Devon Birds - South Huish Nature Reserve Management Plan ... · 3 Devon Birds - South Huish Nature Reserve Management Plan 2017-2021, Version 1.0, December 2016 ii. Introduction South

0

Devon Birds - South Huish Nature Reserve Management Plan 2017-2021, Version 1.0, December 2016

Published by Devon Birds

[email protected]

www.devonbirds.org

Registered Charity 228966

© 2017 Devon Birds

1


“The future of life on earth depends on our ability to take action. Many individuals are

doing what they can, but real success can only come if there's a change in our societies

and our economics and in our politics. . . . . Surely we have a responsibility to leave for

future generations a planet that is healthy, inhabitable by all species.”

David Attenborough.

2


i. Foreword

Devon Birds was formed in 1928 as the County bird conservation organisation and was known as Devon

Birdwatching & Preservation Society until 2014. Its constitution includes the objective “to further the study

of birds in the field and to assist in their conservation” and to support the latter it has been purchasing

small areas of land of conservation value since 1976. To date the number of reserves owned or managed

by Devon Birds has increased to nine and covers a total of 64ha.

South Huish Nature Reserve is a small coastal grazing marsh, which regularly floods in winter and supports

a diverse community of passage and wintering birds and a smaller number of breeding species. It has been

managed informally by Devon Birds since 1980 and formally, by agreement with successive landowners,

since 1995. During that time, the variety of species and number of birds recorded annually using the

reserve has more than doubled. The total number of species recorded at the site now stands at an

impressive 206 and the reserve has become increasingly popular with both local and visiting bird-watchers,

many of whom will be unaware of the historical improvements and ongoing management required to

achieve the current diversity.

The first management plan was drawn up and agreed in 1995 and formed the basis of developing the

reserve for the conservation of birds and other wildlife. This new plan goes further by drawing together all

of the reports and documents produced in hard copy since then to provide a much more detailed

description of the reserve’s history, development and current features. The Management Objectives and

Annual Work Plan sections set out the guiding principles to ensure that the reserve is managed responsibly

and monitored appropriately and will be in regular use for many years to come.

The plan recognises and celebrates successes within the reserve and clearly sets out the challenges for the

future and how they will be overcome. Whilst the conservation of habitat must remain the top priority, the

aspirations of bird-watchers for improved viewpoints and the potential that the site has for positive

engagement with the wider public have not been ignored in the document and both are included as

objectives for discussion with the current landowners. The green spaces of Devon are vital for everyone

and it is important that we are not complacent about our cherished nature reserves but continue to strive

to conserve and improve them.

Kevin Cox (Chairman)

Devon Birds

June 2017

3


ii. Introduction

South Huish Nature Reserve contains an area of coastal and floodplain grazing marsh, a scarce habitat in

Devon, and is of particular importance for its community of wintering birds and for the variety of species

using the site on passage. Its proximity to the sea is unique in south Devon and frequently keeps the marsh

ice-free in severe winters, providing a welcome refuge for wildfowl and waders, when similar habitat,

associated with the estuaries or floodplains of the larger rivers in the county, is frozen. The second largest

of the three nature reserves owned or managed by Devon Birds in the South Hams, the reserve has been

administered by them since 1994 and is currently managed by agreement with the National Trust, who

own the site and adjacent farmland.

Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh is an entirely man-made habitat and, as such, requires continued

management to achieve a balance of water levels, drainage and grazing by livestock to prevent a natural

succession through reed swamp and scrub and ultimately to wet woodland. When wildlife interest is the

primary objective, constant fine adjustments are required to maintain the site in optimum condition

throughout the year.

The original management plan for this site was drafted in 1995 by Peter Stevens and was designed to assist

managers in prioritising and executing the tasks required both to maintain and to improve the habitats

within the reserve. It is of credit to Peter that his original protocols for grazing, drainage and water levels

remain largely unchanged, although refined through experience.

This updated plan details current management practices and the rationale behind them and aims to

provide the focus and direction of management of the site for nature conservation and public engagement

for the next five-year period, 2017-2021. The original plan contained background details, which are still

relevant today and the 1995 plan remains an essential reference document.

A complete re-write of the plan could have excluded much of this information and still provided a

management plan fit for purpose, leaving the original data and information as an archived document.

However, much of the material referred to in the first plan has become increasingly difficult to locate and

access, so this updated plan, together with a digital library of reference material, will enable the original

document to form the backbone of a valuable one-stop resource of information about the site and its

history and past management.

The first plan was relatively compact but information and observations, made in subsequent years, have

resulted in a lengthier document. Those readers whose principal interest is in the management objectives,

rationales and annual work plan should proceed directly to Chapter 8, which is also available as a separate

summary plan.

I am grateful to Vic Tucker, Mike Passman, Alan Doidge and Arthur Livett, who scrutinised the bird species

lists and made corrections and additions, and also to Emma Reece, National Trust Ranger for the site, who

provided copies of relevant National Trust documents. Finally, I am indebted to Bob Burridge, Vic Tucker

and Nick Townsend for providing a wealth of historical information, both hard copy and anecdotal, without

which my task would have been much more difficult if not impossible.

Alan Pomroy, April 2017

4


Contents

i. Foreword 2

ii. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Plan summary .................................................................................................................................... 7

2. Legislation & policy ............................................................................................................................ 8

2.1 Legislation .................................................................................................................................. 8

2.2 Policies ........................................................................................................................................ 8

3. Description 9

3.1 Site location & relevant authorities ........................................................................................... 9

3.2 Statutory, planning & other designations ................................................................................ 11

3.3 Floral zones .............................................................................................................................. 11

3.4 Tenure ...................................................................................................................................... 12

3.5 Status of the site ...................................................................................................................... 12

3.6 Relationships with any other plans or strategies ..................................................................... 12

3.6.1 UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) ..................................................................................... 12

3.6.2 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 ...................................... 13

3.6.3 Devon Biodiversity and Geodiversity Action Plan ............................................................ 13

3.6.4 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty ............................................................................... 13

3.6.5 The South West Coast Path National Trail ........................................................................ 13

4. Management and organisational infrastructure ............................................................................. 14

4.1 Site infrastructure .................................................................................................................... 14

4.2 Map coverage ........................................................................................................................... 16

4.3 Photographic coverage ............................................................................................................ 16

5. Environmental information ............................................................................................................. 18

5.1 Physical ..................................................................................................................................... 18

5.2 Climate ..................................................................................................................................... 18

5.3 Geology and geomorphology ................................................................................................... 18

5.4 Hydrology /drainage................................................................................................................. 21

5.6 Water balance .......................................................................................................................... 22

5.7 Biological .................................................................................................................................. 23

5.7.1 Flora .................................................................................................................................. 23

5.7.2 Fungi .................................................................................................................................. 27

5.7.3 Fauna ................................................................................................................................. 27

5.7.4 Alien / invasive pest species ............................................................................................. 42

5


5.8 Cultural ..................................................................................................................................... 42

5.8.1 Archaeology ...................................................................................................................... 42

5.8.1.3 Post Medieval Period ................................................................................................... 43

5.8.2 Past land use ..................................................................................................................... 44

5.8.3 Present land use ................................................................................................................ 46

6. Past management for nature conservation .................................................................................... 49

6.1 The chronology of major management and other events ....................................................... 51

7. Access and current use .................................................................................................................... 61

7.1. Access to the site ...................................................................................................................... 61

7.2 Access within the site ............................................................................................................... 61

7.3 The reasons why people visit the site ...................................................................................... 62

7.3.1 Wildlife attractions ........................................................................................................... 62

7.3.2 Other features that attract people ................................................................................... 62

7.4 Interpretation provisions ......................................................................................................... 62

7.5 Educational use ........................................................................................................................ 62

7.6 Academic research ................................................................................................................... 63

8. Management plan 2017-2021 ......................................................................................................... 64

8.1 Site evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 64

8.1.1 Identification of Important Features ................................................................................ 64

8.1.2 Summary description of Important Features ................................................................... 64

8.2 Site ideal management outcomes ........................................................................................... 66

8.3 Objectives and rationale .......................................................................................................... 67

8.3.1 Objective 1 - Ditches ......................................................................................................... 67

8.3.2 Objective 2 - Water levels ................................................................................................. 69

8.3.3 Objective 3 - Grazing ......................................................................................................... 70

8.3.4 Objective 4 - Scrapes ......................................................................................................... 73

8.3.5 Objective 5 - Water Voles ................................................................................................. 75

8.3.6 Objective 6 - Infrastructure............................................................................................... 77

8.3.7 Objective 7 - Disturbance.................................................................................................. 77

8.3.8 Objective 8 - Viewing points ............................................................................................. 80

8.3.9 Objective 9 - Public engagement ...................................................................................... 81

8.3.10 Objective 10 - Monitoring ................................................................................................. 82

8.3.11 Objective 11 - Data storage and retrieval ......................................................................... 82

8.4 Constraints ............................................................................................................................... 83

6


8.5 Annual work plan ..................................................................................................................... 84

8.5.1 Habitat conservation and protection................................................................................ 84

8.5.2 Reserve infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 86

8.5.3 Disturbance ....................................................................................................................... 86

8.5.4 Viewing points................................................................................................................... 86

8.5.5 Public engagement ........................................................................................................... 86

8.5.6 Monitoring and research .................................................................................................. 87

8.5.7 Administration and data recording ................................................................................... 87

8.5.8 Ditch and scrape maintenance protocol ........................................................................... 88

8.5.9 Water level management protocol ................................................................................... 90

8.5.10 Grazing protocol................................................................................................................ 92

9. References 93

10. Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. 100

11. Glossary 101

Appendix 1 Birds ............................................................................................................................ 103

Appendix 1.1 Species List ............................................................................................................... 103

Appendix 1.2 Birds of Conservation Concern ................................................................................ 108

Appendix 1.3 WeBS Data ............................................................................................................... 111

Appendix 2 Vascular plants ........................................................................................................... 114

Appendix 2.1 Cryptograms ............................................................................................................ 114

Appendix 2.2 Dicotyledons ............................................................................................................ 114

Appendix 2.3 Monocotyledons ...................................................................................................... 117

Appendix 3 Climate change projections ........................................................................................ 119

Appendix 4 Sluice Design and Operation ....................................................................................... 122

7


1. Plan summary

Summary of management plan 2017-2021

Site: South Huish Nature Reserve Grid reference: SX678418

Locality: South Devon, 30km south-east of Plymouth. South Huish Nature Reserve lies in a shallow

valley running east from the sea at South Milton Sands. It is separated from the sea by sand dunes,

which have been subject to considerable erosion following storm events in recent years.

Owned by: The National Trust since 2011, (Registered charity number: 205846)

Managed by: Devon Birds, (Registered charity number: 228966)

Conservation Officer (South): N. Townsend

Site Manager: V. Tucker

Area: 6.5 ha1

(16.0 acres)

Description: A coastal and floodplain grazing marsh, subject to winter flooding, with ditches, pools

and scrapes of particular value for its wintering bird community and for the variety of birds using the

site on passage. Consisting principally of improved pasture, there are areas of coastal grassland, wet

grassland, brackish ditches and scrub with tall herbs, which combine to form an area of high wildlife

value.

Objectives: To achieve favourable conservation status for all land within the reserve with the area

and quality of habitat and features of conservation importance being maintained or increased in the

long term by positive management and with all factors that affect the habitat, including its typical

species, under control.

Prescription: To maintain and improve the health of the marsh by means of a seasonal grazing

regime, supplemented by occasional mowing, together with the maintenance of drainage systems

and the management of water levels to provide optimum conditions throughout the year.

Plan prepared by: Date:

Agreed by: Date:

Approved by: Date:

1The hectare (symbol ha) is a metric unit of area equal to a square with 100m sides (10,000m

2). An acre is about 0.4047

hectares and one hectare contains about 2.47 acres. South Huish Nature Reserve has a total area of 6.5 acres.

8


2. Legislation & policy

2.1 Legislation

The following pieces of legislation should be understood by anyone attempting to make land

management decisions affecting South Huish Nature Reserve. For more information contact the

relevant authorities.

• Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974

• Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981

• Occupiers Liability Act, 1984

• European Community Habitats Directive, 1992

• Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1994

• Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000

2.2 Policies

Devon Birds was formed in 1928 as the Devon Bird Watching and Preservation Society. The objectives

of the society include “to further the study of birds in the field and to assist in their conservation” and

in furtherance of these purposes to publish an annual bird report, to promote a wider interest in

birds, habitats and their conservation. If bird populations are to survive in the long term, Devon Birds

recognises that it is essential to protect habitats and all other species of wildlife both up and down

the food chain.

Devon Birds believes that co-operation between all biodiversity interest groups is therefore essential

and supports and works closely with many other organisations, both locally and nationally. The

Society has representatives on most biodiversity forums and has direct links with other local societies

and groups, both as an organisation and through its membership.

9


3. Description

South Huish Nature Reserve is located on the coast of the South Hams of Devon, 30 km south-east of

Plymouth and 9 km to the west of Kingsbridge (Figure 3.1). Occupying the seaward end of a shallow

valley 200-250 metres wide, running west-east for 1.5 km from the coast at South Milton Sands

(Figure 3.2), from which it is separated by a sand dune barrier, the reserve is a coastal and floodplain

grazing marsh traversed by drainage channels and containing several pools and two scrapes. Its

proximity to the sea ensures that the site remains relatively ice-free even during severe winter

weather.

3.1 Site location & relevant authorities

Figure 3.1: Location of South Huish Nature Reserve

10


Figure 3.2: Location of South Huish Nature Reserve. Image courtesy of Ordnance Survey.

Site name South Huish Nature Reserve

Total area of valley (ha) 32.9 ha

Area of reserve 6.5 ha

Area outside reserve 24.9 ha1

Grid ref (centre of reserve) SX 685422

County Council Devon

District Council South Hams

Parish Council South Huish

Parliamentary Constituency Totnes

Local Environment Agency office Manley House, Kestrel Way, Exeter, EX2 7LQ

Local Natural England Office Yarner Wood, Bovey Tracey, Devon, TQ13 9LJ

Drainage Authority None

Airport Safeguarding zone No

Table 3.1: Relevant Authorities.

1 The total area of coastal and floodplain grazing marsh within the valley is 32.9 ha

11


3.2 Statutory, planning & other designations

Designation All or part of site Name & other details

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty,

(coastal preservation area) All South Devon AONB, 1960

Heritage Coast All South Devon HC, 1984

Table 3.2: Statutory, planning & other designations.

