. lat. comprises Utricularia australis and Utricularia vulgaris sens. str.

111

2. CHAROPHYTES SR 1 SR 2 SR 3 SR 5 SR 6 SR 7 RA 8 RA 9 EC/ Sch Red NT/UK NS IR Uncm Reg Uncm

Bern 8 List BAP Coun EA SEPA

Chara aculeolata (pedunculata) Hedgehog stonewort - - - - NS - [SBAP] - - Chara aspera Rough stonewort - - - - - - E W - Se Sw Chara baltica Baltic stonewort - - VU [BAP] - - - - - Chara canescens Bearded stonewort - Sch [EN] [BAP] - - - - - Chara connivens Convergent stonewort - - EN [BAP] - - - - - Chara contraria Opposite stonewort - - - - - - E S - - Chara curta Lesser bearded stonewort - - - - NS [IR] [SBAP] - - [WBAP] Chara fragifera Strawberry stonewort - - VU - - - - - - Chara globularis Fragile stonewort - - - - - - S W NE NW - Chara hispida Bristly stonewort - - - - - - S W MD NW SE SW - Chara intermedia Intermediate stonewort - - EN [BAP] - - - - - Chara muscosa Mossy stonewort - - [DD/EX?] - - IR - - - Chara rudis Rugged stonewort - - - NT - - [SBAP] - - Chara vulgaris Common stonewort - - - - - - - - Se Lamprothamnium papulosum Foxtail stonewort - Sch - [NT BAP]- - - - - Nitella capillaris Slimy-fruited stonewort - - EX - - - - - - Nitella confervacea Least stonewort - - - NT - - - - - Nitella flexilis Smooth stonewort - - - - NS - - - - Nitella gracilis Slender stonewort - - VU [BAP] - - - - - Nitella hyalina Many-branched stonewort - - EX - - - - - - Nitella mucronata Pointed stonewort - - - - NS - - - - Nitella tenuissima Dwarf stonewort - - EN [BAP] - - - - - Nitella translucens Translucent stonewort - - - - - - E W - Se Nitellopsis obtusa Starry stonewort - - VU [BAP] - - - - - Tolypella glomerata Clustered stonewort - - - - NS - - - - Tolypella intricata Tassel stonewort - - EN [BAP] - - - - - Tolypella nidifica Bird’s-nest stonewort - - EN [BAP] - - - - - Tolypella prolifera Great tassel stonewort - - EN [BAP] - - - - -

112

Explanatory notes for Annex 6 Rarity categories Rarity categories form a hierarchy, RA 1 to RA 9. Some species qualify under more than one category: for example a species could be on Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (RA 2) and also be on the Red List (threatened) (RA 3). An entry marked [ ] indicates that a plant is not scored under that particular category because the species is also in a higher scoring category. All categories apart from RA 4, RA 8 and RA 9 were recognised and defined by JNCC in 2008; RA 4, RA 8 (apart from the Scottish and Welsh biodiversity lists) and RA 9 are rarity categories specific to SERCON and LACON. Coverage All aquatic vascular plants, charophytes and floating liverworts with rarity status are listed in Annex 6. This Annex should be used in conjunction with Table SR 1 (checklist of native standing water plants, showing the distribution of each species in England, Scotland and Wales), which includes the species with no rarity status. The taxa listed in Annex 6 are all at species level apart from subspecies of Ranunculus and hybrids of Potamogeton. Subspecies and hybrids of other genera (e.g. Carex, Equisetum, Schoenoplectus) are not covered because these taxa are generally under-recorded, making assessment impossible. Potamogeton hybrids considered extinct are not included in the list. Plants marked * are categorised on the basis of native occurrences. These species have been widely introduced elsewhere. The following aquatic plants are not considered because they have been recorded in Britain exclusively in association with flowing rather than standing water:

Apium repens – Habitats Directive/Bern Convention; Schedule 8; Vulnerable; UK BAP (riparian meadows subject to flooding) Carex recta - Vulnerable; Scottish Biodiversity List (estuarine) Limosella australis – Schedule 8 (possibly introduced, estuarine) Potamogeton x bottnicus (P. pectinatus x P. vaginatus) - Vulnerable Potamogeton x nericius (P. alpinus x P. gramineus) - Nationally Rare Potamogeton nodosus - Vulnerable Potamogeton x schreberi (P. natans x P. nodosus) - Vulnerable Ranunculus fluitans - Uncommon in Scotland Ranunculus penicillatus ssp. penicillatus - Nationally Scarce Schoenoplectus triqueter - Schedule 8; Critically Endangered; UK BAP (estuarine).

