On Behalf of the Wild Ennerdale Partnership

Archaeology Management Plan

June 2007

Gareth Browning

On behalf of The Wild Ennerdale Partnership

Contents

Contents

Introduction

Wild Ennerdale

Survey Work

Principles of Management

Monitoring

Implementation

Review

Appendix 1 - Map Showing Location of all 23 Archaeological Sites

Appendix 2 - Principal Sites Management Plans

Appendix 3 - Principal Sites Monitoring Schedule

Introduction

The range of monuments and features within the Ennerdale valley demonstrates how the landscape has been influenced and altered by man for over 11000 years. Over five hundred individual archaeological sites have been recordedthrough survey work, many of which are of regional and national importance. Importantly Ennerdale is home to the most impressive collection of valley bottom Bronze Age and Non Monastic mediaeval Archaeology in the Lake District.

This document is aimed at describing how the archaeological record in Ennerdale will be managed so that it is protected for future generations whilst allowing the valley to continue to develop and respond to change.

Wild Ennerdale

‘Wild Ennerdale’ is a partnership between the three main landowners in the valley:

The Forestry Commission, National Trust and United Utilities. The partnership vision

is:

“to allow the evolution of Ennerdale as a wild valley for the benefit of people,

relying more on natural processes to shape its landscape and ecology”

After 5 years of discussion, consultation and development the partnership published the Wild Ennerdale Stewardship Plan in 2006. This extensive document illustrates (through maps, text and photographs) how the partners propose to allow Ennerdale to evolve as a ‘wild’ valley. This is not a typical ‘management plan’ with prescriptive targets and deadlines. As emphasis is on moving away from ‘management’ in the traditional, ‘controlling’ sense, this plan demonstrates the broader concepts for change in Ennerdale. Any boundaries on maps are indicative of what could happen, not what will, as nature is unpredictable. The Stewardship Plan will be regularly reviewed and updated as the development process unfolds.

Supporting the vision are eleven key principles:

1The sense of wildness experienced by people will be protected and enhanced;

2The valleys landscape and habitats will be given greater freedom to develop under natural processes, allowing robust and functioning ecosystems to develop on a landscape scale

3Public support and engagement will remain central to the Wild Ennerdale process

4Intervention will only occur if complementary to the vision, or where a threat to the vision is posed

5Opportunities will be sought to develop greater public enjoyment and social benefit;

6The historical and cultural assets of the valley will be conserved and protected;

7Management and decision making will be focused more at the holistic landscape scale;

8Wild Ennerdale will be offered as a demonstration to others by sharing results and information;

9Opportunities will be sought for businesses that are sustainable within the vision;

10Monitoring and assessment of change will be carried out on a large scale and over a long period of time;

11An element of set-up and higher level intervention may be required to facilitate natural processes, recognising our starting point is influenced by past activity;

Survey Work

In 2003 the Wild Ennerdale Partnership commissioned Oxford Archaeology North to produce a Historic Landscape Survey of the whole valley. This work followed on from three previous campaigns of survey. The aim of this survey was to improve the shared understanding of the local historic environment and devise a series of management recommendations designed to protect and conserve significant archaeological sites and landscapes. The survey is available in full on the Wild Ennerdale website at

The survey report concluded that the “archaeology of Ennerdale can be set apart from other Lakeland valleys because of the diversity, complexity, and survival of its archaeological remains. As Ennerdale has no extensive ring-garth and has been subject to only limited valley bottom enclosure, the archaeological resource has not been adversely impacted upon by the same level of intensive land improvement that is found in other Lakeland valleys. In part as a result, Ennerdale contains a remarkable survival of settlement and industrial remains that extend back to at least the Bronze Age, and there are remains from the subsequent periods, albeit with some discontinuities of settlement, through to the present; its medieval remains in particular are very well preserved. Some site groups, such as the Gillerthwaite medieval settlements and the sites associated with mineral extraction and processing are undoubtedly of national importance, but the greatest archaeological importance of the valley is its collective archaeological resource, which reveals the complex mechanisms of the valley’s development”.

Each archaeological site or landscape examined was rated in a national context. They were considered in terms of their rarity, group value, and by comparison with examples elsewhere in the region. The criteria used in assessing importance appears below.

Importance Key:

1High Importance (this is restricted for sites or landscapes of national importance that are scheduled or of definite schedulable quality).