3.3 Floral zones

Surveys of the flora at South Huish Nature Reserve by the Devon Wildlife Trust (DWT) in 1992, Roger

Smith, the Royal Botanical Society’s official recorder for South Devon, in 2007, Lynne Kenderdine,

DWT’s County Wildlife Site Officer in 2009 and, most recently, the National Trust National

Consultancy in 2012, identified four principal vegetation zones within the reserve (Kenderdine, 2009).

The borders between some of these zones may have shifted slightly over the ensuing years due to

natural processes and active management but the descriptions still hold true today and form the

basis for current management practices.

The current boundaries of the four vegetation zones identified during the surveys detailed above are

illustrated in Figure 3.3 and the habitats are summarised in Table 3.3. Section 5.7.1.1 contains a

detailed description of the flora of each of these zones.

Figure 3.3: Principal vegetation zones at South Huish Nature Reserve. (Map data: Google, 2016)

12


Zone Description

1

Lower marsh. The pasture between the marsh and the car park is

improved/semi-improved grassland, graded G3 of low botanical diversity and

maintained by summer grazing and occasional mowing. Parts of the grassland

are subject to periodic inundation when the water levels are high or after storm

events.

2

Upper marsh. Much of the area in between the ditches is marshy grassland

although there are also tall stands of ‘fen type’ vegetation. Parts of this zone

are also subject to periodic inundation when the water levels are high.

3

Southern Marsh. A diverse area of marshy grassland with Common Cottongrass

(Eriophorum angustifolium), Ragged Robin (Lychnis flos-cuculi), Common Bird’s-

foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), Marsh Marigold (Caltha palustris), Lesser

Spearwort (Ranunculus flammula), Common Sedge (Carex nigra), Jointed Rush

(Juncus articulates), Hard Rush (J. inflexus) and Soft Rush (J. effusus).

4

Ditches. A series of ditches run south to north across the reserve. Some are

choked with a dense growth of Soft Hornwort (Ceratophyllum submersum),

others are more open with occasional Common Duckweed (Lemna minor,

and/or filamentous algae. Emergent vegetation includes some dense stands of

Common Reed (Phragmites australis), with stretches along the ditches only

having a sparse cover, such as occasional Branched Bur-reed (Sparganium

erectum). Hemlock Water-dropwort (Oenanthe croccata) is frequent along the

main ditch, which is just outside the reserve boundary.

Table 3.3: Principal vegetation zones at South Huish Nature Reserve

3.4 Tenure

The freehold of the reserve is owned by the National Trust.

3.5 Status of the site

South Huish Nature Reserve is afforded no special protection under law.

3.6 Relationships with any other plans or strategies

3.6.1 UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)

Coastal and floodplain grazing marshes are a priority UK Biodiversity Action Plan habitat, (Maddock,

2008). Grazing marsh is defined as periodically inundated pasture, or meadow with ditches which

maintain the water levels, containing standing brackish or fresh water. The ditches are especially rich

in plants and invertebrates. Almost all areas are grazed and some are cut for hay or silage. Sites may

contain seasonal water-filled hollows and permanent ponds with emergent swamp communities, but

not extensive areas of tall fen species like reeds; although they may abut with fen and reed swamp

communities.

They can be particularly important for the numbers of waders such as Snipe (Gallinago gallinago),

Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) and Curlew (Numenius arquata) they support. Internationally important

populations of wintering wildfowl can also occur including Bewick’s Swans (Cygnus bewickii) and

Whooper Swans (Cygnus Cygnus). A number of UK Red Data Book invertebrates are also closely

associated with coastal and floodplain grazing marshes (Buglife, 2016).

13


3.6.2 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006

The following species reported from South Huish Nature Reserve are listed in Section 41 of the NERC

Act, Habitats and Species of Principal Importance in England.

Common name Taxon name

Tubular Water Dropwort Oenanthe fistulosa

Slow-worm Anguis fragilis

Grass Snake Natrix natrix

Common Lizard Zootoca vivipara

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus

Skylark Alauda arvensis

Dunnock Prunella modularis

Yellow Wagtail Motacilla flava

Grasshopper Warbler Locustella naevia

Linnet Carduelis cannabina

Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella

Cirl Bunting Emberiza cirlus

Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus

Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus

Otter Lutra lutra

Table 3.4: Species of principal importance at South Huish Nature Reserve

3.6.3 Devon Biodiversity and Geodiversity Action Plan

Grazing marsh has always been of limited extent in Devon, especially when compared to other parts

of Britain, like Somerset or East Anglia for example, because the natural geography of Devon’s

riverine floodplains, coasts and estuaries does not lend itself to the formation of this habitat. It is

estimated that there are c.600 hectares of the habitat in the County, principally located in the

floodplains and beside the estuaries of the major rivers. Objectives in the Devon BAP include

maintaining the area and quality of existing grazing marshes and to expand the habitat when the

opportunity arises.

3.6.4 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) are statutory designations. South Devon AONB is one of

a family of protected landscapes in the UK. It covers 60 miles of coastline, estuaries and countryside

between Plymouth and Torbay and was designated by government in 1960. All of South Huish Nature

Reserve falls within the South Devon AONB.

3.6.5 The South West Coast Path National Trail

Rated as one of the top walks to be found anywhere in the world by “Lonely Planet” and voted best

walking route by the readers of “Walk” magazine, the Coast Path is a designated National Trail,

largely funded by Natural England. It was created in stages, with its final section, Somerset and North

Devon, opening in 1978. The Trail passes outside the perimeter of the western edge of the reserve.

14


4. Management and organisational infrastructure

Management of the site is undertaken by volunteers and hired contractors, overseen and

coordinated by the Reserve Manager in collaboration with the Conservation Officer (South) and other

co-opted members of the management team. Regular meetings are held jointly with the National

Trust to discuss progress, future projects and proposals.

4.1 Site infrastructure

The following infrastructural assets, owned and managed by Devon Birds, are installed on site:

• Two sluices, (Figure 4.1)

There are four transverse drainage ditches, maintained by Devon Birds, which are essential to sustain

water levels within the reserve (Figure 4.1). The main drainage channel, running from East to West

across land owned by the National Trust, is just outside the northern boundary of the reserve but is

included in Devon Birds ongoing ditch maintenance program with funding from the National Trust.

Figure 4.1: Schematic of principal drainage features at South Huish Nature Reserve. (Map data: Google 2016)

1 = Main drain. Water drains from the reserve via a pipe under the dune system at this point;

2, and 3 = location of sluices; MD = Main ditch.

15


Ph

oto

: A

lan

Po

mro

y

Figure 4.2: Entrance of the main drainage pipe running from the reserve and under South Milton Sands.

Ph

oto

: A

lan

Po

mro

y

Figure 4.3: One of the sluices enabling fine control of water levels within the reserve.

A diagram showing details of the sluice design is included in Appendix 4.

16


4.2 Map coverage

A selection of Ordnance Survey maps dating from 1886 to the present day is included in Section 5.8.2,

“Past land use”, together with an analysis of changes.

4.3 Photographic coverage

There are a limited number of photographs of the reserve available, mostly taken from the National

Trust car park to the west perimeter of the reserve but only three aerial photographs, taken in 1943

and the 1990’s, have been located (Figures 4.4 to 4.6). Other images, both contemporary and

historical, have been used throughout this document. Devon Birds is grateful to all those who have

allowed their photographs to be included.

Figure 4.4: Aerial view of South Huish Marsh (bottom) and South Milton Ley (top) prior to the establishment of

either reserve, taken by a Luftwaffe recognisance aircraft in 1943, (Current reserve boundaries are highlighted

in red).

17


Figure 4.5: Aerial view of most of South Huish Nature Reserve in the 1990’s looking north towards the adjacent

South Milton Ley Nature Reserve. Taken prior to the establishment of South Huish Nature Reserve, (Current

reserve boundaries are highlighted in blue).

Ph

oto

: ©

Sa

vil

ls p

lc

Figure 4.6: View of South Huish Nature Reserve, taken in July 2016, looking north-west across Bigbury Bay.

18


5. Environmental information

5.1 Physical

The entire reserve lies at the coastal end a shallow valley running from west to east at an elevation of

less than 10 m above the high water mark, with a shallow gradient along its 1.5 km length, rising from

sea level at South Milton Sands to an elevation of eight metres at South Huish Farm.

5.2 Climate

The climate of south-west England is classed as oceanic according to the Köppen1 climate

classification. The oceanic climate is typified by cool winters with warmer summers and precipitation

all year round, with more experienced in winter. Annual rainfall is about 1,000 mm and up to 2,000

mm on higher ground. Summer maxima averages range from 18 °C (64 °F) to 22 °C (72 °F) and winter

minima averages range from 1 °C (34 °F) to 4 °C (39 °F) across the south-west. It is the second

windiest area of the United Kingdom, the majority of winds coming from the south-west and north-

east. Government organisations predict the area will experience a rise in temperature and become

the hottest region in the United Kingdom.

In comparison to inland areas, the coast experiences high minimum temperatures, especially in

winter, and slightly lower maximum temperatures during the summer. Rainfall is lowest at the coast

and snowfall there is rarer than the rest of the region. Coastal areas are the windiest parts of the

peninsula and they receive the most sunshine. The general coastal climate becomes more prevalent

further south-west into the region. Thirty year averages of temperature, air frost days, rainfall,

sunshine, mean wind speed and number of days of gales together with a ten year average of wind

speed and direction are presented in Appendix 8 of the South Milton Ley Management Plan,

(Pomroy, 2016). The microclimate at South Huish Nature Reserve gives rise to lower annual rainfall

figures and a lower incidence of frost than neighbouring areas.

Although climate change is taking place at a rate which significantly exceeds the lifespan of this

management plan, detailed climate change projections for the Southwest region from 2020 to 2080

are included in Appendix 9 of the South Milton Ley Management Plan, (Pomroy, 2016). The

implications for coastal grazing marsh habitats are also detailed in Appendix 3 of this document

(Natural England, 2014).

5.3 Geology and geomorphology

The marsh at South Huish is situated in a pre-Holocene2 valley barred by the beach and dune system

of South Milton Sands. The geology of the area is typical of the Southwest and the local valley fill is

known to be Devensian head deposit. Dawson (2012), in a study comparing South Huish Marsh with

South Milton Ley, concluded that the marsh is similar to but considerably older than the Ley, aged by

C14

dating at 1,619±35 and 439±35 years before present (BP) respectively. At South Huish nine

1 The Köppen Climate Classification System is the most widely used system for classifying the world's climates. Its

categories are based on the annual and monthly averages of temperature and precipitation. 2 Holocene is the more recent of the two epochs of the Quaternary Period, beginning at the end of the last major Ice Age,

about 10,000 years ago.

19


suitable samples were retrieved for radiocarbon dating and reveal that a basal salt marsh existed at

0.56 – 1.54 m Ordnance datum (OD)1 at 1,600 calendar years BP.

During much of the Mesolithic2 period the sea level was much lower with the coastline considered to

be c.3km offshore from its present location around 9,500 years BP, (Hails, 1975; Clarke, 1970). The

data also show that relative sea level rose by about 10m between 9,000 and 7,000 years BP and a

further 8m in the last 7,000 years. In the last 2000 years relative sea level has risen on average by

0.9mm/year. The coast is also currently subsiding by 1.1mm/year due to ongoing glacial isostatic

adjustment3, (Gehrels et al., 2011).

The rising sea levels resulted in a transition from a woodland environment with open freshwater

pools to more waterlogged open fen with increasing signs of pastoral grassland. There is evidence of

woodland clearance and a developing pastoral landscape from the early/middle Bronze Age4, (Reed

and Whitton 1999). There was no evidence of a marine environment suggesting that the area was not

subject to coastal flooding at this time (Blaylock and Neophytou, 2004).

A study at South Huish Marsh identified the deepest valley fill to be Pleistocene5 head deposits

(Figure 5.1) containing a mixture of clay and weathered local bedrock (quartz and schist). In deeper

cores a sharp transition to a sand-gravel unit is found and this was also identified in a previous study

(Taylor, 2004). Overlying the head and gravel is an organic basal silt unit, containing estuarine silts

and clays and the sequence is capped by freshwater peat, (Dawson, 2012).

Figure 5.1: Stratigraphic cross section at South Huish Marsh. Source: Gehrels et al (2011)

1 Ordnance datum is the mean sea level as defined for Ordnance Survey

2 The Mesolithic period (or 'Middle Stone Age') in Britain dates from just after the end of the Pleistocene ('Ice Age')

approximately 11,600 years ago, to the beginning of the Neolithic period about 4000 calibrated years BC 3 Glacial isostatic adjustment is the rise of land masses that were depressed by the huge weight of ice sheets during the

last glacial period, through a process known as isostasy. Rising land in the north of the UK is causing the south to sink. 4 Bronze Age Britain refers to the period of British history that spanned from c. 2500 until c. 800 BC

5 Pleistocene is the geological epoch which lasted from about 2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago, spanning the world's recent

period of repeated glaciations.

20


The stratigraphy at South Huish (peat overlying minerogenic deposits) indicates that the site was

once an open estuary tidal salt marsh until the beach barrier cut off the system from tidal exchange.

The shallow position of the salt-marsh sediments suggests that this has happened relatively recently,

probably in the last 2,000 years, (Dawson, 2012). An undergraduate study (Taylor, 2004) identified

foraminiferal1 assemblages that are characteristic of a salt-marsh environment at the transition

between the minerogenic sediments and the organic-rich peat (Figure 5.2).

A number of other observations support this. Firstly, the lithostratigraphy2 at the two sites show a

gradual transition from estuarine silts and clays to more organic (terrestrial) peat units, and this

indicates a reduction in marine influence. Secondly, the biostratigraphical transition from ca. 1.0 - 1.5

m OD indicates a regressive contact3 between the units, where low salt marsh

4 species Miliammina

fusca and Trochammina inflata are replaced by the dominance of high salt marsh5 species

Balticammina pseudomacrescens and Jadammina macrescens (see Figure 5.2). This indicates a

decrease in tidal influence at the site and the development of high marsh conditions. Quantitative

work by Massey et al., (2006) in south Devon estuaries indicates that Jadammina macrescens

typically dominates the highest marsh zone.

Figure 5.2: Foraminiferal stratigraphy across the silt-peat transition from two cores at South Huish marsh.

Sourced from Gehrels et al. (2011) and adapted from Taylor (2004).

1 Foraminifera are single-celled planktonic animal with a perforated chalky shell through which slender protrusions of

protoplasm extend. Most kinds are marine, and when they die thick ocean-floor sediments are formed from their shells. 2 Lithostratigraphy is a sub-discipline of stratigraphy, the geological science associated with the study of strata or rock

layers. Major focuses include geochronology, comparative geology, and petrology. In general a stratum will be primarily

igneous or sedimentary relating to how the rock was formed. 3 Regressive contact is a geological process occurring when areas of submerged seafloor are exposed above the surface.