113

Aquatic algae other than charophytes, bryophytes (apart from floating liverworts) and lichens are not considered here because data on threatened algae are not available and no checklist of fully aquatic bryophytes and lichens exists. Threatened and rare bryophytes and lichens are covered more generally in AFI 15. RA 1. EC/Bern Standing water vascular plant species native to the UK and listed in Annexes IIb and IVb of the Habitats Directive and Appendix I of the Bern Convention. These species are also Nationally Scarce in Britain. Source JNCC web site: www.jncc.gov.uk RA 2. Sch 8 Standing water vascular plant and charophyte species included in Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and protected under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. Source JNCC web site: www.jncc.gov.uk RA 3. Red List (threatened species) Standing water vascular plant and charophyte species included in British Red List categories: CR – Critically Endangered EN – Endangered VU – Vulnerable EX - Extinct The inclusion of extinct species is to ensure that if they re-appear or are rediscovered in Britain (as was the case with Hydrilla verticillata) they are acknowledged as potentially threatened. Sources Threat categories: IUCN Species Survival Commission (2001). Vascular plants: Cheffings & Farrell (2005) Red List charophytes: Stewart, 2004; JNCC web site (www.jncc.gov.uk). RA 4. EC Habitats Directive Annex IIb species without any other rarity status in Britain There are no standing water plant species in this category. RA 5. NT/NR/UKBAP Standing water vascular plant and charophyte species that are Near Threatened, Nationally Rare or UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species.

114

Near Threatened (NT) species: vascular plants and charophytes that are without an IUCN Red List threat designation in Britain, but are close to qualifying or are likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future. Nationally Rare (NR) species: vascular plants and charophytes that have been recorded as native since 1986 in 15 or fewer 10 x 10 km. squares in Great Britain. (Those that are also Red List species are included under RA 3.) Biodiversity Action Plan priority species (BAP) are listed in the UK BAP priority species lists. The species listed in this version of the LACON manual comprise the UK priority list current in 2008, following a review of the BAP list in 2007. Sources JNCC web site: www.jncc.gov.uk and BAP web site www.ukbap.org.uk Potamogeton hybrids: Preston, 1995. Charophytes: Stewart, 2004. RA 6. NS Nationally Scarce species: standing water vascular plants, liverworts and charophytes that have been recorded as native since 1986 in 16 to 100 10 x 10 km. squares in Great Britain. (Those that are also Red List species are included under RA 3.) Sources Stewart et al. (1994) and Preston et al. (2002). The list of vascular plants in Stewart et al. has been revised as a result of recent data presented in the New Atlas. The revised list is on the JNCC web site: www.jncc.gov.uk Potamogeton hybrids: Preston, 1995. Charophytes: Stewart, 2004. RA 7. IR Standing water vascular plants and charophytes for which Britain has International Responsibility. These are species that are endemic or near-endemic to Europe, or have a very restricted European distribution, and for which Britain has ‘International Responsibility’ because this country supports a high proportion (certainly or probably more than 25%) of the European population. Eriocaulon aquaticum and Potamogeton epihydrus are widespread in North America, but in Europe are restricted to the British Isles. They are both included in higher rarity categories. Ranunculus flammula ssp. minimus and R. flammula ssp. scoticus are endemic (Preston et al., 2002); Chara curta and C. muscosa are near endemic (but C. muscosa may be extinct in Britain). All four are covered by higher rarity categories. Elatine hexandra, Littorella uniflora, Oenanthe fluviatilis, Potamogeton coloratus and Potamogeton rutilus were considered for this category, but are not scored under IR because their international status is uncertain.

