peter brett associates Calgarth House 39-41 Bank Street Ashford Kent TN23 1DQ Tel: +44 (0)1233 651740 Fax: +44 (0)1233 651741 E-mail: ashford@pba.co.uk

SRCMP Habitat Mapping Project

Final Report

C Blair-Myers

Project Ref: 16126

April, 2007

Client Environment Agency Guildbourne House Chatsworth Road Worthing W Sussex BN11 1LD

PBA Document Control Sheet Project Title : SRCMP Habitat Mapping Project Project Ref : 16126 Report Title : Final Report Date : May 2007 Name Position Signature Date

Prepared by C Blair-Myers May 2007

Checked by N Smith

For and on behalf of Peter Brett Associates

*Issue Revision Description Date Signed

1 1 Draft final report 26-03-07

1 2 Second draft final report 20-04-07

1 3 Final Report 10-05-07

*Delete as appropriate

Peter Brett Associates disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of this report. This report has been prepared with reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the Client and generally in accordance with ACE Short Form Conditions of Engagement and taking account of the manpower, resources, investigations and testing devoted to it by agreement with the Client. This report is confidential to the Client and Peter Brett Associates accepts no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report or any part thereof is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk.

© Peter Brett Associates 2005

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Location and extent of survey 3 Methodology 3.1 Data acquisition and preparation 3.1.1 OS MasterMap 3.1.2 Habitat data 3.2 Aerial photography 3.3 The IHS Classification 3.3.1 Saltmarsh 3.3.2 Grazing marsh 3.3.3 Ditches 3.3.4 Wetlands 3.3.5 Shingle and dune communities 3.4 Field survey 4 Concluding summary 5 Licences and copyright 6 Habitat tool Annex 1 Results Annex 2 Field survey key to defining grazing marsh grasslands Annex 3 Habitat Tool

1 Introduction

The Environment Agency Southern Region is a partner in a region-wide coastal monitoring programme called the South East Strategic Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme (SRCMP). The project monitors coastal processes and collects data throughout the region in partnership with 31 Local Authorities. Ecological monitoring has been incorporated into the programme to identify the location of coastal Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats. This report has been delivered with habitat maps of Southern Region’s coastal zone. A habitat tool has also been developed and delivered as part of this project. The details of the tool are provided in Annex 3. The report details the location and extant of survey, methods used, results and outputs. Annex 1 provides details and discussion for each I.H.S habitat class that has been developed through this project.

2 Location and extent of survey

The geographical extent of the SRCMP habitat maps includes the littoral zone and the indicative tidal floodplain for Kent, Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. More specifically it runs from the tidal Thames Estuary its natural tidal floodplain from Allhallows on Sea through to the West Solent. The limits of the floodplain were taken to mean the limits defined by the Environment Agency indicative floodplain map. For the purposes of this contract only those 100 km2 squares highlighted in MAP 1 below were required to be interpreted or revised. There was no data or identifiable target habitat for TQ75.

MAP 1 Project area with contract tiles outlined additional tiles with light borders

3 Methodology

The basic methodology is the derivation of habitat classes through interpretation of colour 1:5000/1:3000 aerial photography and the integration of these classes within the framework provided by the OS MasterMap polygon data derived from 1:1250-2500 mapping. The use of OS MasterMap is discussed in section 4.1.1 The project also sought to integrate existing data where the data quality and resolution had sufficient precision and accuracy for inclusion in the habitat maps. In other instances the interpretation was informed by a number of additional habitat sources where the detail or spatial precision was insufficient for direct inclusion in the habitat maps. Additional data sources are discussed section 4.1.2. Aerial photography used within the project was derived from more than one source and in some cases from different years. The use of these data is complex and varies between delivered 100km2 squares. This is discussed in section 4.2. Additional information on the photography used can be found in the metadata for each delivered 100km2 square. The basis for the habitat classification used was the Somerset Environmental Records Office (SERC) Integrated Habitat System Version 1.01 as modified by the Kent County Council (KCC) for the KCC habitat Survey 2003. Further modifications to the I.H.S. were undertaken as part of this project and these are discussed in detail in section 4.3. The airphoto interpretation (API) was in some instances validated through field surveying and the use of indicator species as part of the habitat mapping tool. The details of the field survey work are provided in section 4.4.

3.1 Data acquisition and preparation 3.1.1 OS MasterMap

Two OS MasterMap data releases were used. Kent, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight was based on a MasterMap release issued in March 2005 and Sussex was based on a later 2006 release.

The OS MasterMap data was delivered in the OS distribution format GML and converted by PBA into an ArcMap compatible file format. This was done by extracting the polygon (area) layer as a shape file. This was subsequently “clipped” to the OS 100km2 tiles using the

“select by area” command in ArcMap. Although this method led to very irregular shaped blocks it did avoid the problems with fragmented polygons that are created by the clip command.

The shapefiles for the squares are then converted to ArcMap personal geodatabase format (mdb). The habitat mapping tool requires a particular mdb format for the tool to function. To ensure that the mdb met these requires the data is loaded into a blank mdb, usually called “master2005.mdb”, supplied with the habitat tool installation package. This was done by copying to the required location and renaming it. The user opens the copied file and opens the feature class survey_poly and right clicks for load data to load the data from the selected shapefile into the blank feature class. The resulting geodatabase is the basic working file for the habitat mapping. The OS data usually contains a number of errors and it was necessary at this stage to clean the data. There are two main problems, overlapping polygons and multiple polygons. The majority of the overlapping polygons are generated by the MasterMap data structure that deliberately holds slope and some structure polygons as overlapping features. As these are not required for the final map product they are selected and deleted. However multiple identical polygons are relatively common errors and cannot be readily detected through the standard Arcview package. These can only be picked up by setting topology rules and this required the use of the ArcMap Editor package or the full Arc/Info package. Each square was checked for topology and the error checker used to inspect and individually correct identified errors. Once completed the topology rules are removed so the data is usable by those without access to ArcMap Editor and the layer was ready for habitat attribution. The topology structure was removed as the layers cannot be edited in standard Arcview if a topology layer is present. The Sussex MasterMap data was so poor and the number of duplicated polygons was so enormous that this stage had to be skipped until after habitat data attributes had been added and the duplicates were removed from those within BAP habitats. Before API commenced a number of habitat classes were added directly by calculation from the OS MasterMap attributes. These include houses, general built areas like car parks, gardens, roads, tracks, built verge and railway. Natural road and rail verge are given a default value, GI0 for the former and a mix of neutral grassland, scrub and broadleaved trees for the

latter. If necessary these were changed by API if another class is identified. Where aerial photography was absent additional classes were extracted from the OS data. All habitat data derived in this manner is given the process code OS to distinguish them from habitat data derived from API or field survey.

Through the API process it became evident that the MasterMap had very limited value in the intertidal zone where the OS data had clearly not been revised for a considerable period. In many areas there had been very substantial changes both through saltmarsh losses and gains and creek realignments. For the most part the MasterMap data for saltmarsh was deleted and remapped. Though the urban data was considerably more up to date there were a number of major developments that did not appear in the MasterMap data. These included the Channel Tunnel link and new station, the new Sheerness Bridge and associated new road alignments and a very substantial number of new developments or redevelopments of old industrial areas along the shore. Where these developments impacted on key habitats they were mapped. In addition to duplicate polygons the MasterMap issued for Sussex had sizeable omissions requiring a later patch release, in Feb 2007, for quadrants TQ60NW and SZ99NE. Other minor omissions were added during digitising where they occurred within the target habitats but no distinction was made between urban sub classes.

3.1.2 Habitat data

A number of sources of potential additional data had been identified. These included:

Kent County Council Habitat Survey 2003. English Nature [Natural England] North Kent Grazing Marsh Ditch Survey English Nature [Natural England] North Kent Sea wall community survey Environment Agency TE2100 habitat maps 2006 Hampshire Phase One survey 2004 West Sussex Phase One survey 2001 Vegetated Shingle survey Sussex Wildlife Trust

We worked with County biological and biodiversity record centres. Most record centre data was georeferenced to a point and at best recorded to a six figure OS grid which gives a 100 metre ground resolution. With the smallest mapping unit in the survey frequently smaller than 0.1 hectare it was not possible to directly relate the point data to a particular polygon. This problem is somewhat compounded by the way

in which data is recorded thus the position is recorded for a species not the species recorded at a position. The data is designed to display the location of each species rather than the list of species found at a location which was the case with the SRCMP habitat data. Some data were used as the feature to which they related was readily identifiable. These included the English Nature data on ditches and flood defence structures for parts of North Kent. The latter was of limited use as it only recorded scarce or rare plants not all species present but was helpful in determining whether the grassland met the GN6 habitat criteria without recourse to field survey. A short evaluation of the English Nature North Kent Ditch survey data was carried out and this revealed no significant change to the ditch communities so these data were incorporated within the SRCMP data where possible though these data do not extend beyond the Medway and Swale. Phase one GIS data was available for West Sussex [2001] and Hampshire [2004] based on 1:10,000 base maps. Though a useful guide to the likely presence of a key habitat they were not spatially accurate enough to incorporate the data directly and there are some residual problems resolving Phase One classes to I.H.S at the level of detail required for the project. The Kent County Council (KCC) Habitat inventory 2003 was particularly useful in that the data had already been fitted to the OS MasterMap and the classification used the same Integrated Habitat System (IHS) framework. However the IHS had been modified since 2003 and the KCC data was based on 1999 aerial photography so a substantial part of the intertidal zone was re-digitised to bring it to SRCMP standards. Elsewhere IHS codes were revised to conform to the current EA version of IHS.

3.2 Aerial photography

The aerial photography used was flown for the coastal monitoring programme. The earlier editions of habitat maps, completed under a separate contract with the Kent County Council, covering Hampshire and Isle of Wight, had been based on 2003 photography. Later editions covered by this contract were based on 1:5,000 and 1:3,000 scale photography flown in 2005/06. Areas missed by the photography capture in 2003 were flown in 2005/06. All imagery was supplied as tiled continuous mosaics at 10cms ground resolution.

Whilst the intention was to have a bespoke set of 1:5,000 colour aerial photographs for the whole project area, the nature of the project programme and problems with the budget meant that there was not a consistent block of airphoto data for the whole project.

The first OS 100km2 square completed was TQ87 [Isle of Grain, Yantlet Creek, Stoke Marshes and the Medway saltmarshes]. The only available data was un-rectified 2003 photography. The images were georeferenced as part of the project. These data covered the Isle of Grain and the Medway/Swale Estuaries and were also used for the southern section of square TQ77. The remainder of the squares covering Medway/Swale were completed in 2006 by which time ortho-rectified 2005 aerial photography was available.

For the Medway and Swale the aerial photography was supplied in three blocks, all data derived from 1:5000 scale colour photography ortho-rectified and delivered as a 10cm resolution continuous mosaic. The Medway, Western Swale and a central strip through the Eastern Swale dated from 2003. A second block largely covering the coastal strip around the Swale and Sheppey dated from 2004 and a third block that had partial cover of the eastern Swale and some parts of the indicative floodplain dated 2006. Although three sets of photography were available there were still significant data gaps particularly in the grazing marsh and some data was of a poorer standard that made it difficult to map features within the grazing marsh. The interpretation in the Medway and Swale often meant toggling between three of more sets of photography. Whilst all efforts were made to use the latest data in some instances the later data did not provide the same level of information as earlier data. In some instances this was due to the sub-optimal time of the year for the target habitat. For example the latest imagery for the dunes at Sandwich showed no discernable difference between the dune grasslands and the intervening neutral grasslands as the photography was taken early in a wet year. The same area captured during a dry summer in 2003 revealed very clear boundaries as the dune grasses responded to moisture stress differently from those on the moister deeper neutral soils. Elsewhere airphoto cover fell into two groups. Those that formed part of the regular annual SRCMP coastal data capture programme, for the greater part this is restricted to the coastal strip rather than the indicative floodplain. The second group covered the indicative floodplain of the tidal rivers with the aim of capturing the grazing marsh grasslands. The latter was flown as a number of separate blocks. Whilst the cover was extensive it was not complete. There was no available aerial photographic cover for the indicative floodplain around Rye Harbour between the coastal shingle and the Royal Military Canal and the littoral habitats and indicative floodplain at Bosham and Fishbourne Channels, West Sussex. The coastal strip aerial photography did not cover all the saltmarsh in the Kentish Stour as the existing cover cuts across the estuary mouth

and misses the marshes in the section leading up to Sandwich. However we were able to use other data to fill this gap. There were systematic problems with the integration of the data between the coastal strip photography and that flown for the floodplain which left a persistent area of no data in the supplied ortho-rectified imagery between the two contract blocks. Un-rectified images covering the gap were often available and these were rectified by PBA using ArcMap and subsequently digitised. The level of spatial precision may not be the same as the supplied ortho-rectified data for images processed in this way.