4 Low salt marsh forms along the coast in protected bays, along rivers, and behind barrier beaches, sand bars, and rocky

spits. The term “low” refers to the height of the land, not the vegetation. 5 High salt marsh is the most common salt marsh community. It is strongly dominated by salt-meadow cordgrass

(Spartina patens), and occurs within the reach of higher than average high tides (including spring tides and storm surges).

21


Previous studies in the region also give evidence of wide spread barrier closure during the Holocene

(e.g., Hails, 1975; Morey, 1976; 1983; Massey et al., 2008). Throughout the late Holocene the sand

dunes of the neighbouring valley at Bigbury Bay (Bantham Sands) gained height and extent along the

coastline. This was due to transgression of the barrier system that increased sedimentation rates and

eventually blocked the estuary mouth, (Massey et al., 2008). It is highly likely a similar process

occurred at Thurlestone and the dates from the samples collected at South Huish indicate that the

barrier closure happened relatively recently, probably in the last 2,000 years.

5.4 Hydrology /drainage

This is a freshwater grazing marsh, subject to occasional saline incursions, which also receives diffuse1

inputs of nutrients from surrounding farmland. The hydrology of the reserve consists of a

combination of systems which operate independently but which interact in order to create effects

which are both seasonal and sporadic. In particular, periods of high precipitation can quickly cause

flooding throughout the lower reserve (Figure 5.3) and high tides above 4.5m lead to saline

incursions via the main drainage pipe, especially when in combination with south-westerly gales.

Ph

oto

: M

ike

Bro

ok

ing

Figure 5.3: Extensive flooding across the whole of South Huish Nature Reserve and beyond its northern

boundary in February 2016.

The main freshwater inputs are two springs, which merge to form a stream at New Burleigh, 3 km to

the east (SX706410). The stream drains the entire catchment and flows west for 2.8 km across

agricultural land, entering South Huish Nature Reserve along its north-eastern edge. The catchment

of South Huish Nature Reserve covers 4.8 km2

(Figure 5.4).

1Diffuse sources are the result of rainfall, soil infiltration and surface runoff leaching into surface waters and

groundwater.

22


Figure 5.4: The catchment of South Huish Nature Reserve.

Further sources of water to the reserve include lateral springs and seepage zones through the

underlying slates and shales. Only one spring can be clearly identified.

South Milton Sands, at the coastal end of the reserve, is a west facing storm beach backed by an area

of unstable sand dunes, which form a barrier between the sea and the reserve’s western boundary.

The dunes have suffered from significant erosion during storm events, particularly in the winters of

1990 and 2012, despite considerable investment in their defences by the National Trust in the

intervening period. Outflow from South Huish Nature Reserve is piped under the car park and dune

system and discharges towards the bottom of the beach.

5.6 Water balance

The stream originating at New Burleigh conveys the largest input of water to the reserve and is a

dredged drainage channel in its lower reaches. Field drains also help to maintain a baseflow. In terms

of water volume, the habitat is maintained by an east to west flow, but for water level, the near

surface local flow from north to south and south to north is also important in preserving the

character of the wetland.

Seepages from the Lower Devonian slates and shales are classified as minor aquifers by the

Environment Agency and therefore volumetrically can only contribute a minor part of the total water

flux in the reserve, but in the summer they may help considerably in maintaining a semi-constant

head. Incursions of saline water, which occur when high tides exceed 4.5m, also influence both the

water volume held within the reserve and maintenance of its present trophic state.

23


No flow data are available for South Huish Nature Reserve but a detailed study by Powell (2000) at

South Milton Ley, in the neighbouring valley, enables estimates to be made. Mean daily stream flow

was analysed for the years 1994 to 1996 and estimated average daily flows for South Huish Nature

Reserve, corrected for catchment area and reserve size, are presented in Table 5.1.

INPUTS (m3d

-1) OUTPUTS (m

3d

-1)

Rainfall

New

Burleigh

Stream

TOTAL Evaporation Outflow TOTAL

March 186 12,102 12,288 - 12,288 12,288

April 231 12,816 13,047 13 13,034 13,047

May 150 11,376 11,526 36 11,490 11,526

June 138 4,247 4,385 60 4,325 4,385

July 148 1,616 1,764 60 1,704 1,764

August 160 3,902 4,062 59 4,002 4,062

September 29 2,486 2,515 36 2,480 2,515

October 77 3,121 3,198 20 3,177 3,198

November 243 4,176 4,419 13 4,406 4,419

December 238 9,973 10,211 - 10,211 10,211

Table 5.1: South Huish Nature Reserve, estimated water budget for March to December derived from data for

South Milton Ley in 1994-1996, (Powell, 2000), and corrected for catchment area and reserve size. Outflow

figures assume a balance but will generally be lower than inputs when sluices are raised in the winter months

and higher than inputs when sluices are lowered to increase drainage and lower the water table.

5.7 Biological

The following section is not intended to provide comprehensive lists of the species to be found within

the reserve but should serve to give a flavour of the various habitats and their associated flora and

fauna. It also highlights gaps in our current knowledge in the hope that this might stimulate future

research. Wherever possible, species and taxa1 have been listed in the taxonomic order accepted at

the time of writing.

5.7.1 Flora

The floral surveys detailed in Section 3.3 identified four major vegetation zones within the reserve

(DWT, 2009). With the exception of the ditches and their banks, the transitions between these zones

are gradual and poorly defined and their borders may have shifted slightly over the ensuing years due

to natural processes and active management but the descriptions remain valid today.

5.7.1.1 Flora - habitats/communities

Brief summaries of the four vegetation zones are given in Section 3.3 and their locations are

illustrated in Figure 3.3. The current section contains more detailed descriptions of the flora of each

of these zones.

Zone 1 - The Lower Marsh

1 A taxon (plural taxa) is a group of one or more populations of an organism or organisms seen by taxonomists to form a

unit

24


Ph

oto

: A

lan

Po

mro

y

Figure 5.5: A view looking eastwards across the semi-improved grassland on the north side of Zone 1 in July

2016.

Zone 1, between the National Trust car park and the first transverse ditch, consists of improved/semi-

improved grassland maintained by summer grazing and occasional mowing. It is graded G31,

(National Trust, 2009), with abundant Perennial Rye-grass (Lolium perenne), Creeping Buttercup

(Ranunculus repens), White Clover (Trifolium repens) and Yorkshire Fog (Holcus lanatus) with

Common Nettle (Urtica dioica) and thistles including Musk Thistle (Carduus nutans) throughout. It has

elements of maritime grassland within it as the soil becomes increasingly sandy towards the north-

eastern corner (too small to map), containing Creeping Cinquefoil (Potentilla reptens), Lady’s

Bedstraw (Galium verum), Common Bird’s-foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) and Common Restharrow

(Ononis repens). Parts of the grassland are subject to periodic inundation when the water levels are

high.

Ph

oto

: D

av

id M

itch

ell

Figure 5.6: An aerial view looking southwards across Zone 1 showing the adjacent National Trust car park and

dune system.

1 The National Trust’s Biological Survey Team uses a simple grassland classification system based on floral diversity with

G1 being the most diverse and G4 the least.

25


Zone 2 - The Higher Marsh

Ph

oto

: A

lan

Po

mro

y

Figure 5.7: A view of Zone 2 in July 2016 showing the diverse and luxuriant plant community.

This zone is located between the transverse ditches. Much of the area is marshy grassland with

abundant Creeping Bent (Agrostis stolonifera), Floating Sweet-grass (Glyceria fluitans), frequent Soft

Rush (Juncus effusus), Redshank (Persicaria maculosa) and Silverweed (Potentilla anserina), though

there are also tall stands of ‘fen type’ vegetation which includes frequent Common Reed (Phragmites

australis), Great Willowherb (Epilobium hirsutum), Gypsywort (Lycopus europaeus), Water Mint

(Mentha aquatica), occasional Tubular Water-dropwort (Oenanthe fistulosa), Marsh Bedstraw

(Galium palustre), and Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) rarely. Parts of this zone are also subject

to periodic inundation when the water levels are high and the vegetation is maintained by summer

grazing.

Zone 3 - Southern Marsh

Ph

oto

: A

lan

Po

mro

y

Figure 5.8: A view southwards across Zone 3 in July 2016.

26


A species-rich area of marshy grassland containing a diverse flora including Common Cottongrass

(Eriophorum angustifolium), Ragged Robin (Lychnis flos-cuculi), Common Bird’s-foot Trefoil (Lotus

corniculatus), Marsh Marigold (Caltha palustris), Lesser Spearwort (Ranunculus flammula), Common

Sedge (Carex nigra), Jointed Rush (Juncus articulatus), Hard Rush (J. inflexus) and Soft Rush (J.

effusus). Southern Marsh-orchid (Dactylorhiza praetermissa), Yellow Flag-iris (Iris pseudacorus),

Redshank (Persicaria maculosa), Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Angelica (Angelica sylvestris),

Meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria) and Grey Club-rush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani) are also

present.

Zone 4 - Ditches

Ph

oto

: A

lan

Po

mro

y

Figure 5.9: A view along one of the transverse ditches in Zone 4 in July 2016.

The ditches and banks, which traverse the site, are rich in aquatic and emergent vegetation including

Water Horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile), Greater Spearwort (Ranunculus lingua), Reed Canary-grass

(Phalaris arundinacea), Greater Tussock-sedge (Carex paniculata), False Fox-sedge (Carex otrubae),

Soft Rush (Juncus effusus) and Marsh Marigold (Caltha palustris). The banks are dominated in places

by Common Reed (Phragmites australis), in association with Water Mint (Mentha aquatica), Water

Figwort (Scrophularia auriculata), Sea Club-rush (Bolboschoenus maritimus) and Grey Club-rush

(Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani).

27


5.7.1.2 Flora - species

Vascular plants

Ph

oto

: A

lan

Po

mro

y

Figure 5.10: Vegetation in Zone 2 in July 2016.

Although no comprehensive survey of the flora has been carried out at South Huish Nature Reserve

since the 1992 survey by the Devon Wildlife Trust, a significant number of species were also

identified during the surveys detailed in Section 3.3 and are listed in full in Appendix 2. Of particular

note is Tubular Water-dropwort (Oenanthe fistulosa), a declining species with a very limited

distribution in Devon. Its former location at South Huish is not recorded but this diminutive plant is

widely distributed in zone 2 between the transverse ditches.

Bryophytes

There are no records for this group.

Lichens


5.7.2 Fungi


5.7.3 Fauna

Restricted access to the reserve has limited the number of species catalogued but the following

sections detail those identified to date.

5.7.3.6 Invertebrates

Aquatic Invertebrates

The 2012 Survey of aquatic invertebrate fauna by the National Trust National Consultancy identified

locally distributed species such as the Whirligig Beetle (Gyrinus caspius) which has a coastal

distribution, though not confined to brackish water, the Squeak Beetle (Hygrobia hermanni) and the

Crawling Water Beetle (Haliplus immaculatus). Other more common water beetles included the

Whirligig (Gyrinus marinus), the Crawling Water Beetle (Haliplus ruficollis) and the small diving

beetles such as Noterus clavicornis and Hyphydrus ovatus. A variety of common aquatic bugs are also

28


present including Saucer Bug (Ilyocoris cimicioides), the Small Water Bug (Plea atomaria) and the

Small Water Cricket (Microvelia reticulata).

Terrestrial Invertebrates

Insects

Insects associated with the wet margins of the ditches and open areas of mud include a variety wetland

species that are predators on other small invertebrates such as fly larvae. Examples include the ground

beetle (Dyschirius globosus), the shore bug (Chartoscirta cincta), and the rove beetles (Paederus riparius,

Stenus rogeri, S. pallitarsus and S. boops). The locally distributed snail-killing fly (Dichetophora obliterate)

was also present – this has larvae that feed on a variety of wetland snails. Other wetland insects, primarily

associated with the tall stands of wetland vegetation, include the Water Ladybird (Anisosticta 19-

punctata).

Damselflies and dragonflies

Ph

oto

: G

eo

ff F

oa

le

Figure 5.11: Azure Damselfly

Damselflies and dragonflies of the order Odonata have been little studied at South Huish Nature

Reserve, due to the restricted access, combined with fluctuating water levels, which are not

conducive to their breeding. However, the larger ditches support several of the commoner and more

adaptable species and those identified to-date are listed in Table 5.2 (below).

Species Common Name Status

Coenagrionidae

Coenagrion puella Azure Damselfly RB

Ischnura elegans Blue-tailed Damselfly RB

Pyrrhosoma nymphula Large Red Damselfly RB

29


Species Common Name Status

Aeshnidae

Aeshna cyanea Southern Hawker RB

Aeshna mixta Migrant Hawker RB

Anax imperator Emperor RB*

Libellulidae

Libellula quadrimaculata Four-spotted Chaser RB

Orthetrum cancellatum Black-tailed Skimmer RB

Sympetrum fonscolombei Red-veined Darter MB*

Sympetrum striolatum Common Darter RB

Table 5.2: Damselfly and dragonfly species recorded at South Huish Nature Reserve.

Key: M=migrant, R=resident, B=breeding (* Breeding status uncertain)

Butterflies


Moths


Arachnids

A spider list provided by the British Arachnological Society on the NBN Gateway includes common

wetland species such as Marsh Knob-head (Hypomma bituberculatum) and Reed Sac-spider (Clubiona

phragmitidis), along with species regarded as scarce (but not necessarily restricted to wetlands) such as

Oedothorax apicatus and Taranucnus setosus.

5.7.3.3 Reptiles

Ph

oto

: W

ikim

ed

ia C

om

mo

ns

Figure 5.12: Grass Snake (Natrix natrix)

Three species of reptile have been identified within the reserve, Grass Snake (Natrix natrix), Slow-

worm (Anguis fragilis) and Common Lizard (Zootoca vivipara).

30


5.7.3.4 Amphibians

Ph

oto

: A

lan

Po

mro

y

Figure 5.13: Common Frog, (Rana temporaria)

Three species of amphibian have been seen within the reserve, Common Toad (Bufo bufo), Common

Frog (Rana temporaria) and an unidentified newt, (Lissotriton sp.), probably Smooth Newt (Lissotriton

vulgaris).