2Moderate Importance

3Limited importance

4Low importance / Poor survival or condition

In addition, each archaeological site or landscape was assessed in terms of how significant they are within the context of the development of the valley. In many cases this correlates with the site’s importance factor: for example the enclosed settlement is both very important, and is also significant in terms of the development of the valley. In some cases, however, sites such as the valley bottom enclosure, may not be a rare monument type, but are significant within the context of the valley. The criteria used to describe significance is as follows:

Local Significance Key:

1High Local Significance

2Moderate Local Significance

3Low Local Significance

In total 23 separate archaeological sites/landscapes were identified and rated according to the above criteria. The full details of each site can be found in the full Historic Landscape Survey pages 51 to 58. Table 1 below lists the sites and their ratings whilst a map showing their locations can be found in Appendix I.

Site name / Importance / Local Significance
EF II (Smithy Beck Bloomery) / 1 / 1
EF III and EF IV (Smithy Beck Long House Group) / 1 / 1
EF VI and EF VII (Woundell Beck Cairnfield) / 1 / 1
EF VIII, EF IX, EF X and EF XI (Gillerthwaite Settlements) / 1 / 1
EF XIII (Gillerthwaite Putative Vaccary) / 1 / 1
EF XIV (River Liza Enclosed Settlement and Cairnfield) / 1 / 1
EF XVI (Great Cove Shielings) / 1 / 2
EF I (Smithy Beck Cairnfield) / 2 / 1
EF V (Latterbarrow Cairnfield) / 2 / 1
EF XV (Dubs Quarry) / 2 / 2
Great Cove Iron Mines / 2 / 1
Ennerdale Water Bloomeries (Sites 90, 169, 170 and 181) / 1 / 1
Revelin Crag Shielings (Sites 159-161) / 2 / 2
Clewes Gill Iron Mines (Site 184) / 2 / 1
EF XVII (Herdus Field System) / 3 / 3
Valley Bottom Enclosures and Farms / 3 / 1
The Side (Site 177) / 3 / 1
Herdus Surface Extraction (Sites 104 and 185) / 3 / 2
Ennerdale/Buttermere Watershed Boundary / 3 / 1
Red Beck to Stair Knott Coppicing / 3 / 3
Unimproved/Unenclosed Moorland Pasture / 4 / 3
Forest Plantations / 4 / 2
Brown How Coppice Woodland (Site 114) / 4 / 3

.

Principles of Management

The conservation of archaeology in Ennerdale encompasses many individual sites where there are usually multiple objectives. These other objectives may include allowing natural processes to develop, species and habitat conservation, recreational access and interpretation. These objectives are not always mutually exclusive and it is often the case that by treating each site/location on its merits multiple objectives can be achieved.

Broadly speaking the best vegetation cover for archaeological conservation is grassland. The presence of grazing, linked in some locations with climatic conditions, restricts the establishment of scrub and tree cover, which through their roots can damage sub surface artefacts.

Where important archaeological features are now situated in woodland, either as a result of planting or natural expansion, particular conservation challenges are posed. This is the case in Ennerdale where many of the archaeological features are situated in a woodland environment which has been established for up to 80 years. Experience demonstrates that a “trees on, trees off “ approach to conservation does not always provide the best long term effective conservation solution. A variety of effects resulting from tree clearance e.g. increased erosion, rapid scrub encroachment and destabilising neighbouring tree cover all need to be considered. In addition there needs to be an acceptance that tree retention does not significantly add to the subsurface damage that has already taken place.

The following principles will be considered when deciding upon local actions. (Text highlighted in blue explains how the Wild Ennerdale Partnership has responded to each principle.)

• Have a suitable scale plan of the feature/area to be conserved. In partnership with the Lake District National Park Authority and Oxford Archaeology North a detailed survey of all archaeology features has been completed and is available to all three landowners, the public through the partnership website, printed copies and within a Geographic Information System.

• Impacts of machinery and operations. When felling make sure appropriate mitigation for access routes is in place. Implementation of the Wild Ennerdale Stewardship Plan will see a significant move away from clearfell and restocking towards less intensive thinning and regeneration thus significantly reducing the use of large machines to manage the forest. The Forestry Commission has a detailed Operations Planning system for all operation sites which includes identifying and protecting archaeological features.

• Have an understanding of the likely nature of archaeological features and deposits associated with the site to be conserved. Appreciate the probable impacts of previous and current land use on these. For example bracken infestation or tree root impacts may have limited archaeological survival. Site visits and photographs of the top 14 sites for which management plans have been drawn up detail the current and historic vegetation covering the sites.