3.3 The IHS Classification

The IHS classification used by the KCC has been substantially modified for the purposes of mapping the TE2100 and SRCMP areas. The two main areas of development have been in the classes for saltmarsh and grazing marsh grasslands although other developments have been undertaken in shingle, dunes and wetlands. The complete definition for the new classes can be found in the revised IHS brief definitions packaged with the habitat tool releases and the most current version of I.H.S. can be viewed at: www.huchitang.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ihs-brief-definitions-1-100.htm The following sections highlight the more significant changes.

3.3.1 Saltmarsh

The subdivision of the UK BAP habitat saltmarsh [LS3] into the Annex One classes i.e. Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand [LS31], Spartina swards [LS32], Atlantic Salt meadows [LS33], Mediterranean salt meadows [LS34] and Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous scrubs [LS36] was too broad to map the saltmarsh structure. With exception of Spartina each of the Annex One classes were further sub-divided either to the NVC or, in the case of the Atlantic Salt Meadows, subdivisions that reflected either the NVC class or NVC communities to make a distinction between pioneer, low and mid saltmarsh communities. Whilst this was reasonably successful in the outer estuary further problems occurred as the communities made transitions to brackish swamp communities. For example, the new class Pioneer Sea Aster [LS313] is, in the outer estuary, associated with the annuals Salicornia and Suaeda and

frequently with Spartina whilst in the mid Thames this species forms part of a brackish community frequently associated with Bolboscheoenus maritimus, Atriplex prostrata and Phragmites australis. This community can be restricted to the sea wall in the brackish section of the Thames and to record this, a new marginal vegetation class was created to distinguish between this community, usually less than 5m wide, and the swamp/saltmarsh community forming a pioneer vegetation class. An entirely new class was extracted from the inverse class for Elytrigia Atherica upper saltmarsh.

Finally it should be noted that the Annex One class LS32 Spartina more correctly refers to the UK native species. However the survey only recorded the hybrid type(s) and for the purposes of this survey the hybrids were included within LS32.

3.3.2 Grazing marsh

The priority habitat “grazing marsh” is a landscape feature consisting of a mosaic of grasslands, wetlands and ditches and is quite properly treated as a habitat complex in IHS. However much of the grassland within the complex are very distinctive and whilst they may not be a priority habitat in their own right, having them bundled within the catch-all inverse class GNZ did not really show the considerable variability within the grasslands.

The grasslands ranged from the improved through to unimproved neutral grasslands and through different management regimes varied from coarse grassland frequently dominated by tall ruderals to extensive areas of inundation grasslands. Natural England was particularly keen that distinction should be given to the important and scarce unimproved grazing marsh grasslands.

To map these classes it was necessary to draw out a number of new classes from within the IHS inverse class GNZ these included. A top level coarse grazing marsh grassland GN3 dominated by coarse grasses and two subclasses, GN31 and GN32. GN31 [Rank grassland grazing marsh] usually contain numerous tall ruderals and is frequently associated with unmanaged or poorly managed grasslands on poorly drained soils and the ruderals often include Hemlock and Giant Hogweed amongst others. GN32 [Tussocky grassland grazing marsh] are coarse grasslands on poorly drained soils usually associated with NVC neutral grassland

type MG9 and 10 usually dominated by a mixture of Holcus lanatus and Descampsia cespitosa frequently with Juncus spp. A top level grazing marsh class GN4 which is primarily an airphoto interpretation class since it is not possible to see the species composition by API. GN4 has two sub classes identifiable by field survey. The first GN41 is the high quality semi or unimproved grazing marsh grassland. The key species indicators for this class include Lathyrus pratensis, Leontodon hispidus, Leontodon saxatilis, Lotus corniculatus, Lotus glaber, Ranunculus sardous, Ranunculus bulbosus, Stellaria graminea, Tragopogon pratensis, Trifolium fragiferum and Lathyrus nissolia.

The second class is in effect an inverse class GN4Z for those grazing marshes that do not meet the criteria for GN41 with the indicators being either rare or absent. In the future it may be possible to define additional classes perhaps including a class for a GN41 type with no maritime influence in the species. A feature of grazing marsh grasslands is their propensity for seasonal inundation. When this occurs frequently a distinctive inundation grassland forms. These can have either fresh or brackish influences and within the grazing marsh are frequently associated with old rill structures or ditches. Whilst it is often possible to map these grasslands at a high level GN5 through API it is only possible to make the subdivisions in to GN51[brackish] and GN52 [fresh] by field survey the exception being where there is visible evidence of the presence of Bolboscheoenus which is a key indicator for brackish communities. The GN5 classes are distinct from the inundation class EM22 the latter being more commonly associated with the draw down areas of lake or water margins and dominated by ephemeral annual vegetation. An additional class was added to map the sea wall grasslands GN6 since these were usually very different from the associated grazing marsh and frequently contained scarce or rare species.

3.3.3 Ditches

Ditches are a common feature of grazing marshes and not infrequently are botanically richer than the associated grasslands. However ditch classes can only be reliably assigned using field survey, though in some cases the presence of Bolboscheoenus can indicate a brackish ditch, therefore ditch classes are not routinely given for the SRCMP data set other than where field survey has been undertaken.

Ditches that only rarely contained standing water were for the most part either mapped as an inundation grassland or a wetland type.

3.3.4 Wetlands

Within the wetland group two plant communities posed a particular problem in that they could be found not only as high water table marsh communities but also in standing water and in the intertidal zone. These were Phragmites australis [reedbeds] and Bolbosceoenus maritimus. Of these two species only reedbeds, EM11, had a specific IHS code as it is a priority habitat. Whilst the latter does not form part of a priority habitat is a very useful indicator of brackish influence therefore a new class was created for Bolboscheoenus, EM13. Where either class falls within the intertidal zone it has the complex code for Tidal, TD1, and within the grazing marsh it would have the grazing marsh complex code, CF1. However where either forms a community within standing water the habitat will be the appropriate water code with either EM11 or EM13 as a matrix code plus the CF1 complex code if appropriate. Further sub divisions of the marginal vegetation class where made to reflect the plant communities identified by the Upper Tidal Thames survey plus a further class for the marginal brackish swamp community.

3.3.5 Shingle and Dune communities

The coastal habitats of the SRCMP are particularly rich in shingle habitats and include one of the most extensive areas of vegetated shingle in Europe at Dungeness. Dungeness was mapped in detail as part of the Kent Habitat Survey in 2003 and the polygons mapped at that time only required minor modifications to reflect subsequent changes. The IHS definition used at that time did not fully reflect the subtleties shown by the vegetation with a very simple distinction drawn between unvegetated shingle, annual vegetated shingle and perennial vegetation of stony banks. Although it is not possible to distinguish between all the vegetation classes observed by field survey it is possible to make some further divisions from air-photography and these were used for the SRCMP survey. The I.H.S. has been revised to include five new sub-classes to the perennial vegetation class SS311. SS3111 [Shingle successional vegetation] largely dominated by Arrhenatherum elatius that forms a transitional community between the annual vegetation and the acid heathland.

SS3112 [Shingle heathland communities] long established continuous or near continuous heathland communities. SS3113 [Shingle mesotrophic vegetation] Often associated with disturbed shingle or alongside features that may enrich the soil i.e. edges of gardens or road verges. SS3114 [Shingle scrub communities] usually pure stands of Ulex europaeus, Sambucus nigra, Prunus spinosa or Ilex aquifolium. SS3115 [Shingle acid grassland] Acid grassland found on shingle substrates where a significant soil has developed and may include shingle/dune transitions frequently found on the margins shingle formations. Often characterised by Festuca ovina and Agrostis capillaris An additional dune class has been added that botanically differs very little from SS3115 but the sand substrate places the community under the dune hierarchy for the BAP habitats. SS1412 Atlantic decalcified fixed dune acid grassland is a sub-class of SS141 Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes. The sub community with frequent or dominated by Calluna spp. is classed as SS1411.

3.4 Field survey

It was acknowledged that some field work would be needed where habitats could not be identified or did not conform to an existing habitat class. Where surveying was undertaken it was solely for the purpose of habitat validation not for collecting complete species data for assessing quality. Though not an integral part of the SRCMP habitat survey, field survey data from the EA TE2100 programme was incorporated within the SRCMP data where the two areas overlapped. Additional field survey was completed in the Southern Region. This was largely confined to habitat validation in the dune structures in Pegwell Bay, the coarse grassland grazing marsh in the Adur, the saltmarsh in the Beaulieu and Havant Rivers and to establish the extent of grazing marsh in the vicinity of Rye Harbour. The field survey of the Medway and Swale was undertaken over two field seasons. The project start date meant that field survey could not start before August 2005 and after a dry summer the grasslands were in too poor condition to survey so the surveyors visited almost

exclusively saltmarsh. The grazing marsh grasslands were surveyed during the 2006 season although a particularly cold spring saw a late start to the season and grasslands were only suitable for surveying by the first week in June.

The survey methodology required the surveyor to walk an API polygon and enter species data, using a tablet computer and the habitat tool, that in their estimation accurately described the polygon. The habitat tool is explained in more detail in section 4.6. Where the surveyor found polygons with unmapped features the field surveyor modified the habitat geometry by cutting polygons in the field. The surveyor also assigned a new habitat where field survey suggested that an alternative habitat would give a better fit to the observed flora. The habitat capture tool aided this process by using indicator species linked to habitat classes and automatically displays and lists recorded species as indicators. The survey was two-tiered, the surveyor attempted to validate non target habitats with just sufficient data captured to establish that the API had accurately labelled a polygon. For some target habitats more detailed floristic data was added to establish habitat quality.

The survey methodology required the surveyor to walk an API polygon and enter species data, using a tablet computer and the habitat tool, which in their estimation accurately described the polygon. Quadrat data was not taken other than for a very limited number of polygons where there was no apparent reasonable fit with existing IHS habitats and a new class may be required. A key to identifying I.H.S. grassland communities was designed for field surveyors. It can be found in Annex 2. Where the surveyor found polygons that had unmapped features of habitats, the field surveyor modified the habitat geometry by cutting polygons in the field. The surveyor could also reassign a new habitat where field survey suggested that an alternative habitat would give a better fit to the observed flora. The habitat capture tool aids this process by using indicator species linked to habitat classes and automatically displays and lists recorded species as indicators. The survey was two-tiered the surveyor was looking to validate non target habitats with just sufficient data captured to establish that the API had accurately labelled a polygon. For target habitats more detailed floristic data was added to establish habitat quality.

4 Concluding summary

The South East Strategic Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme (SRCMP) project area covered an area of slightly more than 121,000ha. Of this area approximately 9850ha [8%] fell under an urban habitat class. Summary statistics for the main natural and semi-natural classes for the project area and by county can be found in Annex 1. Although systematic field survey was not an integral part of the SRCMP project the data includes approximately 5400ha of surveyed habitat data. The distribution of field survey is heavily weighted towards the grazing marsh grasslands, with additional survey in saltmarsh and dunes habitats. The field survey is not evenly distributed between the counties with a bias towards Kent habitats. No field survey took place in the Isle of Wight. Not all the indicative floodplain was flown for aerial photography. The flights were designed to balance cost of effort against opportunity of capturing Priority Habitat. For example, Romney Marsh was not flown, with the exception of the coastal strip, since there is very little target priority habitat and the shingle had already been mapped in detail by the Kent County Council (KCC) in 2003. Kent had no significant areas of no-data as there was access to the KCC habitat 2003 data. There were no significant areas of no-data in Hampshire of the Isle of Wight. Sussex has some areas of no-data that might contain target habitat and these are detailed in section 4.2. Rye Harbour grazing marshes and the eastern channels of Chichester Harbour would benefit from additional interpretation if aerial photography becomes available. The biased geographical distribution of field survey precludes making a detailed analysis of habitat variation within the project area. Casual observation would suggest that Spartina in the Kent estuaries is expanding at a significant rate whilst it continues to die back in Hampshire. The saltmarsh transitions change between Kent, where the normal sequence is Spartina–Puccinellia low to mid marsh-Atriplex mid marsh -Elytrigia upper marsh, with Atriplex on rill edges. Whilst in the south coast estuaries the transitions are Salicornia-Atriplex-Elytrigia. Here Puccinellia and Spartina are rare or absent. Further west Elytrigia is increasingly replaced by Festuca rubra. In Hampshire and the Isle of Wight there appear to be fewer defence structures constraining the saltmarsh and upper saltmarsh communities appear a little more frequently than in Kent and Sussex.