5.7.3.5 Fish

Although no surveys of the fish species present have been undertaken at South Huish Nature

Reserve, Michael Loates, co-author of the Collins Pocket Guide - Fish of Britain and Europe, has

commented that the following are almost certain to be present: Nine-spined Stickleback (Pungitius

pungitius), Three-spined Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and Common Eel (Anguilla Anguilla). In

addition, he suggested that Thick-lipped Mullet (Chelon labrosus) will occur and that Thin-lipped

Mullet (Liza ramada) and Golden Mullet (L. aurata) are also likely. The Mullet species all spawn at sea

but the young fish naturally head into the brackish sections of rivers and channels for protection

during the first two years of their lives, prior to becoming mature enough to head back out to sea. It

is likely that these species enter and leave South Huish Nature Reserve via the main drainage pipe to

the sea during high spring tides. Similarly, it is probable that juvenile Flounder (Platichthys flesus) also

find their way into the more saline ditch, closest to the sea, (Loates, pers. comm.). It is hoped that a

fish survey will be completed in the spring of 2017, before the seasonal growth of aquatic and

emergent vegetation makes sampling impractical.

31


5.7.3.2 Birds

Ph

oto

: A

lan

Do

idg

e

Figure 5.14: Glossy Ibis at South Huish Reserve in September 2013.

The assemblages of birds visiting South Huish Nature Reserve are the principal reason for Devon Birds

long association with and subsequent management of the site. The reserve supports a diverse

community of passage and wintering birds and a smaller number of breeding species.

For the purposes of this document the recording area includes all of the land and airspace easily

observable from the National Trust car park, which forms part of the western boundary. The roads

from South Milton Sands to Southdown Farm and towards South Huish Farm form the northern and

southern boundaries respectively and Southdown Farm also represents the eastern limit of the

recording area, which includes all of South Huish Nature Reserve and much of the valley beyond,

(Figure 5.15). Birds recorded on South Milton Sands or in Thurlestone Bay have been excluded from

the tables.

Historical data relating to species currently included in the British Trust for Ornithology’s (BTO)

Wetland Birds Survey (WeBS) have been compiled from Devon Bird’s annual reports from 1994

onwards, (Appendix 1.3, Tables 1.3 and 1.4). However, many of the wildfowl and wader counts

available relate to the wider Thurlestone area, which includes South Huish Nature Reserve, South

Milton Ley Nature Reserve and Thurlestone Marsh and, in recent Devon Birds’ annual reports, figures

from WeBS have only been included in the species accounts for principal sites. Fortunately, the BTO

has provided comprehensive WeBS data specifically for South Huish Nature Reserve for the years

1993-2015. These counts take place at monthly intervals and enable useful inter-annual comparisons

to be made. However, at a site where passage birds are frequently present for limited periods of

time, their presence does not always coincide with a WeBS count date. Consequently the data have

been supplemented with figures from Devon Birds’ annual reports, The Harrier, (Devon Birds’

newsletter), and from the Thurlestone Bay Birds website to present as complete a picture as possible.

32


Figure 5.15: South Huish Nature Reserve bird recording area used in this document. (Map data: Google, 2016)

For its relatively small size South Huish Nature Reserve has recorded a significant variety of birds,

with the accepted total at the end of 2016 standing at 206 species recorded since 1969. Tucker

(2007) mentions an additional three species, Black Stork (Ciconia nigra), Black Kite (Milvus migrans)

and Whiskered Tern (Chlidonias hybrida) “identified since the early 1970’s” but these undated

records were attributed to Thurlestone, Thurlestone and Slapton area and South Milton Ley

respectively in the relevant British Birds Rarities Committee annual reports. Consequently, these

species are excluded from the total. A complete bird list for the reserve from 1969 to 2016 is

presented in Appendix 1.1, Table A1.1.

Careful management of the water levels, drainage and vegetation within the reserve, together with

the coastal location, which is ideally suited to attract passage migrants, has contributed towards this

extensive species list. The total includes 40 species or subspecies that are currently red-listed as

species of conservation concern and a further 72 amber-listed species, (Appendix 1.2, Table A1.2).

Whilst some of these are rare or occasional visitors to the reserve, many are annual with some in

significant numbers and all serve to emphasise the value of the habitat and the positive impact of the

current management practices. The significant increase in both the numbers and variety of species

using South Huish Nature Reserve since Devon Birds assumed management responsibility in 1994 is

clearly illustrated in Figure 5.16.

The most recent data on the habitat and dietary requirements of the principal bird species using the

South Huish Nature Reserve are included in Section 8.3 and have been used as an aid to establishing

the management priorities and protocols.

33


Figure 5.16: Changes in the maximum number of WeBS species and number of birds reported annually at

South Huish before and after the commencement of management by Devon Birds in 1994.

Passage birds

Ph

oto

: A

lan

Do

idg

e

Figure 5.17: Little Stint at South Huish Nature Reserve.

The reserve provides a valuable staging and feeding area for a wide variety of wetland birds on

passage, principally waders, with 25 species being recorded during WeBS counts, (Appendix 1.3,

Tables 1.3 and 1.4). Migrants with a preference for fresh or brackish marshes, such as Little Ringed

Plover (Charadrius dubius), Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea), Little Stint (C. minuta), Green

Sandpiper (Tringa ochropus) and Wood Sandpiper (T. glareola), have all been recorded annually in

recent years, either on the scrapes or the margins of ditches and small numbers of Garganey (Anas

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600N

um

be

r of sp

ecie

s rep

orte

dNu

mb

er

of

bir

ds

re

po

rte

dTotals

Species

34


querquedula) are regular in most springs. Winds from an easterly direction help to drift migrants

across to the English side of the Western Approaches, occasionally resulting in unexpectedly high

numbers, such as 14 Little Ringed Plover in April 2013.

Passage visitors are not confined to waterbirds and the short sward of the lower marsh attracts a

variety of passerines in spring and autumn, such as Wheatear (Oenanthe oenanthe), Whinchat

(Saxicola rubetra) and Yellow (Motacilla flava), Pied (M. alba yarelli) and White Wagtails (M. alba

alba). The presence of livestock and their associated droppings during the autumn months is

particularly attractive to wagtails, which congregate and feed at South Huish Nature Reserve before

roosting in the reedbed at nearby South Milton Ley. Large numbers of hirundines also gather to rest

and refuel before continuing their journeys, frequently proving attractive to passage Hobbys (Falco

Subbuteo).

Ph

oto

: A

lan

Do

idg

e

Figure 5.18: Whinchat at South Huish Nature Reserve.

Winter birds

Ph

oto

: B

ruce

Ch

urc

h

Figure 5.19: Hen Harrier chasing a Snipe at South Huish Nature Reserve in November 2013.

35


Dabbling and grazing duck species such as Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Teal (A. crecca), Wigeon (A.

penelope) and Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) are attracted by the availability of suitable pasture

and the security of elevated water levels and dominate the winter bird assemblages at South Huish

Nature Reserve together with small numbers of Shoveler (Anas clypeata), Pintail (A. acuta) and

Gadwall (A. strepera). Snipe (Gallinago gallinago) are also frequently present in good numbers

together with lower numbers of Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus). A wide variety of other species have

been recorded, (Tables A1.3 and A1.4), occasionally including an elusive Jack Snipe (Lymnocryptes

minimus) or other less common species.

An important feature of these coastal grazing meadows is that during severe winter weather,

especially when other areas of the UK or the near continent are adversely affected, the oceanic

influence means they often remain relatively snow and ice-free. At such times the reserve provides a

safe haven for wetland species during their cold weather movements and can result in exceptionally

high numbers being recorded, such as the 2,600 Wigeon and 256 Snipe, which passed through during

particularly cold snaps in the winters of 1982 and 2010 respectively.

The presence of such large numbers of potential prey species inevitably attracts raptors including

Peregrine (Falco peregrinus), Sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus) and Kestrel (F. tinnunculus) whilst other

avian predators such as Merlin (F. columbarius), Hen Harrier (Circus cyaneus), Marsh Harrier (C.

aeruginosus) and Short-eared Owls (Asio flammeus) are less frequent.

Winter passerines include Pied Wagtails (Motacilla alba yarellii), Meadow (Anthus pratensis) and

Rock Pipits (A. petrosus) together with Stonechat (Saxicola rubicola) and the occasional Black

Redstart (Phoenicurus phoenicurus). These species can frequently be found foraging for insects and

crustaceans amongst the weed along the strand line on the adjacent South Milton Sands but retreat

to the reserve when disturbance levels are too high on the beach. Water Pipits (Anthus spinoletta)

are uncommon but regular winter and passage visitors, which prefer the short sward of the lower

marsh, as do Pied Wagtails, gathering in significant numbers in the late afternoons before flying to

roost at South Milton Ley.

Ph

oto

: D

av

id P

ak

es

Figure 5.20: White-fronted Goose at South Huish Nature Reserve in February 2015.

36


Breeding birds

Ph

oto

: G

reg

Bra

db

ury

Figure 5.21: Shelduck and young.

Twelve species of bird have been confirmed as breeding within the boundaries of South Huish Nature

Reserve between 1969 and 2016, four of which are currently amber listed as Birds of Conservation

Concern in a national context, (Eaton et al., 2015). These are detailed in Table 5.3 (below). With the

exception of Pheasant, all of the species have an association with freshwater and its margins. The

habitats at South Huish, coupled with an absence of trees and shrubs are not suitable for the majority

of passerines although many feed within the reserve but nest elsewhere.

Common name Taxon name Breeding Status

Mute Swan Cygnus olor Occasional

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna Annual in recent years

Canada Goose Branta canadensis Annual

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Annual

Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Occasional

Moorhen Gallinula chloropus Annual

Coot Fulica atra Occasional

Cetti’s Warbler Cettia cetti Occasional

Sedge Warbler Acrocephalus schoenobaenus Annual

Reed Warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus Annual

Pied Wagtail Motacilla alba Occasional

Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus Annual

Table 5.3: Breeding birds at South Huish Nature Reserve, 1969-2016. Species currently amber listed as Birds of

Conservation Concern, (Eaton et al., 2015), are highlighted. (Species order follows BOU 2016 and subsequent

changes to the list included in BOURC reports).

37


Scarce migrants and vagrants

Ph

oto

: A

lan

Do

idg

e

Figure 5.22: Common Crane (Grus grus) at South Huish Nature Reserve in December 2014.

In addition to those species of bird detailed above, the habitats at South Huish Nature Reserve and its

proximity to the coast have proved attractive to a variety of rarer migrants and vagrants over the

years. A selection of these records occurring between 1969 and the present, which have been

accepted by either Devon Birds or the British Birds Rarities Committee, are included in Table 5.10

(below). This document does not attempt to produce a list of all species recorded, due to the

difficulties in determining the exact location of some historical records, particularly as earlier

sightings were frequently attributed to the greater Thurlestone area.

Common name Taxon name Comments

Bewicks Swan Cygnus columbianus 1981, 2005

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus 2003

Bean Goose Anser fabalis 1995

Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea 1999, 2014, 2015 and 2016

American Wigeon Anas americana Two in 1983

Scaup Aythya marila 1982

Bittern Botaurus stellaris 2011 and 2012

Squacco Heron Ardeola ralloides 1983

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Four records of up to three birds in 2008,

2009, 2012 and 2016

Great White Eget Ardea alba 2014 and 2016

Purple Heron Ardea purpurea 2014 with two birds together in 2016

38


Ph

oto

: A

lan

Do

idg

e

Figure 5.23: Purple Heron (Ardea purpurea) at South Huish Nature Reserve in May 2016.

White Stork Ciconia ciconia 1980

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus 2008, 2009, 2014, 2015, 2016 with

9 birds together in 2013

Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia 2007, 2008, 2014 with three birds

together in 2013

Spotted Crake Porzana porzana 2005

Common Crane Grus grus 2014

Great Bustard Otis tarda 2011, (from the Salibury Plain

reintroduction scheme)

Ph

oto

: A

lan

Do

idg

e

Figure 5.24: Great Bustard (Otis tarda) at South Huish Nature Reserve in November 2011.

39


Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus Two in 1995, four in 2002 and one

in 2006

Kentish Plover Anarhynchus alexandrinus 1996

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos 2002, 2012 and 2014

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 2003

Pomarine Skua Stercorarius pomarinus 2016

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 2015

Iceland Gull Larus glaucoides glaucoides* 1983, 1996, 2014 and 2015

Kumlien's Gull Larus glaucoides kumlieni* 2015

Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus 1981, 1983, 2001, 2005, 2008,

2009 and four singles in 2014

Ph

oto

: A

lan

Do

idg

e

Figure 5.25: Glaucous Gull (Larus hyperboreus) at South Huish Nature Reserve in February 2014.

Isabelline Shrike Lanius isabellinus 2015

Ph

oto

: S

tev

e H

op

pe

r

Figure 5.26: Isabelline Shrike (Lanius isabellinus) at South Huish Nature Reserve in October 2015.

Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio 2015

40


Great Grey Shrike Lanius excubitor 2011

Woodchat Shrike Lanius senator 1980

Bearded Tit Panurus biarmicus Two in 2013

Red-rumped Swallow Cecropis daurica 1996, 2006 and 2012

Yellow-browed Warbler Phylloscopus inornatus 2015

Rose-coloured Starling Pastor roseus Three in 2002

Desert Wheatear Oenanthe deserti 2016

Black-headed Wagtail Motacilla flava feldegg* 2005

Ph

oto

: Jo

hn

Le

e

Figure 5.27: Black-headed Wagtail (Motacilla flava feldegg), August 2005.

Blue-headed Wagtail Motacilla flava flava* 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015 and 2016

Common Rosefinch Erythrina erythrina 1996

Lapland Bunting Calcarius lapponicus 2012

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Two in 2011

Table 5.4: Rare and scarce birds recorded at South Huish Nature Reserve, 1969-2016. All records refer to single

birds unless otherwise stated. (Species order follows BOU 2016 and subsequent changes to the list included in

BOURC reports). Subspecies are marked *.

5.7.3.1 Mammals

Ph

oto

: T

err

y W

hit

tak

er

Figure 5.28: Water Vole (Arvicola amphibius).

41


No formal studies have been undertaken of the mammals at South Huish and the following list (Table

5.11) is based on casual observations over many years. The principal species of conservation concern

are the European Otter (Lutra lutra), an occasional visitor, and the Water Vole (Arvicola amphibius),

which was re-introduced to the site by the former owner in 2010. Its current status there is unknown.