115

Sources Vascular plants: Cheffings & Farrell (2005) Charophytes: Stewart & Church (1992). RA 8. Uncm Coun Standing water plants Uncommon in England, Scotland or Wales. These are species that are restricted in distribution but not covered by higher rarity categories. They are recorded from 5% or less of the 10 x10 km. squares in each of the constituent countries (England, Scotland or Wales). Qualifying numbers of 10 x 10 km squares: England (E) - 74 or fewer; Scotland (S) - 55 or fewer; Wales (W) - 14 or fewer. The Scottish Biodiversity List (required by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004) contains some species that are not on the UK BAP list. These species are indicated in the table as SBAP and are included in RA 8 if they are not in higher RA categories. One stonewort species included in the biodiversity list for Wales (under Section 42 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006) is not in the UK BAP priority list. This is indicated as WBAP under RA 8 in the table, but also qualifies under higher RA categories. The biodiversity list for England (under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006) contains only species on the UK BAP list. The following species are excluded from consideration for the Scottish list because they have been recorded in Scotland, at least since 1969, only as introductions.

Butomus umbellatus Flowering rush Carex pseudocyperus Cyperus sedge Rorippa amphibia Great yellow-cress Sagittaria sagittifolia Arrow-head Hottonia palustris Water violet Spirodela polyrhiza Greater duckweed.

.Sources Distributional information for vascular plants was drawn up from the CD-ROM provided with Preston, C.D., Pearman, D.A. & Dines, T. D. (eds.) 2002. New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora, using data for 1987 onwards for native occurrences. Charophytes were assessed by Nick Stewart (pers. com.). Liverworts were assessed by Nick Hodgetts (pers. com.). Biodiversity Lists for England, Scotland and Wales are given on:

www.ukbap-reporting.org.uk Biodiversity Scotland website: www.biodiversityscotland.co.uk Wales Biodiversity Partnership website: www.biodiversitywales.org.uk.

116

RA 9. Reg Uncm EA Regionally Uncommon vascular plant, liverwort and charophyte species: Environment Agency Regions. Regionally Uncommon plants are standing water plant species recorded since 1986 as native (i.e. not introduced, either from abroad or from another part of Britain) from 5% or fewer of the 10 x 10 km squares in the relevant Environment Agency Region in England or Wales. Species in higher rarity categories are excluded. The threshold numbers of 10 x 10 km. squares for each Environment Agency Region are: Wales (WA) -13 Midlands (MD) - 11 North West (NW) - 8 South West (SW) - 13

Anglian (AN) -15 North East (NE) - 13 South East (SE) - 13 NB. The boundaries of Environment Agency Regions are those based on water catchment areas and used by the EA for data collection. The EA Region is smaller than Wales because the upper Severn is included in Midlands Region. (Regions shown in Environment Agency publicity material have different boundaries, based on administrative areas. In these publications the boundaries for Wales and EA Wales coincide, so the upper Severn area lies in EA Wales, not in Midlands Region.) Vascular plant species unrecorded since 1985 in a region are marked ‘abs’. If such species appear naturally in the region in future, they should be regarded as Uncommon there. Sources The lists were drawn up by staff at the Biological Records Centre Monks Wood, using data for 1987 onwards for native occurrences. Charophytes were assessed by Nick Stewart. RA 9. Reg Uncm SEPA Regionally Uncommon standing water vascular plant and charophyte species: Scottish Environment Protection Agency Areas. Regionally Uncommon plants are species recorded since 1986 as native (i.e. not introduced, either from abroad or from another part of Britain) from 5% or fewer of the 10 x 10 km. squares in the relevant Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Area. Species in higher rarity categories are excluded. The threshold numbers of 10 x 10 km. squares for each SEPA Area are:

South East (Se) - 10 South West (Sw) - 15 Highlands, Islands and Grampian (HI) - 31 Sources Lists were drawn up by staff at the Biological Records Centre Monks Wood, using data for 1987 onwards for native occurrences. Charophytes were assessed by Nick Stewart.

117

ANNEX 7 Maps of Environment Agency Regions and Scottish Environment Protection

Agency Areas 1. Environment Agency Regions EA regional boundaries are currently under review as EA Wales will split away from the English regions of the organisation to become part the new organisation – Natural Resources Wales on 1 April 2013. A map of the current EA regions is available via the Environment Agency’s website: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/aboutus/organisation/35673.aspx

2. Scottish Environment Protection Agency Areas

1. South West

2. South East

3. Highlands & Islands and Grampian

© SEPA 2001

3

2

1

nature.scot

www.nature.scot© Scottish Natural Heritage 201© Scottish Natural Heritage 20199 ISBN:ISBN: 978-1-78391-718-1

Great Glen House, Leachkin Road, Inverness, IV3 8NWT: 01463 725000

You can download a copy of this publication from the SNH website.

nature.scot