In dune communities the decalcified types become more common as you move west and the transitions from grey dunes appear to be more rapid. Grazing marsh grasslands of a quality found in South Sheppey appear to be very scarce on the South coast. Although additional field survey may identify further areas of GN41 visual inspection of the aerial photographs would suggest that with the exception of the Rye Harbour grazing marshes the majority of these grasslands would probably fall into the GN4Z class. The Sussex Adur and Arun river floodplains are notable for having managed coarse grasslands, GN32, that are scarce elsewhere. It is also possible that some of these grasslands at the extreme limit of the tidal floodplain may be neutral grassland meadows, GN1 but this can only be established by field survey. Shingle habitats are found throughout the project area but aerial photographic interpretation would suggest that in some places they are prone to invasive aliens. The shingle at Shoreham looks to have particularly unusual plant specimens. Saline lagoons can not be identified reliably using aerial photographs and published datasets have been used to locate them. Seagrass beds were problematic and very difficult to identify reliably. They are readily confused with algal beds and frequently grown in mixed communities with algae. This class is almost certainly under represented in the habitat mapping.

5 Licences and copyright

The supplied data has some restrictions on distribution and usage. The I.H.S classification is copyright of SERC and the use of I.H.S in developing additional habitat would require a site user licence from SERC. It is believed that simply owning or viewing data that uses the I.H.S. should not require a licence. The linkage between the I.H.S. habitats and indicators and species is outside the SERC copyright and additional field survey to add species to habitats should not require a licence. Questions relating to I.H.S. and licences should be addressed to the Somerset Environmental Records Centre. The geometry of the data is based on the OS copyright MasterMap. There are comprehensive restrictions on the distribution of data that contain MasterMap. Data users should have an appropriate OS end user licence for MasterMap or where working under the licence of a third party any outputs should make reference to the OS licence under which it was produced. Any questions relating to the OS licensing of

MasterMap should be addressed to the Ordnance Survey or the licence holder under which the user is operating.

6 Habitat tool

Data input both for the API process and any field survey is undertaken using the Habitat Tool. The function of the tool is to ensure that protocols and compulsory fields required by I.H.S. are complied with and to prevent data errors by using a series of drop-down menus and pick lists. For field survey the tool permits the surveyor to enter native vascular plants, plus a limited selection of common alien species and has software intelligence to order these species and to class as indicators where a species is classed as an indicator for the selected habitat. The tool is designed to be highly flexible and will automatically reassign species to indicators if the habitat class is changed at any time. The Habitat Tool is an ArcMap application that will run inside ESRI Arcmap version 8.3+ and requires ArcMap Arcview and Microsoft .net version 2. The software does not work with ESRI data viewer products ArcPad or ArcExplorer. The tool is designed to be used with data in ArcMap personal geo-databases with a Feature dataset called Habitat_survey containing a feature class called survey_poly together with a geodatabase table called survey_species. Each table and feature class has required fields with set definitions. Additional information regarding the tool and its installation and use can be found in Annex 3.

ANNEX 1 RESULTS

1 Survey results 1.1 Extant of survey and tables of habitats by area 1.2 Habitat by BAP habitat and sub-types 1.2.1 Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh 1.2.2 GN3: Coarse grassland grazing marsh 1.2.3 GN31: Rank coarse grassland grazing marsh 1.2.4 GN32: Tussocky coarse grassland grazing marsh 1.2.5 GN4: Grazing marsh pasture 1.2.6 GN41: Grazing marsh pasture

[Lotus spp./Carex divisa community] 1.2.7 GN4Z: Other grazing marsh pasture 1.2.8 GN5: Inundation grassland 1.2.9 GN51: Inundation grassland [brackish] 1.2.10 GN52: Inundation grassland [fresh] 1.2.11 GN6: Sea wall grassland 1.2.12 Ditches 1.3 Reedbeds [and other wetlands] 1.3.1 EM11: Reedbeds 1.3.2 EM13: Bolboscheoenus maritimus 1.3.3 EM1Z: Other swamp vegetation 1.3.4 EM22: Inundation vegetation 1.3.5 EM3Z: Other fens 1.4 Eelgrass Beds 1.4.1 LS2: Seagrass beds 1.5 Coastal Saltmarsh 1.5.1 LS31: Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud 1.5.2 LS311: Salicornia spp. colonising mud and sand 1.5.3 LS312: Suaeda maritima colonising mud and sand 1.5.4 LS313: Aster tripolium colonising mud and sand 1.5.5 LS32: Spartina swards 1.5.6 LS331: Transitional low marsh 1.5.7 LS332: Puccinellia maritima mid marsh 1.5.8 LS333: Atriplex portulacoides mid marsh 1.5.9 LS334: Aster tripolium low marsh 1.5.10 LS34: Mediterranean saltmeadows 1.5.11 LS341: Festuca rubra upper saltmarsh 1.5.12 LS342: Juncus maritimus upper saltmarsh 1.5.13 LS343: Juncus maritimus-Triglochin maritima

saltmarsh 1.5.14 LS37: Elytrigia atherica upper marsh 1.5.15 LS3Z: Other saltmarsh 1.5.16 Saltmarsh comment 1.6 Coastal Vegetated Shingle 1.6.1 SS311: Perennial vegetation of stony banks 1.6.2 SS3111: Shingle successional vegetation 1.6.3 SS3112: Shingle heathland communities 1.6.4 SS3113: Shingle mesotrophic vegetation 1.6.5 SS3114: Shingle scrub communities

1.6.6 SS3115: Shingle acid grassland 1.6.7 SS312: Annual vegetation of drift lines 1.7 Coastal Sand Dunes 1.7.1 SS11: Embryonic shifting dunes 1.7.2 SS111: Embryonic shifting dunes with Ammophila arenaria 1.7.3 SS112: Embryonic shifting dunes with Elytrigia juncea 1.7.4 SS12: Shifting dunes with Ammophila arenaria [white

dunes] 1.7.5 SS13: Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation [grey dunes] 1.7.6 SS1411: Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes [Calluna- Ulicetea] 1.7.7 SS1412: Atlantic decalcified fixed dune acid

Grassland 1.7.8 SS16: Dunes with Sea buckthorn [Hippophae

rhamnoides] 1.7.9 SS17: Humid dune slacks 1.7.10 WB21: Scrub woodland on dunes 1.8 Saline Lagoon 1.9 Littoral and Sub-littoral Chalk

1 Survey results 1.1 Extant of survey and tables of habitats by area

Systematic field survey was not an integral part of the SRCMP habitat mapping project. However a significant area of the SRCMP in North Kent was field surveyed as part of the EA Thames TE2100 project. The TE2100 survey area overlapped the SRCMP for the Medway and Swale estuaries and for a small part of the Thames Estuary in the vicinity of Allhallows on Sea. Limited field surveys for habitat validation as part of the SRCMP programme were undertaken in the dunes at Pegwell Bay [Kent], the grazing marsh around Rye Harbour [East Sussex], the Adur River grazing marshes [West Sussex] and the saltmarsh in the Beaulieu and Havant Rivers [Hampshire] The table below list the BAP target habitats and sub-types and the percentage of area surveyed. These figures are derived by selecting the polygons that fall within or intersect the boundary of the indicative tidal floodplain and the intertidal zone. All figures are in hectares. Where the classes GN4, LS31 and LS34 are API classes but have been classed as field surveyed this means that the available survey data was not sufficient to assign a full field survey class. This may be because the surveyor only had a binocular view or the habitat had been mown or burnt so it was not possible to obtain a complete suite of floristic data to assign a sub-class. The saltmarsh class LS3 was used where the OS mapping indicated the presence of saltmarsh but there was no aerial photographic cover to confirm this. Comparisons elsewhere between the OS MasterMap saltmarsh and aerial photography would suggest that this is usually old low and mid marsh communities, much of which has been eroded and thus it is likely to overestimate the extent of cover. MasterMap does not appear to map Spartina and therefore this class may also be present but unrecorded in these areas.

TABLE 1 BAP Habitats and sub-classes for all SRCMP project area Code Class Total

area Surveyed

area %

EM11 Reed beds 1017 103 10 EM13 Bolboscheoenus maritimus 115 38 33 EM1Z Other swamp vegetation 259 67 26 EM214 Marginal vegetation of brackish tidal watercourses 8 0 0 EM22 Inundation vegetation 22 3 14 EM3Z Other fens, transition mires, springs and flushes 33 19 74 Total wetlands 1454 230 16 GN3 Coarse grassland grazing marsh 1472 241 16 GN31 Rank grassland grazing marsh 31 5 16 GN32 Tussocky grassland grazing marsh 631 112 18 GN4 Grazing marsh pasture (API) 5969 15 1 GN41 Grazing marsh pasture [Lotus spp./Carex divisa comm.] 1976 1932 98 GN4Z Other grazing marsh pasture communities 2209 2062 93 GN5 Inundation grassland 193 0 0 GN51 Inundation grassland [brackish] 309 140 45 GN52 Inundation grassland [fresh] 11 0 0 GN6 Sea wall grassland 213 63 39 Total grazing marsh grasslands 13014 4570 35 LS2 Seagrass beds 21* 0 0 Total seagrass 21* 0 0 LS31 Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand 25 3 12 LS311 Salicornia colonising mud and sand 9 1 11 LS313 Aster tripolium colonising mud and sand 1 0 0 LS32 Spartina swards 1045 200 19 LS331 Transitional low marsh 271 23 8 LS332 Puccinellia maritima mid marsh 389 67 17 LS333 Atriplex portulacoides mid marsh 502 196 39 LS334 Aster tripolium low marsh 5 1 20 LS34 Mediterranean saltmeadows 3 1 33 LS341 Festuca rubra upper saltmarsh 9 2 22 LS342 Juncus maritimus upper saltmarsh 4 2 50 LS343 Juncus maritimus-Triglochin maritima saltmarsh 3 2 66 LS34Z Other Mediterranean saltmeadows 4 0 0 LS37 Elytrigia atherica upper marsh 124 33 27 Total saltmarsh 2394 531 22 SS111 Embryonic shifting dunes with Ammophila 3 0 0 SS112 Embryonic shifting dunes with Elytrigia 1 0 0 SS12 Shifting dunes 21 3 14 SS13 Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation 392 75 19 SS14 Decalcified fixed dunes 49 0 0 SS1411 Atlantic decalcified dunes [Calluna] 5 5 100 SS1412 Atlantic decalcified dune acid grassland 33 30 90 SS16 Dunes with Sea buckthorn 13 6 46 SS17 Humid dune slacks 6 2 33 Total dunes 523 121 23 SS311 Perennial vegetation of stony banks 59 0 0 SS3111 Shingle successional vegetation 164 0 0 SS3112 Shingle heathland communities 570 0 0 SS3113 Shingle mesotrophic vegetation 193 0 0 SS3114 Shingle scrub communities 70 0 0 SS3115 Shingle acid grassland 31 0 0 SS312 Annual vegetation of driftlines 154 0 0 Total vegetated shingle 1241 0 0 AS61 Saline lagoons 414 0 0 Total saline lagoons 414 0 0 LR1 Littoral chalk 614 0 0 Total littoral chalk 614 0 0

• *Sea grass beds can not be reliably mapped solely by API and this figure is certainly a significant

undercount. • ** Embryonic shifting dunes are very difficult to map being very thin and rather ephemeral. This

figure does not mean they are absent just not of a mapable size.