Order Common name Taxon name

Rodentia Wood Mouse Apodemus sylvaticus

Rodentia Bank Vole Myodes glareolus

Rodentia Field Vole Microtus agrestis

Rodentia Water Vole* Arvicola amphibius

Rodentia Brown Rat Rattus norvegicus

Rodentia Grey Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis

Insectivora Common Shrew Sorex araneus

Insectivora European Mole Talpa europaea

Insectivora Eurasian Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus

Lagomorpha European Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus

Lagomorpha Brown Hare Lepus europaeus

Carnivora Red Fox Vulpes vulpes crucigera

Carnivora European Badger Meles meles

Carnivora European Otter Lutra lutra

Carnivora American Mink Neovison vison

Carnivora Stoat Mustela erminea

Carnivora Weasel Mustela nivalis

Artiodactyla Roe Deer Capreolus capreolus

Table 5.5: Mammals of South Huish Nature Reserve. Species order is taken from The Mammal Society

full species list. (*re-introduced in 2010. Current status unknown).

No bat breeding or roosting sites have been identified within the reserve and although several

species feed there during the summer months there are no records for this group (Source Devon

Mammal Group webpages - www.devonmammalgroup.org).

European Otter (Lutra lutra)

Conservation/protected status

• International: IUCN status: 2008 classification as Near Threatened

• European: The Otter is a European Protected Species under the Convention on the Conservation

of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) Appendix II (special protection for

listed animal species and their habitats) and the Directive on the Conservation of Natural

Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Habitats & Species Directive) Annex IIa and IIIa

• National:

o In 1978 the connection was made between the decline in Otter populations and the

widespread use of organochlorine pesticides in farming. As a result, Otters were given full

legal protection under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by

the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000).

o The Otter is listed as a Species of Principal Importance under the NERC Act 2006 and on the

UK Biodiversity Action Plan as a priority species (one that is globally threatened and rapidly

42


declining in the UK) and has a Species Action Plan. It has also been identified as a species of

key conservation concern in Devon and has a Devon Biodiversity Action Plan and also in

Local BAPs in Dartmoor, Exeter, Teignbridge and others.

Water Vole (Arvicola amphibius)

Conservation/protected status

• National:

o The Water Vole received limited legal protection in April 1998 through its inclusion in

Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) for some offences. This

protection has recently been extended (6th April 2008), so the Water Vole is now fully

protected under Section 9. Legal protection makes it an offence to:

o - intentionally kill, injure or take (capture) a Water Vole;

o - possess or control a live or dead Water Vole, or any part of a Water Vole;

o - intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place

which Water Voles use for shelter or protection or disturb Water Voles while they are using

such a place;

A number of historical management committee minutes reported that Water Voles might have been

reintroduced at South Huish Nature Reserve by the previous owner although neither Devon Birds nor

the National Trust were informed of any release. No sightings of Water Voles had been reported to

either organisation up to 18 January 2013. A freedom of Information request to Natural England

confirmed that they also have no record of a release at South Huish. However, there have been

recent reports, from contractors working on the marsh, suggesting there may be a healthy

population within the reserve at least during the drier summer months.

Research conducted for this document has discovered that the former owner, Peter Stafford,

financed the release of captive-bred Water Voles in 2010, following a mink monitoring and control

program under the guidance of independent consultants. The animals were provided by and the

project overseen by Derek J Gow Consultancy Ltd., who specialise in Water Vole mitigation,

reintroduction and development-led translocation projects. A survey to determine the current status

of the species within the reserve is recommended in Section 8.3, Objectives and Rationale, as a

continued presence would require re-evaluation of current ditch maintenance protocols. In the UK,

Water Voles and their habitat are fully protected by law under the Wildlife and Countryside Act

(1981) as detailed above.

5.7.4 Alien / invasive pest species

No significant alien invasive plant species have been recorded within the reserve. An alien animal

introduction, generally regarded as a pest species, the American Mink (Mustela vision), has been

observed, and poses a significant threat to breeding birds, small mammals and amphibians.

5.8 Cultural

5.8.1 Archaeology

No archaeological finds have been made within the boundaries of the reserve. However, a number of

significant discoveries from just outside the reserve on South Milton Sands and Leas Foot Beach are

documented in Appendix 6 of the South Milton Ley Management Plan (Pomroy, 2016).

43


5.8.1.1 Bronze Age1

A small excavation of the intertidal peat in 1998 returned a radiocarbon date of 3,910-3,640 years

before present (BP) from the base of the deposit, and 3,790-3,530 BP from the top of the peat

(spread c. 190 mm), (Reed and Whitton, 1999). This suggests that the deposit may have accumulated

within a relatively short time span and over a maximum period of 380 years. This is supported by

palaeoenvironmental analysis, which indicated a wet fen situation and rapid peat growth. Pollen

analysis showed evidence of transition from a woodland environment with open freshwater pools to

more waterlogged open fen with increasing signs of pastoral grassland.

Macrofossil analysis suggests a development from deep open freshwater dominated by aquatic

plants to reed swamp and alder/oak woodland. There is clear evidence for woodland clearance and a

developing pastoral landscape from the early/middle Bronze Age, (Reed and Whitton, 1999). Pollen,

plant macrofossils and insects indicated open grazed pasture close to the wet fen vegetation. There

was no evidence of a marine environment suggesting that the area was not subject to coastal

flooding at this time (Blaylock and Neophytou, 2004). The peat was of Late Bronze Age date, which is

unusual for an intertidal deposit and suggests very rapid coastal change in the area. Severe coastal

erosion is evident today and is clearly not a recent phenomenon (Webster, 2007).

5.8.1.2 Medieval Period2

The land in this area was clearly divided into holdings and was part of a large estate by the Anglo-

Saxon period3, (part of the South Hams granted by King Aethelwulf to himself in a charter of 847,

(Hooke, 1994)). South Milton and South Huish are Domesday Manors and the parish boundary

between them follows the stream west from South Huish to Thurlestone Rock. It is not clear when

the land was enclosed, possibly in the medieval period, although South Huish retained areas of

subdivided arable land (open field system) until the 17th

century, (Fox, 1975). In the medieval period

the region was predominantly arable, with little woodland. The decline in the value of arable land

and in population numbers in the 15th

century may have led to the enclosure of land units to be

farmed by a single tenant, rather than the open field system, this being more usual by c.1500, (Fox,

1975). At the time of the Tithe Map the land is predominantly arable with pasture only in the valley

bottom.

5.8.1.3 Post Medieval Period

The earliest reference to the Parish of South Huish is in “The Exeter Book” of 1806, when the owner

of the area was shown as Judhel of Totnes. In “The Survey of Devon”, (Risdon, 1811) it was reported

that, before Judhel, the land was “owned by an Englishman named Algar” and after by William Fitz-

stephens. The land remained in the Fitz-stephens family for four generations. In the reign of Edward

III South Huish was owned by Lord Walter Manny and by the 19th

century by Lord Viscount

Courtenay, (Polwhele, 1806). During the majority of the 20th

century it was in the ownership of the

Darke family before its purchase in 1989 by Peter Stafford, who subsequently gifted the land to the

National Trust in 2011.

1 Bronze Age Britain refers to the period of British history that spanned from c. 2500 until c. 800 BC

2 The medieval period lasted from the 5

th to the 15

th century.

3 The Anglo-Saxon period stretched over 600 years from 410 to 1066.

44


5.8.2 Past land use

Ph

oto

: Ja

me

s B

ass

The earliest available land plans of the valley show that a drained meadow system existed from at

least 1724, described as marshy ground and bearing the legend “Liable to floods” (Burridge, 1992).

The present ditches were dug in the early 20th century, (Stevens, 1995) although D’Urban and

Mathew (1892) commented that: “Huish Ley by recent successful drainage is now converted into a

marsh and is a favourite nesting-place for the Lapwing” indicating that the drainage was initially

improved in the late 19th

century. Reference has also been made to South Huish being “enclosed with

hedges planted with thorns, except towards the sea where they are of stone”, (Polwhele, 1806). The

water meadow system was practiced until at least the middle of the last century and in drought years

produced some of the only summer grazing in the area, (D. Darke, pers. comm.). The land has

continued to be used as summer grazing for livestock up until the present day. Historical maps for

1886, 1906 and 1952 show little change over the years, (Figures 5.29 to 5.31), and contain no

indication of the series of transverse drainage ditches, which now run from south to north across the

valley.

Figure 5.29: South Huish Ordnance Survey map 1886

45




46


The presence of a relatively small bore and inefficient outlet pipe, draining the site into the sea, led to

regular winter flooding between November and March and occasional flash floods at other times of

the year. However, in 1981, after a prolonged period of flooding in the winter of 1980, the landowner

installed a drainage pipe with a larger bore, resulting in much lower water levels with little flooding

except for short periods in the winter. At the same time the ditches were deepened and cleared and

the land was ploughed and reseeded with a commercial grass mix, (Tucker, 2007). Fertiliser was

applied between 1981 and 1993 and there was some spraying of herbicides. The site continued to be

grazed by cattle until 1995, (Stevens, 1995). Although the increased area of improved pasture proved

temporarily attractive to numbers of herbivorous wildfowl, this was followed by a significant

reduction in the number and variety of birds using the site, which remained the case until Devon

Birds assumed management responsibility (Figure 5.32).

Figure 5.32: Changes in the maximum number of birds and variety of WeBS species reported annually at South

Huish before and after draining and reseeding in 1981

5.8.3 Present land use

The current drainage ditches, both within the reserve and further up the valley, are illustrated clearly

in the latest Ordnance Survey map, (Figure 5.33). Above the reserve on the valley slopes the land

today is a mixture of arable, improved and semi-improved grassland. Some of the arable fields

receive fertiliser and pesticide treatments and some of the improved grasslands receive fertiliser

applications. The National Trust now owns Southdown Farm to the north of the reserve and

completed a nature conservation evaluation of the farm and South Huish Nature Reserve in 2012.

Current land use on the farm is detailed in Figure 5.34. The land within South Huish Nature Reserve is

still grazed by cattle, sheep and ponies during the summer and autumn months, principally to

maintain a short, healthy sward and prevent the spread of rushes and other invasive perennial plants.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Nu

mb

er o

f spe

cies re

po

rtedN

um

be

r o

f b

ird

s r

ep

ort

ed

TotalNumber of species

47


Management requires achieving a balance between providing optimum conditions for birds and

maintaining sufficient pasture for economically viable grazing.

Figure 5.33: South Huish Ordnance Survey map 2016.

Figure 5.34: South Huish Nature Reserve and Southdown Farm, current land use, (National Trust, 2012).

The National Trust’s nature conservation evaluation of the reserve and Southdown Farm made a

number of recommendations, which will be of benefit to the ecology of the reserve and are

reproduced in Table 5.6 below.

48


Wetland

• Ideally catchment management should aim to minimize siltation and nutrient inputs into the

wetland - the whole catchment should be managed under an appropriate low intensity agricultural

system.

• It is desirable that fields within the catchment should be managed as permanent vegetation, not

ploughed and reseeded, or used for arable, at least on the steeper sloping fields where ground

should be left unploughed.

• Maintain good water quality, without excessive nutrients, especially nitrates and phosphates –

fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides should not be applied within 10m of watercourses or the

marsh, and ideally not at all within the fields bordering the marsh – link to management of the

farmland (see below).

Farmland

• A long-term vision should be to link the management of the farmland with that of the wetland. In

order to guide this, a Land Capability Assessment should be undertaken in order to assess options

for meeting objectives of preventing pollution of the marsh etc. - when/if the opportunity arises to

influence the management of the land above.

• As outlined above it is particularly important to keep nutrient levels low in the vicinity of

watercourses and the marsh in the valley, but this also applies to the hedgebanks.

• Ideally manage the farm under a minimum input, permanent pasture system in order to minimise

adverse effects of run-off, siltation and enrichment.

• However, if arable is to be included within the farm system then manage the arable in a way

sympathetic to wildlife, and locate the arable fields away from the marsh on the higher ground.

and on land that is not on steep slopes.

• Suitable arable management should include:

o Some spring sown crops with winter stubbles to provide a food source for birds, and some

stubbles could be left undisturbed for late flowering arable plants, or even longer as fallow –

leaving some fields as fallow can have wildlife benefits.

o Unsprayed and unfertilised cultivated headlands of at least one boom’s-width should be

incorporated along some of the field margins. These will provide opportunities for arable

plants and help protect hedgebanks from enrichment or pollution.

• Avoid stock feeding in the field behind the café, especially on the steeper, more species rich

slopes, in order to minimise enrichment and damage through vehicle disturbance.

Table 5.6: South Huish Nature Reserve and Southdown Farm, recommendations of the nature conservation

evaluation, (National Trust, 2012).

Is not currently known whether these recommendations have been implemented by the National

Trust.

49


6. Past management for nature conservation

Ph

oto

: B

ob

Bu

rrid

ge

Figure 6.1: Ditching works and scrape creation in 1994.

There had been no consideration of nature conservation at South Huish prior to its purchase by Peter

Stafford in 1988 with previous management targeted at maximising the availability of pasture for grazing.

Devon Birds’ first involvement with the site in 1994 pre-dated the signing of a formal management

agreement with the owner in 1995. It falls outside the scope of this plan to list all of the past efforts to

maintain and improve the habitats and infrastructure within the reserve but the investment of the society,

its officers and members over the years has been considerable.

Vic Tucker in particular, together with Bob Burridge, has driven many of the improvements within the

reserve in collaboration with a succession of Devon Birds’ conservation officers, both official and honorary,

including John Avon, Wal Towler, Peter Stevens, Nik Ward, Jim Bennett and Nick Townsend. Each of these

individuals contributed immense enthusiasm and particular strengths and specialisms without which the

reserve would be much the poorer today.

A great deal of the work has been undertaken by small bands of interested and willing members and

volunteers, who have assisted in a variety of tasks both practical and hands-on or behind the scenes.

Devon Birds recognises that their efforts, often unsung, have made an invaluable contribution to the

success of the reserve. A comprehensive survey of site levels within the reserve was undertaken by Devon

Birds’ member and civil engineer Peter Hopkin in 1995 and the resulting data were essential in enabling

the precise excavation of scrapes in natural low spots. The excavations, using heavy plant were assisted by

a laser-guided levelling system, which was innovative technology at the time.

The tasks undertaken have ranged from one-offs, such as mechanical mowing, sluice construction and

major drainage works and annual events such as administering the grazing regime, to the regular

maintenance of the infrastructure within the reserve and adjustments of the water levels in response to

the prevailing environmental conditions. It is a credit to the quiet efficiency of those involved over the

years that, with the exception of occasional but essential ditch and scrape maintenance, much of this work

goes unnoticed by the casual visitor. Local emergencies, such as the unexpected flooding of the reserve

following storms or unseasonally high precipitation, have all been dealt with quickly and effectively.