• On large areas identify which are the key features which may require special attention e.g. structures. This is particularly important when other conservation values e.g. woodland SSSI need to be taken into account. See Implementation section - each of the 14 site management plans should identify features requiring special attention.

• Allow for the effects of the removal of shading tree canopy. Most tree species provide a very effective suppression of ground vegetation often contributing to the enhanced visibility of archaeological features. The site surveys and management plans recognise sites already within a woodland environment and comment on the appropriateness for allowing woodland to continue.

• Intense early action can save long term resource commitment. Following tree removal there may still be a viable seed source present that can contribute to rapid regeneration if not addressed. Where tree clearance has occurred follow up action can reduce long term risk and resource commitment. The site management plans recognise this with recommendations for a one off clearance of young regeneration proposed for EFV Latterbarrow and EF XIC&D Gillerthwaite Settlement.

• Link management action to the time scales of vegetation growth in relation to the conservation objective. Where site visibility (e.g. for visitors) is an objective then activities such as scrub cutting will have to be more frequent than if simply managing to limit rooting or windblow impacts. This management plan includes a monitoring schedule which will see all the important sites visited once every 7 years. Some scrub cutting of key features adjacent to well used routes is to be tried.

• When grazing is used as an instrument of conservation ensure that stock levels do not contribute to erosion. Grazing will be monitored through the management plan photos. Trial extensive cattle grazing of the Gillerthwaite Fields east of the EF VIB will include EF XIC, XID, XIVC and XIVB is proposed to start in may 2008. This will be monitored through fixed point photography and site visits.

• The conservation of historic landscape character involves identifying the capacity for change and understanding the effects of any proposed actions on temporal and spatial scales. The monitoring work through the management plans, photography (fixed and aerial), 5 yearly review of the Stewardship Plan, community and visitor surveys will help understand the effects of allowing the valley to develop as a wilder place and the subsequent effects on the historic landscape.

• Monitoring and commitments to relevant actions should be a part of any conservation plan. The monitoring schedule, management plans and photography will ensure that this happens.

Monitoring

With over five hundred individual archaeological features ranging widely in importance and significance it is impractical to have a management plan for every feature. Management of all the archaeological features will be guided by the principles detailed earlier, however to ensure that the most important sites are protected it is proposed to have management plans and a monitoring schedule for those features with an importance rating of 1 or 2. This amounts to 14 Principal sites. The management plans will briefly describe the site, provide a map and explain the recent history, current setting, and propose work in keeping with the principles listed in the previous section and the Wild Ennerdale Guiding Principles. The completed management plans will be provided in Appendix 2 and the photo surveys available on a separate CD.

To ensure that each of the 14 Principal sites is visited regularly a monitoring schedule has been drawn up and is presented in Appendix 3. This schedule recognises the slow speed of change and sets a practical return period of seven years thus requiring two sites to be reviewed each year. Those sites which have work proposed in their management plans have been scheduled for review earlier so as to ensure the outcome of the work is monitored

Monitoring visits will involve the landowners, their advisers, the Lake District National Park Authority and English Heritage.

Implementation

Monitoring visits will be agreed annually with the following year's date agreed in advance. Normally this will be in the summer to enable better assessment of vegetation and ensure safe access to higher elevation sites.

Where the monitoring visits identify the need for work to be carried out this will be carried out as soon as is practical given the availability of resources.

Normally work will be carried out by partnership staff under the land owners supervision. Harvesting work may be carried out by contractors but these will also be closely supervised and work covered by constraints and individual sites marked out. Where work is proposed on a scheduled monument, approval will be sought from English Heritage in advance of starting any operation listed as potential damaging.

Where potentially damaging work such as mechanised harvesting is planned across any of the 14 principal sites, large areas and/or multiple sites Archaeological advice will be sought from the National Trust and/or Lake District National Park Authority. Where only individual features are affected by low impact work such as pulling young regeneration archaeological advice is unlikely to be needed.

Review

This Archaeology Management Plan will be reviewed every 5 years usually in the 12 months following the 5 yearly review of the Stewardship Plan. The Stewardship Plan will include a map showing achievements, which will incorporate work completed under the Archaeology Management Plan monitoring process.

The 14 Principal Sites will be reviewed individually according the Monitoring Schedule and every 5 years in the context of the review of the whole Archaeology Management Plan as described above.

Appendix 1

Map Showing Location of all 23 Archaeological Sites

Appendix 2

Principal Sites Management Plans

Appendix 3

Principal Sites Monitoring Schedule

Page 1 of 12