TABLE 2 BAP Habitats and sub-classes for SRCMP project area; Kent

Code Class Total area

Survey area

EM11 Reed beds 588 86 EM13 Bolboscheoenus maritimus 87 38 EM1Z Other swamp vegetation 159 66 EM22 Inundation vegetation 7 3 EM31 Lowland Fens 28 24 EM3Z Other fens, transition mires, springs and flushes 33 19 Total wetlands 902 236 GN3 Coarse grassland grazing marsh 912 239 GN31 Rank grassland grazing marsh 17 5 GN32 Tussocky grassland grazing marsh 87 87 GN4 Grazing marsh pasture (API) 697 260 GN41 Grazing marsh pasture [Lotus spp./Carex divisa comm.] 1953 1918 GN4Z Other grazing marsh pasture communities 2154 2007 GN5 Inundation grassland 39 0 GN51 Inundation grassland [brackish] 151 136 GN52 Inundation grassland [fresh] 10 0 GN6 Sea wall grassland 155 62 Total grazing marsh grasslands 6165 4714 LS2 Seagrass beds 14* 0 Total seagrass 14 LS31 Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand 7 3 LS311 Salicornia colonising mud and sand 4 1 LS312 Suaeda colonising mud and sand 0 0 LS313 Aster tripolium colonising mud and sand 1 0 LS32 Spartina swards 528 200 LS331 Transitional low marsh 73 22 LS332 Puccinellia maritima mid marsh 227 64 LS333 Atriplex portulacoides mid marsh 392 179 LS334 Aster tripolium low marsh 5 1 LS34 Mediterranean saltmeadows 1 0 LS341 Festuca rubra upper saltmarsh 1 1 LS342 Juncus maritimus upper saltmarsh 0 0 LS343 Juncus maritimus-Triglochin maritima saltmarsh 1 1 LS37 Elytrigia atherica upper marsh 74 30 LS3Z Other saltmarsh 0 0 Total saltmarsh 1314 502 SS11 Embryonic shifting dunes 0** 0 SS111 Embryonic shifting dunes with Ammophila 0** 0 SS112 Embryonic shifting dunes with Elytrigia 1 0 SS12 Shifting dunes 11 6 SS13 Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation 303 70 SS14 Decalcified fixed dunes 0 0 SS1411 Atlantic decalcified dunes [Calluna] 0 0 SS1412 Atlantic decalcified dune acid grassland 8 8 SS16 Dunes with Sea buckthorn 6 2 SS17 Humid dune slacks 6 2 Total dunes 335 88 SS311 Perennial vegetation of stony banks 30 0 SS3111 Shingle successional vegetation 104 0 SS3112 Shingle heathland communities 497 0 SS3113 Shingle mesotrophic vegetation 117 1 SS3114 Shingle scrub communities 56 0 SS3115 Shingle acid grassland 31 18 SS312 Annual vegetation of driftlines 47 7 Total vegetated shingle 882 26 AS61 Saline lagoons 101 0 Total saline lagoons 101 0 LR1 Littoral chalk 409 0 Total littoral chalk 409 0

• *Sea grass beds can not be reliably mapped solely by API and this figure is certainly a significant

undercount. • ** Embryonic shifting dunes are very difficult to map being very thin and rather ephemeral. This

figure does not mean they are absent just not of a mapable size.

TABLE 3 BAP Habitats and sub-classes for SRCMP project area; Sussex Code Class Total

area Survey area

EM11 Reed beds 276 4 EM13 Bolboscheoenus maritimus 9 EM1Z Other swamp vegetation 37 EM214 Marginal vegetation of brackish tidal watercourses 8 EM22 Inundation vegetation 7 EM3Z Other fens, transition mires, springs and flushes 0 Total wetlands 337 4 GN3 Coarse grassland grazing marsh 224 1 GN31 Rank grassland grazing marsh 9 GN32 Tussocky grassland grazing marsh 537 25 GN4 Grazing marsh pasture (API) 4251 GN41 Grazing marsh pasture [Lotus spp./Carex divisa comm.] 18 9 GN4Z Other grazing marsh pasture communities 12 12 GN5 Inundation grassland 154 GN51 Inundation grassland [brackish] 85 1 GN52 Inundation grassland [fresh] 1 GN6 Sea wall grassland 56 1 Total grazing marsh grasslands 5347 49 LS2 Seagrass beds* 1 Total seagrass 1 LS31 Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand 8 LS311 Salicornia colonising mud and sand 5 LS312 Suaeda colonising mud and sand 0 LS313 Aster tripolium colonising mud and sand 0 LS32 Spartina swards 208 LS331 Transitional low marsh 4 1 LS332 Puccinellia maritima mid marsh 22 3 LS333 Atriplex portulacoides mid marsh 30 LS334 Aster tripolium low marsh 0 LS34 Mediterranean saltmeadows 0 LS341 Festuca rubra upper saltmarsh 7 LS342 Juncus maritimus upper saltmarsh 3 LS343 Juncus maritimus-Triglochin maritima saltmarsh 1 LS34Z Other Mediterranean saltmeadows 4 LS37 Elytrigia atherica upper marsh 15 LS3Z Other saltmarsh 0 Total saltmarsh 307 4 SS11 Embryonic shifting dunes 0 SS111 Embryonic shifting dunes with Ammophila 3 SS112 Embryonic shifting dunes with Elytrigia 0 SS12 Shifting dunes 8 3 SS13 Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation 71 5 SS1411 Atlantic decalcified dunes [Calluna] 0 SS1412 Atlantic decalcified dune acid grassland 21 18 SS16 Dunes with Sea buckthorn 7 4 Total dunes 110 31 SS311 Perennial vegetation of stony banks

SS3111 Shingle successional vegetation 60

SS3112 Shingle heathland communities 73 SS3113 Shingle mesotrophic vegetation 76 12 SS3114 Shingle scrub communities 14 SS3115 Shingle acid grassland 0 SS312 Annual vegetation of driftlines 48 Total vegetated shingle 271 12 AS61 Saline lagoons 307 Total saline lagoons 307 LR1 Littoral chalk 361 Total littoral chalk 361

• *Sea grass beds can not be reliably mapped solely by API and this figure is certainly a significant

undercount. • ** Embryonic shifting dunes are very difficult to map being very thin and rather ephemeral. This

figure does not mean they are absent just not of a mapable size.

TABLE 4 BAP Habitats and sub-classes for SRCMP project area; Hampshire

Code Class Total area

Survey area

EM11 Reed beds 80 13 EM13 Bolboscheoenus maritimus 4 EM1Z Other swamp vegetation 37 1 EM22 Inundation vegetation 5 EM3Z Other fens, transition mires, springs and flushes 0 Total wetlands 126 14 GN3 Coarse grassland grazing marsh 242 3 GN31 Rank grassland grazing marsh 5 GN32 Tussocky grassland grazing marsh 7 GN4 Grazing marsh pasture (API) 638 15 GN41 Grazing marsh pasture [Lotus spp./Carex divisa comm.] 5 5 GN4Z Other grazing marsh pasture communities 43 43 GN5 Inundation grassland 0 GN51 Inundation grassland [brackish] 41 3 GN52 Inundation grassland [fresh] 0 GN6 Sea wall grassland 2 Total grazing marsh grasslands 983 69 LS2 Seagrass beds 6* Total seagrass 6* LS31 Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand 5 LS311 Salicornia colonising mud and sand 0 LS312 Suaeda colonising mud and sand 0 LS313 Aster tripolium colonising mud and sand 0 LS32 Spartina swards 298 LS331 Transitional low marsh 171 LS332 Puccinellia maritima mid marsh 118 LS333 Atriplex portulacoides mid marsh 58 17 LS334 Aster tripolium low marsh 0 LS34 Mediterranean saltmeadows 20 LS341 Festuca rubra upper saltmarsh 1 1 LS342 Juncus maritimus upper saltmarsh 3 2 LS343 Juncus maritimus-Triglochin maritima saltmarsh 1 1 LS37 Elytrigia atherica upper marsh 22 3 LS3Z Other saltmarsh 0 Total saltmarsh 692 24 SS11 Embryonic shifting dunes 0** SS111 Embryonic shifting dunes with Ammophila 0** SS112 Embryonic shifting dunes with Elytrigia 0** SS12 Shifting dunes 2 SS13 Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation 15 SS14 Decalcified fixed dunes 43 SS1411 Atlantic decalcified dunes [Calluna] 5 5 SS1412 Atlantic decalcified dune acid grassland 4 4 SS16 Dunes with Sea buckthorn 0 Total dunes 69 9 SS311 Perennial vegetation of stony banks 27

SS3111 Shingle successional vegetation 0

SS3112 Shingle heathland communities 0 SS3113 Shingle mesotrophic vegetation 0 SS3114 Shingle scrub communities 0 SS3115 Shingle acid grassland 0 SS312 Annual vegetation of driftlines 58 1 Total vegetated shingle 85 1 AS61 Saline lagoons 6 Total saline lagoons 6 LR1 Littoral chalk 0 Total littoral chalk 0

• *Sea grass beds can not be reliably mapped solely by API and this figure is certainly a significant undercount.

• ** Embryonic shifting dunes are very difficult to map being very thin and rather ephemeral. This figure does not mean they are absent just not of a mapable size.

TABLE 5 BAP Habitats and sub-classes for SRCMP project area; Isle of Wight

Code Class Total area

Survey area

EM11 Reed beds 73 EM13 Bolboscheoenus maritimus 15 EM1Z Other swamp vegetation 26 EM22 Inundation vegetation 3 EM3Z Other fens, transition mires, springs and flushes 0 Total wetlands 117 GN3 Coarse grassland grazing marsh 94 GN31 Rank grassland grazing marsh 0 GN32 Tussocky grassland grazing marsh 0 GN4 Grazing marsh pasture (API) 383 GN41 Grazing marsh pasture [Lotus spp./Carex divisa comm.] 0 GN4Z Other grazing marsh pasture communities 0 GN5 Inundation grassland 0 GN51 Inundation grassland [brackish] 32 GN52 Inundation grassland [fresh] 0 GN6 Sea wall grassland 0 Total grazing marsh grasslands 509 LS2 Seagrass beds 0* Total seagrass 0* LS31 Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand 5 LS311 Salicornia colonising mud and sand 0 LS312 Suaeda colonising mud and sand 0 LS313 Aster tripolium colonising mud and sand 0 LS32 Spartina swards 11 LS331 Transitional low marsh 23 LS332 Puccinellia maritima mid marsh 53 LS333 Atriplex portulacoides mid marsh 22 LS334 Aster tripolium low marsh 0 LS34 Mediterranean saltmeadows 1 LS341 Festuca rubra upper saltmarsh 0 LS342 Juncus maritimus upper saltmarsh 0 LS343 Juncus maritimus-Triglochin maritima saltmarsh 0 LS37 Elytrigia atherica upper marsh 13 LS3Z Other saltmarsh 0 Total saltmarsh 128 SS11 Embryonic shifting dunes 0** SS111 Embryonic shifting dunes with Ammophila 0** SS112 Embryonic shifting dunes with Elytrigia 0** SS12 Shifting dunes 0 SS13 Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation 3 SS14 Decalcified fixed dunes 6 SS1411 Atlantic decalcified dunes [Calluna] 0 SS1412 Atlantic decalcified dune acid grassland 0 SS16 Dunes with Sea buckthorn 0 Total dunes 9 SS311 Perennial vegetation of stony banks 2

SS3111 Shingle successional vegetation 0

SS3112 Shingle heathland communities 0 SS3113 Shingle mesotrophic vegetation 0 SS3114 Shingle scrub communities 0 SS3115 Shingle acid grassland 0 SS312 Annual vegetation of driftlines 1 Total vegetated shingle 3 AS61 Saline lagoons 0 Total saline lagoons 0 LR1 Littoral chalk 253 Total littoral chalk 253

• *Sea grass beds can not be reliably mapped solely by API and this figure is certainly a significant undercount.

• ** Embryonic shifting dunes are very difficult to map being very thin and rather ephemeral. This figure does not mean they are absent just not of a mapable size.

1.2 Habitat by BAP habitat and sub-types 1.2.1 Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh

The 2003 Kent Habitat Survey mapped the grazing marsh grasslands as improved grassland, GI0, or unimproved neutral grassland, GNZ, of which a significant proportion was field surveyed. However the survey polygons were very substantial, there being no attempt to subdivide the grassland into individual fields, and of those polygons only a small representative sample was field surveyed. The resulting maps gave an impression of large continuous bocks of uniform species composition that subsequent field survey revealed to be very misleading. Available Phase One mapping for Hampshire and West Sussex have better defined grazing marsh however these make no distinction between the fine grassland [GN4] and the coarse grassland [GN3] types. Although very few of the grazing marsh grasslands on the South Coast were field surveyed airphoto interpretation would suggest that there are very few high quality fine grassland grazing marsh [GN41] comparable to those found in the Isle of Sheppey. Those at the rear of the Rye Harbour shingle may form a more substantial block of higher quality grazing marsh elsewhere on the South Coast they are rare or very dispersed. The I.H.S. grassland management codes GL1 and GL2 are land use definitions rather management codes but they are used as the default codes for API and would usually be associated with unsurveyed grasslands. The code for “Other Neutral Grasslands” [GNZ] is present either because the polygon falls on the boundary of the indicative floodplain grassland or in some cases it relates to a raised feature associated with the grazing marsh. These features include internal bund structures or mounds linked to old salt workings.