50


Ph

oto

s: A

lan

Po

mro

y

Figure 6.2: Ditch 2 (left) in July 2016, prior to clearance works and Ditch 1 (right) at the same time, following

clearance of the channel and one bank in 2015.

Ph

oto

: A

lan

Po

mro

y

Figure 6.3: The main scrape in July 2016, immediately after draining to allow re-profiling and clearance of the

encroaching rushes

51


Ph

oto

: A

lan

Po

mro

y

Figure 6.4: The main scrape in April 2017, eight months after re-profiling and clearance of encroaching rushes

Not all of the management actions have proved successful despite taking the best advice available at the

time. Difficulties have been experienced in establishing and enforcing an appropriate grazing regime.

Stocking densities and unsuitable livestock breeds, coupled with conflicting interests between previous

landowners, graziers and conservation requirements, have led to the occasional need for intervention and

mechanical cutting to prevent the spread of rushes and coarse perennials. These events have helped to

refine the grazing protocols detailed later in this document.

Current best practice requires that the impacts of major management activities are monitored and

assessed against baseline data. Whilst there is no doubt that the habitats and biodiversity of South Huish

Reserve have benefited from Devon Birds’ involvement, much of the data are qualitative rather than

quantitative and this is a weakness which is addressed later in this plan. This also presents an excellent

opportunity to engage with members and a wider audience in other conservation bodies and to make best

use of their enthusiasm and experience.

The following section outlines the history of major events and Devon Birds’ activities at South Huish

Nature Reserve from 1968 to the present day. The list is not comprehensive as documentation of some

past events is incomplete. Full details of current and proposed management activities are included later in

the Objectives and Annual work plan (Sections 8.3 and 8.5).

6.1 The chronology of major management and other events

1968: Recognition of the potential value of the site by Bob Burridge, (Tucker, 2007).

52


1980: Informal agreement reached with the landowner David Darke to establish South Huish as a society

reserve, (Devon Birds, 1980).

1981: Small bore drainage pipe replaced with a significantly larger bore by the landowner. Land re-

ditched, ploughed and re-seeded with a commercial grass mix resulting in less flooding and a

significant decline in water birds, (Tucker, 2007).

1988: Peter Stafford purchases the land at the seaward end of the valley and begins a dialogue with

Devon Birds about management of the site, (Stafford pers. comm.).

1990: The National Trust constructs a wooden piling sea defence at South Milton Sands to protect the

dune system and the land behind from erosion. A new car park provided an elevated view across

the reserve.

1992: Preliminary report detailing possible management options produced, (Burridge, 1992).

1992: Botanical Survey completed by the Devon Wildlife Trust.

1992: The National Rivers Authority confirms that it has no objections from a land drainage or

conservation point of view in relation to proposed changes to drainage regime.

1994: First ditch management plan drafted, (Stevens, 1994)

1995: Formal management agreement signed with Devon Birds setting up a 20-year joint venture to

create a freshwater meadowland for the benefit of flora and fauna by means of controlled flooding,

(Tucker, 2007).

1995: First reserve management plan written, (Stevens, 1995).

1995: Comprehensive survey of site levels within the reserve undertaken by Devon Bird’s member Peter

Hopkin, (Tucker, 2007).

1995: Major improvements including the excavation of scrapes, the enlargement of drainage ditches,

reprofiling of their banks and the installation of sluices allowing precise control over water depths

across the reserve, (Tucker, 2007).

53


Ph

oto

: B

ob

Bu

rrid

ge

Figure 6.5: Excavation of the scrape in 1995.

Ph

oto

s: B

ob

Bu

rrid

ge

Figure 6.6: Pumping water from the transverse ditches to fill the scrape in 1995.

54


Ph

oto

: B

ob

Bu

rrid

ge

Figure 6.7: Ditching works and installation of drainage sluices in 1995.

1999: Advice given by the RSPB on appropriate water levels for waders and wildfowl and the control of

invasive rushes, (Davies, 1999)

2001: No grazing possible due the restrictions imposed during the foot and mouth disease outbreak,

(Tucker, 2007).

2002: Mechanical clearance of invasive plants and overgrowth resulting from the absence of grazing.

2003: R. Rogers assumes responsibility for grazing within the reserve, (Ward, 2003).

2005: Water level management calendar and timing and draining plan for individual sectors completed.

2007: Second botanical survey completed, (Smith, 2007).

2007: Advice given by the Devon Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group confirms the suitability of

management processes in place and the need for continued access restrictions, (Johnson, 2007).

2009: The National Trust regenerated the dune system immediately to the west of the reserve, which

they hoped would flex and adjust with rising sea levels and coastal change. Rotten timber pilings

and many tons of rubble and waste were removed and new parking and access created.

55


Ph

oto

: La

nd

ma

rc

Figure 6.8: Works underway in 2009 to reconstruct the dune system at South Milton Sands.

Ph

oto

: D

av

id M

itch

ell

Figure 6.9: The restored and replanted dune system to the west of South Huish Nature Reserve in 2010.

2009: Landowner begins discussions with the National Trust regarding the transfer of ownership.

2009: Botanical survey completed by the Devon Wildlife Trust as part of the Devon Coastal and

Floodplain Grazing Marsh Project, (Kenderdine, 2009).

56


Ph

oto

: Ly

nn

e K

en

de

rdin

e

Figure 6.10: Devon Wildlife Trust’s botanical survey of 2009.

2009: Drainage management plan updated.

2010: Water voles reintroduced to the site, (Stafford, pers. comm.)

2011: Ownership of the reserve ceded to the National Trust.

2011: First meeting with the National Trust to discuss current and future management of the reserve,

(Townsend, 2011).

2012: RNLI lifeguards rescue sheep stranded on the reserve by flash flooding.

Ph

oto

: Is

la R

ey

no

lds,

RN

LI

Figure 6.11: RNLI lifeguards rescuing sheep in July 2012.

57


2012: Nature Conservation Evaluation Survey completed, (National Trust, 2012).

2012: Reserve drained to allow the mechanical clearance of invasive plants and habitat restoration,

resulting from insufficient grazing and inappropriate livestock breeds, (Devon Birds, 2012).

Ph

oto

: N

ick

To

wn

sen

d

Figure 6.12: Mechanical clearance of invasive rushes and reeds in 2012.

2013: Introduction of Highland cattle and ponies to control invasive plants by grazing and to maintain a

sward of appropriate length for wildfowl and waders, (Devon Birds, 2013).

Ph

oto

: Jo

hn

Kir

kh

qa

m

Figure 6.13: Highland cattle on South Huish Nature Reserve in the summer of 2015.

58


2014: Two thirds of the sand dune system at South Milton Sands, which protects the reserve from the

sea, washed away during winter storms.

Ph

oto

: C

hri

stin

e A

nd

ers

on

Figure 6.14: Waves battering the dune system to the west of South Huish Nature Reserve on the 5th

February 2014.

Ph

oto

: T

he

Na

tio

na

l T

rust

Figure 6.15: Resultant storm damage and erosion of the dune system in February 2014 taken from the same

viewpoint.

2014: Four-year ditch maintenance and widening programme commences.

59


Ph

oto

: R

ory

Sa

nd

ers

Figure 6.16: Ditch maintenance and restoration in 2014.

2015: Completion of the second stage of the ditching program and provision of additional protection

around the sluices (these had been damaged by the Highland cattle and horses).

Ph

oto

: A

lan

Po

mro

y

Figure 6.17: Sluice 1 showing the protection required to prevent damage by cattle and horses.

2015: Formal ten-year management agreement with the National Trust signed.

60


2016: Ditch maintenance programme continued including re-profiling of both scrapes and removal of two

hundred tonnes of spoil and rush roots.

Figure 6.18: A view west across the scrape in July 2016, drained prior to reprofiling and clearance of

invasive rushes. Ph

oto

: A

lan

Po

mro

y

Ph

oto

: K

ev

in C

ox

Figure 6.19: Reprofiling and clearance of one of the scrape margins during September 2016.

61


7. Access and current use

7.1. Access to the site

The reserve is located just inland of South Milton Sands and about 100m from Thurlestone Bay and can be

reached either through the villages of South Milton, South Huish or via Galmpton. The South Milton route

is the most direct and leads to National Trust car parks on the dunes separating the reserve from South

Milton Sands. The lower car park overlooks the reserve and the smaller, upper car park Thurlestone Bay.

The car parks are very busy in summer and on sunny days can be full well before noon. The Beachhouse

café next to the upper car park is open all year and is especially busy during school holidays and the

summer months. For those prepared to walk a little further, the reserve can also be accessed through the

village of Thurlestone. This route leads to a private car park on the north side of South Milton Ley Nature

Reserve with an elevated view of Thurlestone Bay. A short (400m) walk south across the public footbridge,

forming part of the South West Coast Path, leads directly to South Huish Nature Reserve and also presents

the opportunity to view the western end of the reedbed at South Milton Ley.

Both car parks and the South West Coast Path are marked on the map in Figure 3.2.

7.2 Access within the site

No public access is permitted within the reserve in order to minimise disturbance. The scrape nearest the

sea can be viewed from the lower car park, although reeds do obscure some views, but the best location

to observe both scrapes and the whole of the reserve is the bank adjacent to the café. Thurlestone Bay can

also be seen from the same place, providing the best of both worlds. The ditches draining the upper part

of the reserve are best viewed from the lane running past the houses along its south side, a short walk

from the lower car park. The field immediately behind the café is always worth a scan as is the small copse

on the opposite side of the lane from beachfront properties at South Milton Sands.

Figure 7.1: Principal viewing points across South Huish Nature Reserve, (Map data: Google, 2016).

62


7.3 The reasons why people visit the site

South Huish Nature Reserve is important for both people and wildlife and contains natural features that

are special within the local context and provide opportunities for environmental education or research and

the simple enjoyment of nature in wild, unspoilt habitat. With access to the reserve restricted, in order to

minimise disturbance, the principal reason for many visitors is the opportunity to observe species of birds

associated with coastal grazing marshes, a relatively rare habitat in the south-west of England and, for

some, the possibility of seeing rare or uncommon species.

The majority of the public first encounter the reserve from the National Trust car park at South Milton

Sands or as they use the South West Coast Path outside its western boundary. The South Hams Life into

Landscape1 Visitor Survey 2005/06 identified that 69% of visitors to the area were walkers. Relaxation

(26%) and the natural environment (30%) were the two factors considered to be of highest importance

when choosing to visit the South Hams. Devon Birds and the National Trust are to discuss the installation

of interpretation boards and viewing facilities in order to enhance the visitor experience.

7.3.1 Wildlife attractions

The principal wildlife attractions are those species of bird which occupy the reserve as migrants on spring

and autumn passage or as winter visitors. Whilst these may require some perseverance to see due to the

dense nature of the vegetation in places, the western perimeter of the reserve affords vantage points from

which, with a little patience, good views can be obtained. Water Voles may still breed within the reserve

and Otters and other mammals are occasionally seen.

7.3.2 Other features that attract people

This coastal grazing marsh with some areas of standing water, confined within a shallow valley and with

sand dunes at the seaward end, provides an extensive natural landscape within a popular coastal location.

The adjacent public footpath allows excellent views over the reserve and the surrounding countryside.

Visitors appreciate the landscape or simply enjoy the peace and quiet, which adds to the quality of life of

the people of Devon in ways which are beyond financial measure.

7.4 Interpretation provisions

At present there is no signage to indicate that the marsh is managed as a nature reserve and there are no

interpretation boards. This is an issue which this management plan seeks to address with the long-term

objective of producing a comprehensive public engagement plan, in partnership with the National Trust,

including interpretation boards, viewing facilities and one-off events.

7.5 Educational use

Protected areas are a valuable resource for education and awareness raising activities as they provide

opportunities for people to experience the natural environment first hand. The type of activities

undertaken will vary from site to site depending on location, accessibility, proximity to centres of

population, the size and complexity of the site, conservation interest etc. The previous management plan

considered the development and implementation of an education programme, primarily for local

schoolchildren, to raise awareness and understanding of the diversity, importance and conservation of the

reserve’s wildlife and habitats. However, in practice, restricted access coupled with a lack of resources to

1 Life into Landscape is a partnership of local authorities and conservation organisations throughout South Devon who have

joined forces to implement ten programmes of work that contribute to the enhancement of the natural and cultural landscape

heritage of the area and people’s enjoyment of it.

63


coordinate and supervise visits proved insurmountable. There is scope for involving local schools in a

BioBlitz style event at South Huish Nature Reserve but issues relating to public liability insurance,

supervision and safety would need to be resolved.

7.6 Academic research

Ph

oto

: H

off

ma

nn

/Um

we

lt B

un

de

sam

t

Although South Huish Nature Reserve has been formally managed by Devon Birds since 1995, little

scientific research has been undertaken in the ensuing years due, in part, to the ongoing access

restrictions. Surveys of the flora have been completed by the Devon Wildlife Trust in 1992, by Roger Smith,

the Royal Botanical Society’s official recorder for South Devon, in 2007 and by Lynne Kenderdine, DWT’s

County Wildlife Site Officer in 2009. The National Trust commissioned an archeological assessment of

Southdown Farm and South Milton Sands in 2004, (Blaylock and Neophytou, 2004), and the National Trust

National Consultancy conducted a vegetation and zoological survey in 2012.

A number of projects by undergraduates from the University of Plymouth have been completed but the

results remain unpublished and copies have been difficult to obtain, (Taylor, 2004; Volkelt-Igoe, 2009).

Other data included in this document arise from studies where South Huish Nature Reserve was peripheral

to the main focus of the research (Reed and Whitton 1999; Dawson, 2012).

It is hoped that gaps in our current knowledge can be filled by re-establishing links with the Universities of

Plymouth and Exeter and by inviting these institutions, together with Devon Birds’ members and those of

other conservation bodies with specialist experience, to consider undertaking research within the reserve.

Proposals for future projects, together with associated risk assessments will be evaluated by the

management team and access to the reserve would be subject to the provisions that the data collected

would enhance our knowledge and understanding of the site, that disturbance is minimised and that

copies of relevant data and any subsequent reports are made available to Devon Birds.

64


8. Management plan 2017-2021

8.1 Site evaluation

The following evaluation follows the formats currently recommended by Scottish Natural Heritage (2007)

and Natural England (2010a) as detailed in Alexander (2010).

8.1.1 Identification of Important Features

Feature

UK Biodiversity Action

Plan priority

habitat/species

Higher Level

Stewardship Scheme

supported habitat

Local Biodiversity

Action Plan priority

habitat/species

Coastal and floodplain

grazing marsh Yes Yes Yes

Ditches Yes

Ponds and scrapes Yes

Table 8.1: Important features at South Huish Nature Reserve.

8.1.2 Summary description of Important Features

8.1.2.1 Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh

Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh is periodically inundated pasture, or meadow with ditches to

maintain the water levels containing standing brackish or fresh water. These ditches are especially rich in

plants and invertebrates. Grazing marsh frequently becomes flooded in winter and spring and this keeps

the land temperature warmer than it would otherwise be. This creates ideal feeding conditions for a range

of over-wintering bird species which feed in the soft mud and on plant material. In the spring grass growth

begins early providing valuable early grazing as water levels are lowered. Almost all areas are grazed and

some are cut for hay or silage. Sites may contain seasonal water-filled hollows and permanent ponds with

emergent swamp communities, but not extensive areas of tall fen species like reeds.

The exact extent of grazing marsh in the UK is not known but it is possible that there may be a total of

300,000 ha. England holds the largest proportion with an estimate in 1994 of 200,000 ha. However, only a

small proportion of this grassland is semi-natural supporting a high diversity of native plant species (5,000

ha in England, an estimated 10,000 ha in the UK), (Maddock, 2008). Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh is

a priority habitat under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

Grazing marshes are particularly important for the populations of wintering wildfowl they support,

including Internationally important populations of wintering wildfowl such as Bewick’s Swans (Cygnus

bewickii) and Whooper Swans (Cygnus cygnus). Amphibians are characteristic of grazing marshes, which at

certain times of the year are an important component of an Otter’s diet. Sites may contain seasonal water-

filled hollows and permanent ponds with emergent swamp communities, but not extensive areas of tall

fen species like reeds. The ditch systems of grazing marshes provide extremely important habitats for

assemblages of submerged, floating, emergent and bank-side plants; as well as aquatic invertebrates.

Much of the UK’s grazing marsh has been lost in the past century, especially via conversion of fields to

cereal production, entailing over-deepening of ditches and inevitable eutrophication from fertiliser run-off.

Only a small proportion of the remaining grassland is unimproved, supporting a high diversity of native

plant species, (Buglife, 2013a; Palmer et al., 2013).

65


8.1.2.2 Ditches

Grazing marsh ditch systems are found mainly in coastal areas of England and Wales, although some occur

in inland areas once occupied by fens and in river valleys. Many of these coastal grazing marsh systems

display a transition from fresh to saline water, which is an important factor in maintaining their

biodiversity. The ditch systems of grazing marshes are of great importance for biodiversity, and are

especially rich in aquatic invertebrates and plants. These networks of channels, although artificial, often

act as a refuge for communities typical of previously extensive natural wetland systems and have a critical

role in maintaining an elevated water table during periods of low rainfall.

Coastal grazing marshes ditches support a very rich and special flora and invertebrate fauna and are the

national stronghold for a number of rare and threatened species. They are threatened by climate change.

Brackish ditches are restricted geographically and are an important and distinctive element of the grazing

marsh habitat, especially in the east of England. In order to maintain maximum diversity of flora and

fauna, the complete spectrum of stable brackish and freshwater ditches represented in a marsh or a

geographical area should be retained. Invertebrate and plant assemblages of ditches are strongly

interrelated. In order to maximise the biological potential of a marsh, all stages in the hydrosere1 should

be represented, (Drake et al., 2010).

The environmental variables with the most influence on invertebrate community composition are salinity,

geographical location, vegetation structure (principally hydroseral stage), ditch dimensions, water depth

and grazing by cattle. Vegetation composition is also heavily influenced by salinity, together with water

depth and substrate type. Grazing marshes are the British stronghold for Frogbit (Hydrocharis morsus-

ranae), Tubular Water-dropwort (Oenanthe fistulosa), Sharp-leaved Pondweed (Potamogeton acutifolius)

and Water Soldier (Stratiotes aloides) and numerous Biodiversity Action Plan priority species (e.g. the

Lesser Silver Water Beetle (Hydrochara caraboides), the Little Whirlpool Ram’s-horn Snail (Anisus

vorticulus), Sharp-leaved Pondweed (Potamogeton acutifolius) and Tubular Water-dropwort (Oenanthe

fistulosa) are associated with ditch systems although not all of these species are present at South Huish.

Despite the fact that many of the most important grazing marshes are SSSIs or lie within Environmentally

Sensitive Areas, the flora and fauna of ditch systems is thought to be threatened by agricultural pollution,

unsuitable management, erratic water supply and rising sea levels. Wholesale mechanical ditch clearance,

as practised routinely in some areas and steep ditch profiles are thought to have a detrimental effect on

ditch faunas and vegetation, but evidence has been hard to come by. In order to conserve the biodiversity

of these ditch systems it is important to establish whether recent deterioration (or improvement) has

occurred and to understand better what constitutes the optimum management regime for the ditches

themselves and their immediate catchment areas.

8.1.2.3 Ponds and scrapes

Ponds and scrapes provide important feeding areas for wading birds and wildfowl, which find lots of

invertebrate food in and around the wet muddy edges. Other farmland birds such as Pied (Motacilla alba

yarelli) and Yellow Wagtails (M. flava) may also benefit from these insect-rich areas. They support a wide

variety of aquatic, terrestrial and aerial invertebrates, such as beetles, bugs and molluscs, some of which

can be rare and of conservation importance.

1 Hydrosere: the succession of vegetation types whereby open water develops via fen to forest or bog

66


In the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), ponds are defined as small, permanent or seasonal water bodies

that are up to two hectares in size. Ponds support an immense number of plants and animals – more than

100 UK BAP priority species are associated with them. They are particularly good for invertebrates

including the Large Red Damselfly (Pyrrhosoma nymphula), Common Darter (Sympetrum striolatum) and

Broad-bodied Chaser (Libellula depressa) dragonflies.

The vegetation in ponds varies according to depth. Plants like Spiked Water-milfoil (Myriophyllum

spicatum), Water-starwort (Callitriche stagnalis) and Yellow Water-lily (Nuphar lutea) are typical of deeper

water, while Soft Rush (Juncus effusus), Creeping Bent (Agrostis stolonifera), Greater Pond Sedge (Carex

riparia) and Yellow Iris (Iris pseudacorus) are more characteristic of marginal areas.

Ponds provide important homes for amphibians including the Common Toad (Bufo bufo), Smooth Newt

(Lissotriton vulgaris) and Palmate Newt (L. helveticus). They are also home to Water Voles (Arvicola

amphibius) which burrow into soft banks and Grass Snakes (Natrix natrix) which hunt among the

vegetation. Waterbirds such as Mute Swan (Cygnus olor), Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) and ducks rely on

ponds for feeding and nesting, while waders like Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) and Snipe (Gallinago

gallinago) probe the muddy margins for invertebrates. Ponds provide stepping-stones between isolated

patches of habitat, linking up the countryside and allowing species to move about freely.

Scrapes are shallow ponds of less than 1m depth which hold water seasonally and which remain damp for

much of the year. They are shallow depressions with gently sloping edges which create obvious water

features in fields. They can make a significant difference to wildlife and can be created in areas of damp or

floodplain grassland, arable reversion or set aside land. A wader scrape can provide invaluable food and

refuges for a wide range of wetland wildlife. They support a wide variety of invertebrates and can provide

important feeding areas for wading birds.

Wildlife benefits if a scrape is seasonally wet and dry, and the weather is often too unpredictable to be too

prescriptive. As a rule of thumb however, for wading birds the ideal is for a scrape to hold water from

March to late June, allowing water levels to recede naturally as the weather becomes drier. If a scrape

dries out after this there is no problem, (Sussex Wildlife Trust, 2013). In winter, scrapes may occasionally

be completely submerged.

Grazing and poaching1 is the best management for a scrape as long as it is not too intensive. Extensive

grazing, particularly by cattle is ideal. This helps create a varied vegetation structure with scattered rushes,

tussocks and patches of bare, open ground. Occasional mowing of rushes and tussocks may be necessary

around a wader scrape, to keep some of the sward open and grazeable. During the bird breeding season

(usually around February to July), stock numbers should be kept to a minimum to limit disturbance to birds

and the potential trampling of nests, (Sussex Wildlife Trust, 2013).

8.2 Site ideal management outcomes

To achieve favourable conservation status for all land within the reserve with the area and quality of

habitat and features of conservation importance being maintained or increased in the long term by

positive management and with all factors that affect the habitat, including its typical species, under

control.

1 Poaching is the physical breakdown of soil structure under load, for example from the passage of heavy animals or vehicles.

67


8.3 Objectives and rationale

8.3.1 Objective 1 - Ditches

Ph

oto

: R

ory

Sa

nd

ers

Figure 8.1: Ditch restoration at South Huish Nature Reserve in 2014.

To maintain the functionality and optimise the biodiversity of the drainage ditches and their banks.

Rationale. The drainage of wetland areas and the claiming of land from the sea have occurred in

England for two millennia but the scale and rate of wetland drainage accelerated from the 17th Century

with technical advances in the ability to control and pump water. It has been estimated that by the 1930s

only a quarter of the historic extent of floodplain wetlands remained in England, mainly in the form of

periodically flooded grassland and grazing marsh. There was another step-change in the post-war era with

further advances in drainage technology and increased availability of financial resources for the

combination of in-field drainage and the improvement of the arterial drainage system. These largely

publicly financed, drainage improvements in the post-war period resulted in significant losses of wetland

wildlife, (Buisson et al., 2008).

Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh is a priority habitat under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and

numerous Biodiversity Action Plan priority species are associated with its ditch systems, (Drake et al.,

2010). The ditch systems of grazing marshes, which act as linear ponds, are of great importance for

biodiversity, and are especially rich in aquatic invertebrates and plants. These networks of channels,

although artificial, often act as a refuge for communities typical of previously extensive natural wetland

systems. This habitat is very important for brackish invertebrate faunas, as well as freshwater ones. The

ditches at South Huish have two critical functions; the removal of water during periods of inundation and

equally importantly, helping to maintain a high water table and refuge for aquatic species during drier

periods. Over-management of ditches, including over-deepening, has impoverished many areas of

floodplain habitat, so getting the management formula right is critical.

Flooding resulting from inadequate maintenance can have adverse effects on nature conservation

interests and these arise under specific circumstances, including:

• The season of the flooding – summer floods can wash away nests and for some birds this will be

the end to their only breeding attempt that year.

• The duration of flooding – extended flooding in warm weather can lead to de-oxygenation of the

water and the risk of fish kills on site. Prolonged inundation can kill many grasses and lead to a

dense growth of rushes, which are unpalatable to cattle.

68


• The nutrient content of the water – nutrients deposited by flooding can raise soil nutrient levels

leading to changes in the vegetation, frequently an increased dominance of robust grasses over

rarer flowering plants.

• The sediment content of the water – erosion of channel banks and adjacent land introduces

sediment within the system, which is then redistributed. This can both create new habitat and

damage existing habitat.

• The presence of invasive species – flooding can spread plants and animals from one part of the

drainage area to another, e.g. fish fry, seeds and other plant propagules, (Buisson et al., 2008).

Drainage ditches require management otherwise they silt up and become choked with vegetation.

However, all stages in this process support interesting invertebrate communities, so it is important to

have a good rotational management plan to ensure that there is continuity of habitat and some areas of

wetland habitat are kept undisturbed for wildlife. Good practice requires ditches to be stagger cleared so

that only short sections are affected in any one year, which allows cleared areas to be re-colonised from

adjacent sections, as many invertebrates such as molluscs have limited mobility. Another option is to clear

only one side of a ditch at a time, (Buglife, 2013a). In particular, the high value for invertebrates of ditches

that have reached a late successional stage and become choked should be recognised, (Buglife, 2016).

Management interventions will typically cause a ditch’s flora to change in composition and the vegetation

will then slowly return towards the plant community initially present. Such operations include occasional

weed cutting or dredging to remove accumulated silt. As a ditch passes through this floral succession, the

plants present at each stage produce seeds which accumulate in the sediment where they remain in a

dormant state, creating a seed bank. After dredging, species may re-appear after many years of absence.

The plants in drainage channels are generally well adapted to surviving the successional process. At any

one time only a proportion of the species present in the ditch and its sediment will be visible. Having plant

species present, but lying dormant waiting for suitable conditions, encourages long-term stability in the

plant communities of the drainage network, (Buglife, 2011).

At South Huish the ditches closest to the sea are often brackish due to incursions of seawater, particularly

when high spring tides coincide with low-pressure storm events. There are a number of specialist species

associated with brackish water that would disappear if control structures were modified to prevent salt

water entering ditch systems.

The following best practice guidance, (Environment Agency, 2003), has been incorporated into the ditch

and scrape maintenance protocol presented in Section 8.5.8:

● When vegetation clearing or de-silting, leave parts of the ditch undisturbed to ensure some refuge

habitat is kept, enabling wildlife to re-colonise areas disturbed through management.

● Manage ditches in an upstream direction, to help wildlife return to the disturbed length

downstream.

● Work from one bank only, avoiding damage to the working bank by careful operation of a machine

that is appropriate to the channel size.

● Ditch management in late summer/early autumn avoids disturbance to wildlife whilst access is

generally easier because of the drier ground conditions.

● If removing aquatic vegetation, leave cut material adjacent to the watercourse for several hours so

69


wildlife can return to the water. But avoid leaving large amounts of decomposing weed on the

banks because the liquor could pollute the water (keep livestock away from dredgings that might

contain poisonous plants such as Hemlock, Hemlock Water-dropwort or iris), (Environment

Agency, 2003).

● Maintain on a 5-6 year rotation (15-20% per year). Restore over 2-3 years.

● Re-profile ditch banks to gentle gradients (maximum 45 degrees) to provide shallow water fringes

for aquatic plants and wildlife.

● Leave one bank and channel margin intact throughout, or leave blocks of ditch habitat undisturbed

(approximately 8-10m).

● With appropriate stocking density and suitably profiled banks, fences are unnecessary. Livestock

grazing will prevent scrub and coarser vegetation becoming established.

● Create shallow water shelves (berms) to increase diversity and maintain the capacity of the ditch.

● Avoid producing or adding to a raised spoil bank (levee), previously created through repeated de-

silting works. Levees can be removed at intervals (or entirely) to re-connect the ditch to the flood

plain.

● Excavate shallow, scalloped, drinking bays for livestock. This helps limit erosion and increases

habitat diversity.

● Do not fill in wetland features with spoil from ditch works.

8.3.2 Objective 2 - Water levels

Figure 8.2: Summer flooding at South Huish Reserve in July 2012.

To maintain a water level management regime that is consistent with the ecological requirements of

the reserve.