1.2.2 GN3: Coarse Grassland grazing marsh

PHOTO 1: Habitat class GN31 coarse grassland grazing marsh; Court Marshes

Sheppey

The GN3 group lacks the fine grasses and herbs associated with the GN4 group and can have extensive areas of tall ruderals. Within the Thames/Medway/Swale Estuary floodplain the overwhelming majority of surveyed GN3 was classed as unmanaged. The majority of GN3 falls outside the SSSI’s and ownership was hard to identify thus access to some areas was not possible. Though this class appears throughout the indicative floodplain is appreciably more common in the periurban areas. Whilst the coarse grasslands in the Thames/Medway/Swale Estuary where mostly unmanaged, this was not the case elsewhere on the South Coast. Here, well managed coarse grasslands could be found in upper sections of the Sussex tidal rivers. To accommodate these managed coarse grasslands the GN3 class was split into two sub classes, GN31 and GN32.

1.2.3 GN31: Rank Coarse Grassland grazing marsh

This is the coarse grass type most frequently found in the Thames/Medway/Swale estuaries and equates to the NVC class MG1. A significant proportion of these grasslands were found on old brownfield sites or agricultural set aside. They frequently contained numerous tall ruderals, see photo 2 below.

PHOTO 2: Habitat class GN31; rank coarse grassland grazing marsh; Rainham marshes

1.2.4 GN32: Tussocky Coarse Grassland grazing marsh

This type has been found in the mid and upper tidal floodplain of the Arun and Adur Rivers in West Sussex and is probably more widely distributed. It relates to the NVC classes MG9&10. They are usually well managed, mostly pastures. The grassland communities are typical of poorly drained lowland neutral pastures. Of those seen by the SRCMP project they were notable for having frequent Deschampsia cepitosa and the wetter areas with significant numbers of rushes.

PHOTO 3: Habitat class GN32; tussocky coarse grassland grazing marsh; Adur river

1.2.5 GN4: Grazing marsh pasture

This is essentially an API class as it is not possible to reliably distinguish between the two sub-classes, GN41 and GN4Z, from air photography. From air photographs this habitat is notable for the frequent ditches, occasional old rills and inundation grasslands, the absence of tall ruderals and no obvious signs of sown grass though the latter is not always easy to tell when the pasture is well established. This habitat was one of the key target habitats requiring detailed field survey. GN4 with a field survey tag includes areas that could only be viewed by binoculars, grasslands that had been recently mown or damaged and areas for which access had been refused therefore with insufficient data to assign a sub-class. One area of note is an extensive stretch of GN4 on the outskirts of Sheerness. These fields are outside of any designated site but from the air a number of the fields have all the hallmarks of high quality grazing marsh. Access was refused by the landowner to this area, there having been a dispute in the past regarding the property being granted a SNCI status without consultation, subsequent planning disputes and court cases. Some fields could be assessed from the public rights of way but much of the core area could not be viewed.

Another area of interest was the potentially high quality grazing marshes in the vicinity of Rye Harbour. Much of these grasslands were not covered by the air photography and therefore the data is very incomplete. A partial field survey was undertaken to try and establish the limits of the grazing marsh to better target airphoto commissions.

1.2.6 GN41: Grazing marsh pasture [Lotus spp./Carex divisa

community]

Field survey identified some 1976 ha of high quality grazing marsh. This figure is almost certainly an underestimate as there is potentially additional GN41 within the unsurveyed areas of GN4.

PHOTO 4: Habitat class GN41 Grazing marsh pasture; Chetney Marshes

A typical example of this habitat has associated inundation grasslands [frequently found in the old rill structures] and wetlands often Bolboscheoenus maritima dominated and ditches with Phragmites australis. They are almost entirely managed, usually grazed, it is worth noting that there was no record of any field surveyed GN41 having the management code GM4, unmanaged. Of those fields that recorded the grazing type more than 86% of the habitat is cattle grazed. There are three locations where this habitat forms significant blocks of habitat. The largest contiguous blocks are the Minster, Stray, Elmey

and Spitend Marshes in South Sheppey followed by the Chetney Marshes and a third large block can be found around Yantlet Creek, all of which are in Kent. Elsewhere they occur as scattered habitats within a matrix of poorer quality GN4Z.

PHOTO 5: Habitat class GN41 Grazing marsh pasture with old rills with inundation grassland, habitat class GN51; Allhallows

The field survey has shown that even within the “species rich” GN41 class there is considerable variability field by field with a species being frequent in one and rare or absent in it’s adjacent fields.

This class is characterised by Lathyrus pratensis [Meadow Vetchling], Leontodon hispidusilis [RoughHawkbit], Lotus glaber [Narrow-leaved Bird’s-foot Trefoil], Ranunculus sardous [Hairy Buttercup], Ranunculus bulbosus [Bulbous Buttercup], Stellaria graminea [Lesser Stitchwort], Tragopogon pratensis [Goat’s-beard], Trifolium fragiferum [Strawberry Clover] and Lathyrus nissolia [Grass Vetchling].

1.2.6 GN4Z: Other grazing marsh pasture

GN4Z is the most common form of grazing marsh and is widely distributed throughout the field surveyed area. The herbs associated with GN41 are usually rare or absent as are the old rill structures and associated inundation grasslands. They have limited botanical interest though the ditch structures where present can be relatively rich.

PHOTO 6: Habitat class GN4Z: Other grazing marsh pasture; Higham Marshes

As this habitat can occur at some distance from the high water mark the class may include grasslands that have little or no maritime influence. There may be a need to define an additional class for this community if sufficient floristic variance can be demonstrated.

1.2.7 GN5: Inundation grassland

Whilst it was possible to identify inundation grassland from aerial photography it was not possible to distinguish reliably between brackish and fresh inundation grasslands unless there was clear evidence of the presence of the brackish water tolerant Bolboscheoenus maritimus. Thus GN5 is an API class that requires field survey to determine the appropriate subclass. Interpretation of GN5 is frequently based on mapping a visible feature, usually a rill or old ditch, rather than a distinctive vegetative cover and thus requires field survey. It may be the case that field survey will show the feature to be a wetter variant of the surrounding grassland and may not have sufficient cover of the key indicators species to keep as an inundation

grassland. In these instances the feature may be re-classed to the surrounding grassland and a comment “old rill” or “old ditch” is added to the comment box. Field survey has shown that the overwhelming majority of inundation grassland in the grazing marsh is a brackish community GN51.

1.2.8 GN51: Inundation grassland [brackish]

GN51 can be associated with the drawn down margins of seasonally flooded water margins though usually only those briefly or intermittently flooded. Water margins that are subject to more prolonged inundation would form the wetland class EM22 inundation vegetation. Photo 6 shows a brackish inundation grassland in the draw down zone of a broad ditch. There is some evidence of the Inundation vegetation class EM22 in the foreground.

PHOTO 7: Habitat class GN51: Inundation grassland [brackish]; Chetney Marshes

This community is more frequently found in the old rill structures of the grazing marsh class GN41 as is seen in Photo 5 above.

PHOTO 8: Habitat class GN51: Inundation grassland [brackish]; Elmley Marshes

GN51 is widely distributed throughout the grazing marsh grasslands, common within GN41 but still relatively frequent in GN4Z. This class is characterised by Atriplex prostrata [Spear-leaved Orache], Chenopodum chenopodioides [Saltmarsh Goosefoot], Juncus gerardii [Saltmarsh Rush]’ Oenanthe lachenalii [Parsley Water-dropwort], Polypogon monspeliensis [Annual Beard-grass], Ranunculus sardous [Hairy Buttercup] and Ranunculus sceleratus [Celery-leaved Buttercup].

1.2.9 GN52: Inundation grassland [fresh]

The fresh water variant is very scarce in the project area with some 24 polygons scattered across the project area totalling approximately 3 ha. This class is characterised by Juncus effusus [Soft Rush], Mentha aquatica [Water Mint], Ranunculus flammula [Lesser Spearwort] and Ranunculus repens [Creeping Buttercup]

1.2.10 GN6: Sea wall grassland

The sea wall grasslands communities are very variable both across the profile and longitudinally. Where sea wall grasslands meet the criteria for improved grassland they are recorded as GI0 with the comment flood embankments elsewhere they are recorded as GN6. Old relict

bunds within saltmarsh may have similar characteristics to the sea wall community but are more usually dominated by Elytrigia Atherica and thus mapped as Elytrigia Antherica Upper saltmarsh LS37. Bunds and other significant structures or features within grazing marsh would either be mapped as GI0 with appropriate comment or if of botanical interest then GNZ. At the habitat level there is no distinction drawn between GN6 that is species poor and that which is species rich. Whilst the class is primarily an API class it was considered too scarce to justify splitting further and the surveyors have recorded species rich GN6 by using the tick box “species rich” in the comments section. The species rich class is characterised by Lepidum latifolium [Dittander], Trifolium medium [Zig-zig Clover], Lotus glaber [Narrow-leaved Bird’s-foot Trefoil], Torolis nodosa [Knotted Hedge Parsley], Lathyrus nissolia [Grass Vetchling], [Sea Clover], Anthriscus caucalis [Bur Chervil] and Hordeum marinum [Sea Barley]. The scarce plant Inula crithmoides [Golden Samphire] may also be relatively common.

PHOTO 9: Habitat class GN6: Sea wall grassland; Higham

Management classes were not assigned to this class since the regime was often different between the sea and land ward sections and no distinction was made between the sections in the habitat mapping. Some sections were mapped as built [UR0.UA5] being either rock armoured or concrete faced. In many cases these supported rich plant communities as can be seen in Photo 9 and frequently included the nationally scarce plant Inula Crithmoides. The new 2006 habitat tool

now permits surveyors to record species to built features although this was not done systematically for this survey.

1.2.11 Ditches

Ditch communities are mapped as matrix classes of the standing water class. It is not possible to reliably map the ditch community from the air, with the notable exception of Bolboscheoenus maritimus community, so the matrix codes are field surveyed or derived from the North Kent Grazing Marsh survey. The water class is effectively derived from the surveyed ditch community thus the very brackish Bolboscheoenus communities EM13 and EM14 would have the water class AS63. The brackish community EM15 is characterised by Ceratophyllum submersum [Soft Hornwort], Potamogeton pectinatus [Fennel Pondweed] and Eleocharis palustris [CommonSpike-rush] would have the associated code AS62. The freshwater community EM16 is characterised by Sparganium erectum [Branched Bur-reed], Beruala erecta [Lesser Water Parsnip] and Lemna minor [Common Duckweed] would have the associated fresh water code AS0. The EM16 is quite scarce in the surveyed project area being largely restricted to the grazing marsh terrestrial margins suggesting that there are little freshwater inputs to the marsh other through rainfall.

PHOTO 10: Habitat matrix class EM16: Fresh water community

The ditch classes are used only where there is perennial open standing water or for ditches that may experience short dry periods. For ditches that have more extended dry periods the inundation class EM22 or GN5 and its sub-classes may be used.

1.3 Reedbeds [and other wetlands]

1.3.1 EM11: Reedbeds

Reedbeds (Phragmites) are widely distributed but rarely over extensive areas. Reedbeds are a difficult habitat to map as they are found as a habitat in their own right where they are formed in swampy areas with a high water table. They can also be found in standing water where they are mapped as a matrix class of the water habitat. They can also be found in the intertidal zone particularly in the brackish reaches of inlets and the brackish tidal Thames.

Reedbeds in the tidal zone or within brackish ditches are frequently associated with Bolboscheoenus maritimus but not as mixed stands. As the stands of Phragmites and Bolboscheoenus frequently alternate within many ditches but in such small patches there is no attempt to map the divisions between them. Thus the figure for reedbeds as water matrix is likely to be an overestimate as the calculation assumes, often incorrectly, that the whole water feature is a Phragmites habitat when in reality it is usually a mosaic of open water, Phragmites and Bolboscheoenus. See photo 11 below

PHOTO 11: Mixed stands of Phragmites [centre] and Bolboscheoenus [right

foreground]

Within the project area Phragmites appears to be able to thrive in a very varied range of conditions from fresh water through to very brackish ditches.

1.3.2 EM13: Bolboscheoenus maritimus

Like Phragmites Bolboscheoenus maritimus can be found in swampy areas, in standing water and is also relatively common in the intertidal zone. It does not appear to intermix with Phragmites. Either the Bolboscheoenus stands behind the reedbeds in the slighter drier water margins or as stands alternating with reedbeds within the ditches as in Photo 11 or in extensive pure stands as in Photo 12.

Photo 12: Bolbosceoenus maritimus as a matrix in very brackish standing water

In the intertidal zone Bolboscheoenus maritimus is an important part of the Aster tripolium pioneer saltmarsh community which is a transitional community between saltmarsh and brackish swamp where it is often found in association with Atriplex prostrata and Aster tripolium.

1.3.3 EM1Z: Other swamp vegetation

EM1Z is an inverse class that includes all swamp vegetation that does not fall with EM11 or EM13. This class is not found in the intertidal zone and for the most part includes species that have a low or no tolerance to brackish conditions and is thus more common on the wetter margins of the indicative tidal floodplain.

1.3.4 EM22: Inundation vegetation

Inundation vegetation EM22 is a very rare class almost entirely confined to the draw down zones of shallow water bodies. Though there may be floristic differences between the draw down zones of brackish and fresh water bodies, the habitat is so rare that there is little to be gained from attempting to do so.

PHOTO 13: Habitat class EM22 inundation vegetation: Queenborough, Sheppey

The habitat is dominated by ephemeral annuals and characterised by Persicaria spp., Bidens tripartite [Trifid Bur-marigold], Glyceria maxima [Reed Sweet-grass], Gnaphalium uliginosum [Marsh Cudweed], Mysotis scorpoides [Water Forget-me-not] and Rorippa spp.

1.3.5 EM3Z: Other fens

This is a rare habitat, 23.9 ha, usually associated with lowland seepage lines. The only significant occurrence is in the southern limits of the Graveney Marshes near Faversham. The classification and species data is derived from the KCC 2003 habitat data.

1.4 Eelgrass Beds 1.4.1 LS2: Seagrass beds

Seagrass beds, Zostera spp., are particularly difficult to map by airphoto interpretation as they can occur at very low densities and frequently intermixed with algae, particularly Enteromorpha. Whilst some small communities were found in the Hoo Flats and the nearby Stoke marshes they are difficult to map with confidence and as it very likely that Zostera occurs more frequently and is more widely

distributed than this habitat maps show. Surveyed Seagrass beds in the Thames Estuary found that the most abundant Zostera species, covering the vast majority of the exposed tidal muds and highest up the shoreline was Z.noltii. Less frequent and more abundant submerged in juvenile creeks crossing the flats was Zostera marina var marina. Previous surveys have indicated that Z.angustifolia occurs in similar situations to Z.noltii, but some botanists consider this species to be a narrow leaved version of Z.marina. Despite lots of variety every specimen checked appeared to be the Z.marina var marina. Z.marina was always submerged in creeks/depressions etc. Z.noltii exclusively dominated the fully exposed areas. It is of interest to note that Z. marina was not previously believed to occur in the intertidal zone. Photographic evidence suggests that marina anchorages are damaging the Zostera beds by the mooring chain effectively mowing the seagrass, see Photo 14 below.

PHOTO 14: Zostera beds, LS2: Mooring chain damage to Zostera [seagrass] beds 1.5 Coastal Saltmarsh 1.5.1 LS31: Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud

This pioneer community occupies a similar habitat to the very successful pioneer species, Spartina x spp. Spartina can colonise far further down the intertidal mud than Salicornia or Suaeda and appears to be a more opportunist species than Salicornia or Suaeda. Thus

LS31 is now quite scarce to find as a major pioneer community within the Thames/Medway/Swale Estuary and the Kentish Stour. It is mostly found within creeks and exposed or open pans where Spartina hasn’t penetrated. It does though form part of a significant under-story to many Spartina swards. Elsewhere on the South Coast where it is not competing with Spartina there are well developed Salicornia pioneer saltmarshes. They are common in the Adur at Shoreham. From aerial photography it is not possible to differentiate between Salicornia or Suaeda stands though they often appear as pure stands. Where this class has been field surveyed the habitat is usually mapped to a more specific class.

1.5.2 LS311: Salicornia spp. colonising mud and sand

Salicornia are a common species and widely distributed throughout the pioneer and low saltmarsh communities. With the spread of Spartina they are now less commonly found as pure stands and more frequently found in association with Spartina swards or as part of a more mixed low saltmarsh community. Photo 15 below shows a rare example of Salicornia colonising open mud, in the foreground and to the left, Spartina.

PHOTO 15: LS311: Salicornia spp. Colonising mud [centre] Spartina in foreground;

Yantlet Creek With Spartina taking up a significant proportion of the open mud suitable for colonisation by saltmarsh Salicornia spp. are more usually confined to the banks and internal features of rills and pans as shown in photo 15 below. The survey has only recorded some 4.4 ha of this habitat. Compare this with the figure of 593.7 ha for its competitor, Spartina.

Photo 16: LS311: Salicornia spp. on rill banks and open pans. Spartina present on the

low marsh 1.5.3 LS312: Suaeda maritima colonising mud and sand

Pure stands of Suaeda maritima colonising mud are extremely rare in the project area although it is a frequent plant in the low saltmarsh.

1.5.4 LS313: Aster tripolium colonising mud and sand

Aster tripolium appears to be a very versatile plant and can be found over a wide range of habitats. It is common in the low saltmarsh Puccinellia type and can also be found in significant numbers in the lower lying back marshes alongside the seawall. It can also be found as a pioneer species. As a pioneer species it can be found in two

distinct phases. A maritime phase is found in association with Salicornia spp and Suaeda maritima and a brackish phase forms a transition to a brackish swamp type in association with Bolboscheoenus maritima and Atriplex prostrata sometimes with Phragmites australis instead of Bolboscheoenus.

The maritime phase is very uncommon being mostly restricted to parts of Benfleet and Yantlet Creeks. The brackish type is more widely distributed throughout the brackish sections of tidal rivers and creeks. Where its width is so restricted that where it forms communities less than 5 metres wide it is more properly mapped as the marginal vegetation type EM214, marginal vegetation of brackish tidal watercourses.

1.5.5 LS32: Spartina swards

Spartina is the largest single saltmarsh type in the SRCMP project area totalling 1045 ha.

Photo 17:LS32: Spartina developing on muddy gravels in old barge bay; Higham marshes

Spartina commonly grows by clonal development forming circular mats as the rhizomes spread. Seed set appears to be sporadic in Spartina and expansion into new territory may be through trapped plant material. The plant appears to develop as readily in muddy gravels as in mud but no Spartina was noted within sandy sediments though this is a rare substrate in the upper intertidal zone. From observation in the Thames Estuary it would appear that there is a degree of overlap between the ranges of Spartina and Zostera noltii with field surveyors recording new Spartina mats forming in the upper reaches of the Zostera as a mixture of Spartina, Zostera n. and fucoids.

Photo 18: LS32: Spartina as a continuous sward. Some low marsh species

establishing in the sward, old bund on the right horizon; formerly grazing marsh; Nor Marshes.

Saltmarsh was classified as Spartina where Spartina was dominant. At the leading edge of new growth or newly colonised areas it is commonly found as dense monospecific stands. Where continuous swards are formed and away from the leading edge Salicornia spp may appear as an under storey and these are followed by a number of low saltmarsh community species including Suaeda maritima, Limonium vulgare [sea lavender] and Puccinellia maritima. Photo 18 above is a good example of this community. Where Spartina loses its dominance then it would be classed as a Transitional low marsh LS331. Where rills form in extensive Spartina swards the sequence of saltmarsh development appears to be a little different. On the edges of the rill, Atriplex portulacoides becomes established on the freer draining banks. This sequence is particularly noticeable in the Swale.

Behaviour of Spartina in Kent differs somewhat from Spartina swards observed in the aerial photography for the Hampshire harbours. Much of these Spartina swards are now either moribund or lost leaving

eroding mud platforms. However where healthy Spartina is still to be found there is little to suggest that there are transitional saltmarsh forming behind them. Where Puccinellia saltmarsh can be seen there is not usually a transition to Spartina but more often an abrupt change. This may suggest that these Puccinellia saltmarshes are relicts possibly predating the arrival of Spartina. A similar effect can be seen on the Medway Stoke Marshes where Spartina is expanding rapidly and the former residual mid and upper saltmarshes are forming islands in the sward. [See photo 26]

1.5.6 LS331: Transitional low marsh

Transitional low marsh is a successional saltmarsh community that usually follows from pioneer Spartina or Salicornia marsh. It does not have an NVC equivalent and exists as a mosaic of a number of NVC communities. Puccinellia maritima is often the most common species but the pioneer species Salicornia, Suaeda and Spartina are usually frequent. Atriplex portulacoides is usually rare or absent. This class is more commonly associated with new developing saltmarsh and its comparative rarity may give some indication of the status of the saltmarsh in the estuary. It should also be noted that this class is also found in the low lying back marshes where the conditions are frequently anoxic preventing the development of Atriplex portulacoides which is particularly sensitive to anoxic soil conditions. Low marsh in these conditions is often found with numerous small saline ponds, AS611, and pans.

PHOTO 19: LS331: Transitional low marsh; Burntwick Island

Extensive areas of LS331 as a successional community to the pioneer species are restricted to Shellness, the Lily Banks and Windmill Creek saltmarsh in South Sheppey along with smaller areas in Yantlet Creek , Isle of Grain and Holehaven Creek, Essex. This type is rare or absent in some saltmarshes in the South Coast Estuaries. Saltmarsh in the Adur at Shoreham and the Beaulieu River in Hampshire may be typical where the sediments may be a little coarser and the pioneer communities, frequently Salicornia, are replaced by Atriplex without the Puccinellia transitions.

1.5.7 LS332: Puccinellia maritima mid marsh

LS332 Puccinellia maritima mid marsh is the second largest saltmarsh community in the project area. It is very widely distributed. Higher up the intertidal zone than the LS331 class it is distinguished by the absence or scarcity of the pioneer species, Salicornia, Suaeda and Spartina and the increasing frequency of the mid marsh species Atriplex portulacoides. At the upper limits of its range it can include infrequent or patchy Festuca rubra, Agrostis stolonifera and Juncus gerardii.

PHOTO 20: LS332: Puccinellia maritima mid marsh; Colemouth Creek 1.5.8 LS333: Atriplex portulacoides mid marsh

Atriplex portulacoides mid marsh LS333 is a common saltmarsh type. It is usually found on the edge of rills where the soil conditions are less anoxic and frequently forms a narrow band with either the Puccinellia mid marsh or transitional low marsh behind. Although a halophyte the plant strongly dislikes anoxic conditions and thus is found where soils are freer draining or have a better developed soil. The sediments in the Thames estuary are usually very fine and compact readily and in these circumstances Atriplex is usually confined to the rill margins. Atriplex is common in the back marshes of Shellness where the sediment may be coarser and is found over extensive areas of the former grazing marsh in the Medway estuary islands. These were formerly grazing marsh with sea defence structures that were breached. The first were probably breached in the late nineteenth century whilst the last may have occurred in the 1953 storms. Some of these islands

have extensive areas of Atriplex cover, see photo 21 below, the linear ditches of the former drainage systems still very much in evidence.

PHOTO 21: LS333: Atriplex portulacoides mid marsh; Greenborough Marshes, Medway

The Medway islands are notable for the appearance of extensive areas of mixed Atriplex – Spartina although found elsewhere in the South Coast, it occurs for example in the Beaulieu River in Hampshire, it is very unusual indeed in the Thames Estuary. Spartina is a pioneer species whilst Atriplex over extensive areas is usually a mid marsh species. As this combination does not appear to occur in the Thames/Medway estuary other than on the converted grazing marsh the soil conditions may be rather different from the “naturally” formed marsh. Atriplex portulacoides saltmarsh is not as widely distributed as the Puccinellia mid marsh community and is largely confined to the most maritime sections of the estuary and with no extensive areas occurring upriver of the St Mary’s Island in the Medway.

1.5.9 LS334: Aster tripolium low marsh

Aster tripolium [Sea aster] is a very versatile plant that appears to cope with a very varied range of environments. Whilst frequently found as a

dominant pioneer species it can also occur in the back marshes where low marsh occurs frequently at the foot of sea walls. It is not clear whether these low marshes are created naturally by settlement of the marsh soils or result from clay extraction or borrow pits for the sea wall construction. These low lying sections are frequently colonised by Sea aster particularly in the brackish mid reaches of the tidal rivers.

1.5.10 LS34: Mediterranean saltmeadows

The upper salt meadow classes are very difficult to discern through API as they can look very much like coarse grasslands. The presence of Juncus maritima is very helpful since it is reasonably distinctive but differentiating between Festuca rubra saltmarsh and Elytrigia atherica saltmarsh is problematic unless the photography is sufficiently late in the year for the Elytrigia to develop its very distinctive glossy blue/grey colour. Where the saltmarsh is grazed then it is extremely difficult even if the photography is taken at the optimum time of the year otherwise the class can only be inferred from the presence of rills and small saline ponds. Where this class had been identified by API it was given the highest priority for field survey as it is such a rare type. Thus the bulk of this class was re-assigned to one of the following three sub-classes.

1.5.11 LS341: Festuca rubra upper saltmarsh

Festuca rubra upper saltmarsh is an extremely rare saltmarsh in the Thames/Medway/Swale estuaries. The only significant sized example of this class is adjacent to the Medway M2 Bridge in Borstal, Kent, see photo 22 below. Possibly it may be the only sizeable example in Kent. Though there maybe further examples in the Stour.

PHOTO 22: LS341: Festuca rubra upper saltmarsh; River Medway, Borstal

Outside of Kent this type is more common and was seen in the Havant and Beaulieu Rivers. It is possible that the LS34 sub-types have a more westerly distribution than the LS33 sub-types.

1.5.12 LS342: Juncus maritimus upper saltmarsh

Another very rare upper saltmarsh of which the only site recorded In Kent is a couple of very small areas in the upper sections of Yantlet Creek. As with LS341 this type appears to have a more westerly distribution and was seen in Hampshire

1.5.13 LS343: Juncus maritimus-Triglochin maritima saltmarsh

Another exceptionally rare upper saltmarsh type with no recorded examples in Kent. It may occur in small isolated areas too small to map as shown in photo 23 below. Here there is a small area of Triglochin saltmarsh, the Juncus maritimus can be seen in the middle foreground, behind is Atriplex portulacoides mid marsh with a new sea wall beyond.

PHOTO 23: LS343: Juncus Maritimus-Triglochin maritima saltmarsh; Dagnam Marshes

This type can only be mapped with certainty by field survey as it does not have sufficiently distinctive features to identify using aerial photography. Again this type may be more common in the west and may provide larger examples that do have a distinctive image signature.

1.5.14 LS37: Elytrigia atherica upper marsh

Elytrigia atherica is usually confined to the upper saltmarsh and is a frequent component of sea wall grasslands. In the mid saltmarsh it can often be found in association with Atriplex. Where low lying old bund structures exist within saltmarsh they are often populated by Elytrigia atherica. Where features are somewhat higher and have little saline exposure the Elytrigia usually forms a narrow band at the base of the feature with coarse neutral grasses above. In the more brackish sections of tidal reaches Elytrigia is more widely distributed and appears to occur at lower levels seemingly taking the place of the Atriplex community. There are extensive areas of Elytrigia saltmarsh in the brackish reaches, where it can be found with Bolboscheoenus and the Aster tripolium pioneer community.

PHOTO 24: LS37: Elytrigia atherica saltmarsh; Colemouth Creek 1.5.15 LS3Z: Other saltmarsh

An inverse saltmarsh class for those saltmarsh whose species composition or location does not fit any other class. This has a very limited usage being almost totally confined to saltmarsh found on the terrestrial side of the sea defences sometimes associated with old dredged finings lagoons and land fill with saline sediments.

1.5.16 Saltmarsh comment

There are very distinct differences between the maritime saltmarsh communities and those in the brackish zone. Though, for the most part in Kent and Sussex, both zones are confined by defence structures such that upper saltmarsh communities are very rare in either. In the maritime zone the Upper saltmarsh is usually Elytrigia atherica either on a low bund or part of a sea wall. Next is usually Atriplex portulacoides then the two Puccinellia types with a leading edge of Spartina. There can be variations with the Atriplex developing along rill edges and the low lying pans populated by Salicornia. For the greater part the role of Salicornia as the main pioneer species has been overtaken by Spartina.

In the brackish zone the Atriplex is replaced by Elytrigia. The Puccinellia may still be present but often with Bolboscheoenus and Elytrigia. The Spartina is replaced by Bolboscheoenus and the transitional marsh by an Aster tripolium/Bolboscheoenus/Atriplex prostrata community. Much of the leading edge of the more exposed low and mid marsh communities in the Thames show cantilevered cliffed edges, see photo 25 below, with fallen mud blocks below typical of eroding saltmarsh. The edges often exhibit evidence of wave erosion in the form of damaged vegetation and circular or linear scour pits. Elsewhere, notably at Canvey point, retreating marsh cliffs are capped by shell or coarse sand/gravel ridges. The saltmarsh at Higham are estimated to be retreating at the rate of 1-2 metres a year and for substantial sections the saltmarsh has been lost exposing the footings of the sea wall. See photo 8. In the Medway similar erosion has taken place with similar cliffed structures on the exposed edges of most of the islands converted to saltmarsh. These have also suffered a degree of internal disintegration, exacerbated by the former drainage structures that leave a very distinctive grid-iron erosion pattern. In the Stoke marshes where there has been considerable erosion since the mid 19th century the appearance of Spartina has had a significant impact.

PHOTO 25: Recent Spartina growth in front of wave cut eroding edge of Puccinellia

mid marsh; Higham Marshes

As Spartina can colonise sediment at lower levels than Salicornia and tolerate coarser sediments, see photo 25 above, the introduction of vigorous hybrids has seen mats of new Spartina growth develop across much of the estuary and frequently at lower levels than the existing saltmarsh. In the Stoke Marshes, Spartina has spread rapidly over much of the intertidal and grown right to the foot of the cliffed edge of the old eroding mid saltmarsh. See photo 26 below. As can be seen in the photo the old eroding edge now has vegetation whilst an unprotected cliffed edge is just visible centre right. Whilst the Spartina appears to be preventing erosion there is no evidence from the field survey to suggest that in the Stoke Marshes there has been any significant development of the successional transitional marsh as has been the case in the Swale.

PHOTO 26: Dense Spartina swards [left of photo] protecting a former wave cut eroding

edge of mid marsh [centre]; Colemouth Creek

Although the project was not studying change the need to use more than one period of photography for the interpretation in the Medway Estuary led to the observation that where conditions are favourable for Spartina it will grow at a remarkable rate. Spartina mats have in some places spread at a rate exceeding 1 metre a year.

Spartina dieback, common in some of the longest established Spartina swards on the south coast, was not observed in the Thames/Medway/Swale. The saltmarsh succession in the Sussex river estuaries differed from those in Kent. Here Spartina was largely absent and the pioneer species was usually Salicornia and these were rapidly replaced by Atriplex. In these locations Puccinellia type saltmarsh was rare or absent. Possibly this could be explained by differences in the sediment type between these locations and the extremely fine sediment found in the Thames Estuary that creates a soil unsuited to Atriplex. Hampshire and the Isle of Wight appear to have fewer defence structures and this may explain why upper saltmarsh habitats are more common but it is also possible that the wetter climate may have some impact on the saltmarsh succession. The Elytrigia atherica saltmarsh, LS37, is the most common upper saltmarsh in the South East. However it is noticeable less common in the west of the region where it is possible that this class is replaced by Festuca rubra upper saltmarsh. The two classes are rather difficult to tell apart by API and they may become confused in the west.

1.6 Coastal Vegetated Shingle

Shingle is widely distributed and relatively common on the South Coast from Deal through to the Solent and Isle of Wight. For the greater part it is formed of a narrow band of unvegetated shingle [SS3Z] frequently in front of defence structures. Much of the shingle is used for recreation and thus disturbed which together with the lack of breadth prevents the development of vegetation with the possible exception of drift line vegetation and these are very ephemeral and usually too narrow to see on air photography. The Natural England definition for shingle, sediment particles ranging from 2mm to 200mm, posses problems for both airphoto interpretation and field survey. Shingle features composed of 20mm material are indistinguishable from dunes from the air and floristically shingle with well developed soils are very similar to decalcified dunes. In the field the distinction can only be made where the substrate is revealed either by erosion or through rabbit activity. It is not uncommon to find shingle beaches backed by dune structures. For Kent the extensive vegetated shingle at Dungeness had been mapped in detail in 1989 and completely revised using aerial photography in 2003 and republished using the IHS code as part of the KCC 2004 habitat survey. At that time all vegetated shingle fell under one of two classes, Perennial vegetation of stony banks [SS311] or

Annual vegetation of Drift lines [SS312]. For SRCMP the class SS311 has been completely overhauled to correlate more closely to the original 1989 survey and subsequent field visits to Dungeness and Rye Harbour and observed vegetation differences distinguishable from air photography. The SRCMP mapping for shingle at Dungeness is significantly more detailed than the 2003 KCC habitat data.

1.6.1 SS311: Perennial vegetation of stony banks

This class was restricted to sites where data quality precluded interpretation to a class lower in the hierarchy.

1.6.2 SS3111: Shingle successional vegetation

PHOTO 27: SS3111: Shingle successional vegetation; Rye Harbour

A transitional shingle type between drift line communities dominated by Beta vulgaris and other annuals and heathland communities. It is relatively common and widely distributed and may also be associated with disturbed shingle. It is usually dominated by Arrhenatherum elatius and may include Galium mollugo and Senecio visosus. It is found over extensive areas of the shingle at Rye Harbour where it may be interspersed with strips of shingle heathland. In Dungeness it forms a significant habitat between the pioneer annual vegetation and the heaths. It can be found in numerous locations along the South Coast frequently as small fragmented habitats and occasionally as a fringing habitat at the boundary between shingle and dune structures.

The Arrhenatherum cover can be very sparse, less than 10%, and still be considered vegetated shingle. At such low percentage cover it can be very hard to distinguish from aerial photography. It’s presence can sometimes be inferred where a footpath or disturbance in the shingle shows a tonal edge. It is likely that this class would be under represented in any area statistics.

1.6.3 SS3112: Shingle heathland communities

PHOTO 28: SS3112: Shingle heathland community; Shingle scrub community to right

background; Dungeness

Shingle heathland communities are a very significant habitat in Dungeness covering very extensive areas. Elsewhere it is less common. It is present in Rye harbour where the shingle is under careful management to develop this habitat and a significant proportion of the successional shingle is clearly in transition to heathland. There are also well developed heathlands on the shingle at Pagham Harbour. It can occur in small areas usually rather fragmented through out the coastal shingle along the length of the south coast where the shingle is not exposed to frequent disturbance.

1.6.4 SS3113: Shingle mesotrophic vegetation

PHOTO 29: SS3113: Shingle mesotrophic vegetation; Shingle scrub community to

background; Dungeness

This class usually occurs where the shingle has received some soil enrichment. It is quite common along roadsides or where domestic gardens abut vegetated shingle. It may also be a response to shingle disturbance.

1.6.5 SS3114: Shingle scrub communities

These communities appear where a more mature soil develops on shingle or where the shingle is at its minimum grain size. It can be a common invasive scrub on unmanaged shingle acid grasslands and occurs in this location on some of the back shingle ridges at Rye Harbour. In Dungeness it can be a common invasive encroaching from the margins of shingle structures. Though frequently the scrub is Ulex europaeous at Dungeness there are also areas of dense Prunus spinosa scrub.

1.6.6 SS3115: Shingle acid grassland

PHOTO 30: SS3115: Shingle acid grassland; Rye Harbour

This is a classic “Breckland” type grassland found on both shingle and decalcified dunes that have a freely draining but well developed soil. It is prone to invasion by calcifuge scrub types if left unmanaged. It is exceptionally rare in Kent found only in a few isolated old shingle features near Lydd. There are more extensive areas in Rye harbour in the proximity of Camber Castle though these could not be mapped as there was no airphoto cover.

1.6.7 SS312: Annual vegetation of drift lines

PHOTO 31: SS312: Annual vegetation of drift lines; Dungeness

Possibly the commonest and most widely distributed vegetated shingle type throughout the region and found where ever shingle occurs providing the shingle is reasonably undisturbed.

It is possible that this I.H.S. class has been incorrectly used. Though the description makes a reference to Beta vulgaris as a defining species the references to Orache and Honckenya would suggest that this class should more correctly refer to the driftline proper. The driftline community is ephemeral, rarely more than a metre wide and does not appear every year. It has not been seen on aerial photography and thus not mapped. Therefore this class has been consistently applied throughout the project area but it may be more appropriate to create a new class, Shingle pioneer communities, under the SS311 class and reclassify the recorded SS312 habitat. The highly fragmented and discontinuous nature of this habitat make consistent mapping of the boundaries between this class and unvegetated shingle impossible therefore area statistics relating to this class are likely to be inconsistent.

1.7 Coastal Sand Dunes 1.7.1 SS11: Embryonic shifting dunes

This class is usually too small to map from aerial photographs and thus requires field survey.

1.7.2 SS111: Embryonic shifting dunes with Ammophila arenaria

A very ephemeral habitat and difficult to map from aerial photographs. It is present as a very narrow fragmented band at the foot of shifting dunes

1.7.3 SS112: Embryonic shifting dunes with Elytrigia juncea

A very ephemeral habitat and difficult to map from air photographs. It is present as a very narrow fragmented band but usually not associated with the shifting dune community but with the coarser sand deposits sometimes about shingle. In this type in Thames Estuary Ammophila is absent and replaced by Elytrigia juncea otherwise the plant community is very similar to SS111

1.7.4 SS12:Shifting dunes with Ammophila arenaria [white dunes]

PHOTO 32: SS12: Shifting dunes with Ammophila arenaria; Camber, East Sussex 1.7.5 SS13: Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation [grey dunes]

A very widely distributed group and possibly the most common dune type with extensive areas in Sandwich, and a common feature of back dunes with shingle foreshores or behind white dunes [see photo35 background]. Though found throughout the SRCMP area they appear to be narrower in the west where the transitions to decalcified types appear more rapidly than they do in the east. Although the Sandwich dune structures are very broad only those structures most distant from the shoreline are beginning to show transitions to decalcification with the occasional appearance of Sheep sorrel.

1.7.6 SS1411: Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes [Calluna-Ulicetea]

This type is absent from Kent and appears to have a more westerly distribution and is it relatively common in the Solent, where it may occur close to the shore, and on the South Hayling golf course. The following class, acid grassland, maybe a transitional type to this class.

1.7.7 SS1412: Atlantic decalcified fixed dune acid grassland

PHOTO 33: SS1411 & SS1412: Decalcified dunes, Calluna [left] and acid grassland Types [right]; West Solent, Hampshire

This is a common type in the Solent but maybe a transitional type to heathland. The photograph above shows that the two decalcified types can create distinct classes. It is only known in Kent from one example at Greatstone Golf Course.

1.7.8 SS16: Dunes with Sea buckthorn [Hippophae rhamnoides]

A relatively common habitat on the Kent dunes particularly on the dunes at Greatstone with further fragmented occurrences on the dune formations at Sandwich. Elsewhere there are extensive areas on the dunes at Camber, East Sussex.

PHOTO 34: SS16: Dunes with Sea buckthorn [Hippophae rhamnoides] Camber, East Sussex 1.7.9 SS17: Humid dune slacks

Humid dune slacks are a very uncommon habitat in the project area. They were present in the Sandwich dune structure but atypical and given this class largely on the basis of having the rare Sharp Rush present. They have not been recorded elsewhere but may only be identified by field survey.

1.7.10 WB21: Scrub woodland on dunes

PHOTO 35: WB21: Scrub woodland on dunes, grey dunes in background, Camber, East Sussex

Scrub woodland forming on dune structures are not considered to be part of the BAP dune habitat and therefore do not fall under the dune SS1 hierarchy. However they have potential for creating dune habitat by scrub clearance and thus have been handled separately from other scrub woodland as a new class. They are a common invasive on decalcified dunes, particularly Ulex. A significant proportion of the decalcified dune structures on the coast of Hampshire and Sussex are a mosaic of acid grassland, Calluna heath and Ulex scrub.

1.8 Saline Lagoon

This class cannot be determined by API as it requires some connectivity with the sea and a tidal influence. The water should be saline. These criteria can only be reliably determined by field survey.

1.9 Littoral and Sub-littoral Chalk

Littoral chalk is found extensively in conjunction with chalk cliffs on the Kent and Sussex coast and on the Isle of Wight. However dense cover by algae usually makes differentiation between chalk and other littoral rock rather difficult and so rock type is often inferred from the adjacent cliffs. The boundary between the chalk and other littoral rock cannot be accurately defined without field survey. Sub-littoral chalk has a similar distribution but can’t be mapped as the water sediment load in most cases, particularly in Kent, renders the sea too opaque to permit interpretation. Elsewhere the water quality may be good enough to make out the seabed but not with sufficient clarity to distinguish between chalk and other sub-littoral rock or indeed dense algae.

ANNEX 2 5.2.3 Key to Grasslands in the Study Area. 1 a. The grassland occurs on a SEA/RIVER WALL 2 b. The grassland does NOT occur on a sea/river wall 3 2 Sea Wall Grasslands a. At least TWO of the following indicator species occur

frequently: dittander, zig-zag clover, narrow-leaved birds-foot trefoil, knotted hedge-parsley, grass vetchling, sea clover, fenugreek, bur chervil, strawberry clover, divided sedge, sea barley, saltmarsh grasses and/or slender hare's-ear

GN6 Sea Wall

Grassland (Species-rich)

b. The above species are ABSENT or occur rarely, the sward is typically SPECIES-POOR

GN6 Sea Wall

Grassland 3 a. The sward appears MANAGED, is short to medium in height,

and forms part of the typical agricultural landscape, or is an amenity grassland* 5

b. The sward appears UNAMANGED, and includes extensive patches of tall ruderals/grasses and/or very short open turf with numerous ephemeral herbs. It is often present on neglected/peripheral agricultural land or abandoned industrial sites 7

5 a. The sward is obviously IMPROVED, with less than 5 species

of grass occurring frequently, and VERY FEW associated herbs present

GIO Improved Grassland

b. The sward is NOT obviously improved, with at least 5 species of grass occurring frequently, and/or TWO of the following indicator species occurring frequently: common bird’s-foot trefoil, common knapweed, ox-eye daisy, bulbous buttercup, grass vetchling, spiny rest-harrow, narrow-leaved bird’s-foot trefoil, strawberry clover, lesser hawkbit, lesser stitchwort, sea clover, hairy buttercup and/or divided sedge 6

6 Grazing Marsh a. The sward appears largely unimproved in character with at

least TWO of the following species occurring frequently: narrow-leaved bird’s-foot trefoil, common bird’s-foot trefoil, strawberry clover, hairy buttercup, spiny rest-harrow, meadow barley, saltmarsh rush, divided sedge, sea clover or grass vetchling

GN4 Grazing Marsh

b. The sward is semi-improved in character and retains some floristic interest, but the above species are absent or occur only rarely

GN4Z Other Grazing

Marsh 7 Unmanaged Coarse Grasslands a. The sward is COARSE and dominated by one, or a mixture GN31

of, the following tall grasses/rushes/ruderals: false oat-grass, tufted hair-grass, tall fescue, common couch, hard rush or soft rush, nettle, and/or creeping thistle

Rank Grassland

b. The sward typically comprises a variety of sward structures and textures, but often includes significant areas of very short/bare ground which are often rich in ephemeral/ruderal herbs. Characteristic species include: hemlock, tall yellow cabbages, bugloss, vipers bugloss, fodder vetch, Vulpia spp., teasel, centaury species, goats-rue.

GN31 Rank Grassland

(post-industrial?) 8 Managed Coarse Grasslands a. The sward is COARSE and dominated by one, or a mixture

of, the following tall grasses/rushes:Yorkshire Fog,, Tufted Hair-grass, : false oat-grass often with hard rush or soft rush,

GN32 Tussocky

Grassland * Extensive stands of creeping thistle, e.g. where it is dominant, in over-grazed pastures should be classified as GN31. Smaller or large, but patchy stands should be classified according to the underlying grassland with the tall ruderal box ticked.

Annex 3 Habitat Tool

Installation and user guide for Habitat Tool version v2.1.14 [16.02.07] Habitat Tool Overview The Habitat Tool is a ArcMap application that will run inside ESRI Arcmap version 8.3+ and requires ArcMap Arcview and Microsoft .net version 2. The software does not work with ESRI data viewer products ArcPad or ArcExplorer. The tool is designed to be used with data in ArcMap personal geo-databases with a Feature dataset called Habitat_survey containing a feature class called survey_poly together with a geodatabase table called survey_species. Each table and feature class has required fields with set definitions. The install disk for the tool includes an empty personal geo-database [master2006v2.mdb] with the required structure for users who wish to create new databases for use with the Habitat Tool. Users can add further fields to any of the tables as required but must not delete fields found in the master2006v2.mdb. The installation disk may also contain later versions of the master lookup.mdb that contains all the habitat coding and translations and the latest version of the EA version of the I.H.S. brief definitions html document. The purpose of these files will be explained in the section on Habitat Tool updates. Habitat Tool installation The installation cd contains two installation wizards as executable files for system installation these are dotnetfx.exe and setup_v2.1.4 [or later versions]. The first [dotnetfx.exe ] is for users that do not have Microsoft .net version 2 or later already installed. The second [setup_v2.1.4] is the installation wizard for the habitat tool. Microsoft .net must be installed before the habitat tool. Users who have previous versions of the habitat tool installed should uninstall that version before installing version v2.1.4. The habitat installation loads the ArcMap custom application and creates a new directory that contains the master lookup table [lookup.mdb] and the I.H.S. brief definitions. The users can define where they would like these to be located or accept the default location. The default location may differ with different operating systems. With windows XP users this would normally be C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Vapidia Ltd\Habitat Capture\2.1.4 In windows2000 the location is usually under the windows directory. The installation requires no input from the installer other than setting the software location if the default is not appropriate.

Loading the Habitat Tool in ArcMap Once the software is installed the Habitat Tool custom application needs to be loaded to the ArcMap toolbar. To do this open Arcmap and on the top bar select, tools-customise.

On the customise panel select the commands tab.

Select Custom Apps and in the right hand window you should see a double flower symbol and Habitat Capture.

Click and drag the symbol from the commands and place onto one of the toolbar boxes [not on the grey background] behind the tool boxes. I usually place it next to the add data symbol but it does not have to be placed there. It is advisable that you use one of the toolbars that you always have turned on. You should now see the double flower symbol on the toolbar. Clicking on the symbol starts up the Habitat Tool. Using the Habitat Tool The tool itself contains numerous tooltips that are activated as the mouse passes over any of the boxes and text. The tool tips explain what each element is and what it does. The tool is designed to be completely self-explanatory and doesn’t require a separate user guide all instructions are built into the tool.

There are some elements that the user should be aware of when using the tool. When the tool is activated the software looks for a feature dataset that has the correct name and contains the required database items. It effectively links the lookup table in the master lookup.mdb with the FIRST layer in the layer source list that meets these criteria. If the habitat tool is activated with no data present that meets the structure criteria then the fields in the tool will be greyed out and a habitat tool error message maybe returned. If the habitat tool is activated and the data present is in the old version of the habitat data the tool will recognise the format and ask if you wish to convert the data to the new version. Clicking on yes makes a backup version of the old copy and another copy in the latest version with the same name as the original mdb. Old versions of .mdbs are recognisable by the presence of several tables in the Feature dataset these include list_habitat and xref_habitat amongst others. The new format should only contain the table survey_species. The tool does not require the layer to be in edit mode to update values this can be done outside of editing however the layer has to be edit mode if the user wishes to change the geometry of the layer not just the attributes. Care should be taken if using the habitat tool with more than one habitat mdb loaded. The tool will always link to the one on the top of the list [that meets the database criteria] the first time it is activated. This link stays with this layer even if the layer is subsequently moved further down the layer list and the tool is closed and reopened. This is because the tool builds database links between the habitat mdb and the lookup mdb and these links appear to be retained in the temporary mxd files. Changing the edit layer and saving edits appears to confuse the tool, the software will select the new polygon but the tool remains greyed out as it does not see the selection since it is still linked to a different layer. Switching between editable layers may cause the capture tool to hang and require ArcMap to be restarted. Habitat Tool updates These may take two forms either as a software revision and will have a new version number [currently v2.1.4] to install upgrades the old version should be uninstalled [go to:- all programs/habitat capture2.1.4/uninstall] and the new executable file for the new version should then be run. Please note that this will write new versions of the lookup.mdb and the I.H.S brief definitions and existing versions will be lost. If you have made modifications to either file that you wish to retain please ensure that you have backed up these files before uninstalling the older habitat tool. Aside from software revisions there may be occasional changes either to the I.H.S. codes and the lookup tables. These would be released as individual

files and those in the install directory would need to be replaced with the new files. Please note that depending on the installation the path names in the new HTML document may not be correct and may have to be changed using find and replace. Using layer files for drawing map legends The data is supplied with a master legend layer file that will draw a legend based on the habitat and management codes. To use this layer the file must be first copied to the new workspace and then renamed that can be more easily linked to the mdb file that you wish to draw using this legend layer. Once renamed the layer has to be loaded in ArcCatalog and the Properties tab opened [right click on layer and scroll down to properties]. Select and open the “Source” tab.

Click on the “set data source” button and browse to the mdb you wish to draw using the layer file. Open the mdb, then open the habitat_survey feature class and then double click on the feature dataset “survey_poly”. This should now link the layer file to the mdb. When opening ArcMap load the layer file not the mdb. The data should now load using the symbols from the layer file.

Please note that the legend file is not exhaustive and there will be instances where polygons will appear empty and draw with a red boundary. Check using the information button that there are valid codes for habitat and management if there are, then they need to be added to the legend using the layer properties. Note that any changes are not automatically saved to the layer file. If you save edit it only saves attribute data or geometry changes. Save file only saves changes to the map [MXD] file not to the layer. To save changes to the legend in the layer file you have to right click the layer in the table of contents and save as a layer file using the same name and overwriting the previous copy.