Rationale. The objective for a water level management plan is to maintain water levels that are

consistent with the ecological requirements of the interest features of the reserve, (Buisson, 2008). As

with other aspects of the management plan, compromises have to be made between conditions most

suited to birds throughout the year and the need to provide sufficient grazing for livestock to maintain the

diversity and integrity of habitats.

At South Huish Nature Reserve water drains through a pipe, which passes under the western perimeter

and discharges into the bay. Sluices at the ends of the two western ditches allow fine control of the depth

of the water table and water levels within the ditches, pond and scrapes. In principal, the aim is to ensure

that water levels in the ditches and associated waterways are reasonably high (close to field level)

throughout the year. This may drop in summer through natural evaporation or lack of rainfall but

fluctuating water levels need not be detrimental to the invertebrates present, as long as the change is not

70


too rapid, (Buglife, 2013b). The maintenance of a water table 25-30cm below the soil surface throughout

the summer months encourages an abundance of earthworms and other invertebrates, whilst raising the

water level to the soil surface between November and March creates standing water in the pools and

scrapes most suited to feeding and roosting wildfowl.

Other benefits arising from fine control of water levels include:

• Ease of management - in general it is far easier and safer to carry out management tasks when a

wetland is drained. Intricate re-profiling is much easier to achieve when the bed of a wetland is

clearly visible and the materials relatively dry.

• Exposure of feeding sites for birds - fluctuating water levels influence the availability of food

resources to birds. Waders, for example, feed mainly on invertebrates found along exposed

shorelines; by gradually lowering the water level, fresh areas are continually exposed for these

birds.

• Maintaining areas of water during periods of drought - the retention of water can be extremely

useful where the supply is unpredictable. Some species, such as many dragonflies, benefit from

fairly constant water levels, while other species require standing water at particular times of the

year. The ability to block off outflows if a need arises may be of great benefit, (Merritt, 1994).

Conversely prolonged inundation can have adverse effects on nature conservation interests, as detailed in

the preceding objective – Ditches. The water level management protocol and calendar (Section 8.5.9) take

into account recommendations for lowland plant communities (Wheeler et al., 2004), wading birds (RSPB,

2005) and the need for sufficient pasture to sustain economically viable grazing.

8.3.3 Objective 3 - Grazing

Figure 8.3: Highland cow and calf at South Huish Nature Reserve in July 2014.

To use grazing to maintain and enhance existing habitats while ensuring there is minimal conflict with

the wider nature conservation objectives of the site.

Rationale. Managed pastures can be valuable sources of invertebrate prey for declining birds. Where

they are found, sympathetically grazed pastures can make a big difference to breeding success and winter

survival. Small birds hunt most efficiently in swards with a complex, patchy structure. There, plentiful

insect prey within tall, dense patches, are made available to birds that can only use adjacent shorter grass

to gain access. Producing suitable swards tends to be easiest with extensive cattle grazing, but even then

it is necessary to balance the conflicting requirements of birds, their prey and the need to maintain

agricultural outputs at profitable levels, (DEFRA, 2013).

71


In the absence of grazing by livestock, coastal grazing marsh would rapidly undergo a series of

vegetational successions from wet grassland to reedbed and ultimately through scrub to wet woodland.

The habitat was originally created for agricutural use and its survival as grazing marsh is dependant on

continued human intervention. Livestock have a crucial role in maintaining a suitable sward and

preventing the spread of undesirable, invasive, perrenial plants as well as creating microhabitats for

invertebrates through trampling and poaching. There is sometimes a conflict between the desire to

increase areas of open water within a marsh and the need to retain sufficient good-quality sward for

grazing to be economically viable. It is therefore important to recognise that, without grazing, vegetation

would have to be mechanically cleared annually, at considerable expense, with an unacceptably high

carbon footprint and none of the benefits detailed below.

Invertebrates - Grassland with a complete range of successional stages and vegetation structures, from

bare ground through to scrub, short-grazed grass through to taller grassland with tussocks, is likely to

support the widest range of invertebrates (Kirby, 1992). In general, taller vegetation supports a more

diverse and abundant invertebrate fauna than short-grazed grassland. However, many specialist species

require a mosaic of vegetation of different heights for different stages of their life cycle, or may require

somewhat more homogeneous habitat, such as fairly large areas of very short-grazed turf. If grassland

vegetation is left unmanaged for as little as one or two years the structural diversity, and eventually the

botanical diversity, is likely to decrease, with a corresponding reduction in the abundance and diversity of

invertebrates (e.g. Crofts & Jefferson, 1999).

Maintenance of a heterogeneous sward structure throughout the year is vital in the conservation of a

diverse invertebrate fauna; components of the sward such as dead stems and flower heads are ideal

habitats for many insects (Miles & Sokoloff, 1999), for example, the picture-wing flies. Features such as

these illustrate the importance of maintaining a varied sward structure throughout the year.

Birds - The group of birds which has received greatest attention with regard to winter sward requirements

is wildfowl and waders; Great Britain supports internationally important wintering populations of several

species therefore their conservation and the appropriate management of their habitat is a priority. In

general, this group has three broad requirements of wintering sites. These are suitable feeding

conditions, lack of disturbance and suitable roost sites (RSPB et al., 1997). While extensive shallow

flooding may be the most important factor in site selection, the condition of the sward is also very

important.

Grazing wildfowl such as swans, geese and Wigeon generally prefer a short, 5cm-15cm (RSPB et al. 1997),

even sward of relatively soft, palatable grasses, often with a high proportion of white clover (Owen, 1973),

with the bulk of the vegetation at the lower end of this range (Summers and Critchley, 1990). A negative

relationship between sward height and pecking rate has been clearly established for grazing Wigeon,

(Durant and Fritz, 2006). Bean Geese, however, have shown a preference for longer swards, often cattle

or horse grazed (Allport, 1989). These species also require areas of open water as safe disturbance and

predator-free roost sites.

Surface-feeding or dabbling ducks (e.g. Teal, Shoveler, Pintail) require shallow, open water in pools and

ditches and as a result of flooding (generally <25cm), in close proximity to, or around, seed-bearing plant

species such as rushes, sedges and docks. It is important, therefore, that such species are allowed to

72


flower and set seed, (Natural England, 1999). This requires the management of the site to allow a

heterogeneous sward structure to develop throughout the season, with areas of taller vegetation and

rush/sedge tussocks where flowering and seed set can occur.

Wintering and passage waders (e.g. Lapwing, Golden Plover, Snipe) feed on soil-dwelling invertebrates

especially earthworms and require high water tables which provides soft, damp soil together with areas of

shallow, open water where species such as Redshank forage at the water’s edge. Islands of non-flooded

grassland are used as secure roosting sites. Sward heights of <10cm are generally preferred although

snipe will forage in taller vegetation for concealment. Larger fields lacking tall boundary features and

away from human disturbance are preferred (Milsom et al, 1998; Natural England, 1999). The structure is

good for Snipe where tussocks 50-80 cm tall cover between 60-70% of the area, a short sward between 5-

15 cm tall covers between 30-40% of the area, bare ground is less than 10% and standing water covers

less than 60% of the area, (Natural England, 2011)

Yellow Wagtails, a summer migrant, breeding primarily on wet grassland, appear to favour tussocky, cattle

grazed swards during the breeding season. Their distribution is positively correlated with tussock or clump

size, rather than frequency (Milsom et al. 2000). Nests are concealed in long, tussocky vegetation, (RSPB

et al., 1997).

From the grazier’s point of view, the objective is to maximise the production of animal biomass and this

can lead to conflict with conservation objectives. There have been difficulties in the past at South Huish

with stock levels, grazing periods and the selection of inappropriate breeds all causing problems. These

issues have been resolved both by dialogue and through experience and, with the cooperation of the

current grazier, Highland cattle were introduced to the site in 2013 and have proved particularly effective

at maintaining the sward and controlling invasive perennials and are happy to stand in water to do so. The

cattle are supplemented on the drier pasture areas by ponies with similar varied diets and sheep on

occasions.

With targeted marketing a grazier can offset the relatively low stocking density required at South Huish

with the added value of naturally fed beef and lamb. Consumers prefer the image of meat produced

extensively on grass, (RSPB, 2006). Levels of Omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin E, which are beneficial in the

human diet, are found in a much higher proportion in grass fed beef as opposed to concentrate fed beef

and colour saturation (the depth of red colour) is retained better in steaks from the naturally fed animals,

(Warren et al., 2008). Consumers also prefer the taste and texture of salt marsh lamb which can command

premium prices.

The positive effects of cattle have been listed by a Buglife project, which showed that grazing with cattle is

of more benefit to aquatic invertebrate populations than grazing with sheep or no grazing. This is because

poaching creates shallow water in which many invertebrate species thrive. Cattle also help to maintain a

varied vegetation structure and minimise shading. Recommended management measures are to:

● Stock fields adjacent to ditches with low to moderate numbers of cattle to allow some poaching of

margins and to create unevenly grazed marginal vegetation

● Leave at least some ditches unfenced to give cattle access to ditch margins, (Buglife, 2011).

Mild poaching by cattle at ditch margins is beneficial to many of the invertebrates found in this habitat, as

poaching produces patches of bare mud or peat and provides uneven surfaces with mini-pools. Critically,

73


cattle trampling results in the formation of a berm at about summer water level, and it is this feature that

supports many of the specialised water-transition invertebrates (sheep are not heavy enough to create a

berm). Providing stock levels are not excessive, taller water margin plants should flourish along the ditch

margins. Fencing to exclude cattle from ditch margins prevents this and should not be widely adopted

across a whole site. Wherever possible, such fencing should be removed, although some areas of denser

marginal vegetation along fenced stretches will be beneficial to invertebrates such as spiders, (Buglife,

2013b).

The grazing regime is dependent on the conservation objectives for the site, with light grazing preferred

as this is closer to a natural un-grazed system and provides structural diversity, whilst still allowing grazing

intolerant plants to persist. Stocking levels should be 0.7 LSU1/ha/yr (approx. 2-3 sheep and 0.7-1 cattle)

through April-October. Areas grazed can be rotated by the use of electric fencing to prevent too much

soil compaction and poaching. Eroded areas need to be fenced off from grazing, as erosion will increase

rapidly if not managed. Supplementary feeding should be avoided to prevent localised poaching and

nutrient enrichment, (Buglife, 2016). Stocking densities should be monitored as environmental conditions

will vary from year to year. With too high a stocking rate species richness can decrease and sedimentation

can be reduced. With too low a stocking rate species of invasive perennials may spread and different

vegetation patterns can develop, (Gwent Wildlife Trust, 2013).

Heavy grazing from late summer onwards restores the required sward heights for the following year. If

grazing is not possible, cutting will be essential. Cutting should be timed for suitably dry periods after the

end of the breeding season, usually between August and October. Expect to cut at least twice per year if

grazing is not possible, (White, 2002). Where re-wetting takes place on naturally damp land, rushes may

increase rapidly. A limited rush cover is beneficial but in excess will have an adverse impact. The aim is for

no more than 20-30% scattered rush cover managed by grazing and topping when cover increases beyond

this. Most livestock have to be hard pressed before they will make an impact on Soft Rush (Juncus effusus)

and will lose condition. Cattle are preferential with the following breeds proving most suitable, Belted

Galloway, Galloway, Herefords, Highland cattle, Longhorns and Red Polls. Galloway and Highland cattle

like water for wallowing and to cool down, (RSPB, 2006; Rannapp, 2005).

8.3.4 Objective 4 - Scrapes

Ph

oto

: K

ev

on

Co

x

Figure 8.4: Scrape restoration at South Huish Nature Reserve in August 2016.

To maintain the extent and depth of scapes by periodic reprofiling and removal of marginal vegetation.

1 LSU, the livestock unit facilitates the aggregation of livestock from various species and age. 1 LSU is the grazing equivalent

of one adult dairy cow producing 3,000 kg of milk annually, without additional concentrated foodstuffs.

74


Rationale. Scrapes are pools and ribbons of shallow water that dry slowly over the spring and

summer. When water levels in ditches are raised such ponds often form in natural depressions or in relict

drains or rills. Where this does not occur naturally a scrape is an ideal alternative. In the spring and

summer, as the water retreats, the warm margins and wet mud provide conditions for plants to seed and

for invertebrates to bask and feed. In turn, this attracts a variety of passage birds which feed by probing

both mud and water. In winter a scrape may continue to host wading birds and also to attract Teal,

Wigeon and other dabbling ducks, (Natural England, 2010b).

The scrapes at South Huish Nature Reserve are the largest the site can sustain without adversely affecting

the economic viability of grazing and require ongoing management to counter a loss of depth by

sedimentation and a loss of area through encroachment of vegetation at the margins. The occasional

incursions of saline water at South Huish have two benefits in that the greatest species diversity tends to

be associated with fresh or slightly brackish scrapes, and vegetation growth, and hence the need for

management, is reduced by salinity, (Merritt, 1994). Research has shown that sedimentation can reduce

the depth of a scrape by as much as 30-50% in as little as two years, (DEFRA, 2007), and the growth rate of

rushes around the scrapes at South Huish exceeds the capacity of livestock to prevent their spread.

Consequently the scrape needs to be re-profiled and its margins cleared of vegetation at regular intervals.

Experience at South Huish has established that this activity is best and most economically completed in

the final year of the rotational ditch maintenance plan, (Section 8.5.8). Best practice guidance requires

management in early autumn to minimise disturbance to wildlife whilst access is generally easier because

of the drier ground conditions, (Environment Agency, 2003), and combining the two activities significantly

reduces both the cost and disturbance on site. Whilst the lowering of water levels during late summer in

order to facilitate access by heavy plant, usually 7-8 weeks prior to the commencement of works,

inevitably impacts negatively on some passage migrants, failure to do so would ultimately lead to the loss

of the scrape.

Re-flooding in winter, following summer/autumn management will kill colonising perennial vegetation

such as grass. Annual weeds, which germinate each year on the muddy margins as the water retreats, are

important as they provide a large supply of seeds for dabbling duck as well as number of passerines such

as Yellowhammer, Reed Bunting and Linnet, (RSPB, 2003).

It has been suggested that an island could be constructed in the larger scrape, principally for loafing birds.

Guidance from Natural England (2010b) states that islands are not appropriate for scrapes and current

Countryside Stewardship Grant guidance, (Natural England, 2016), also specifically prohibits the creation

of islands within scrapes. The shallow water offers no protection against mammalian predators,

maintenance costs are high and access can be difficult, requiring annual draining in some cases.

Sedimentation, following winter inundations, promotes vigorous growth of vegetation which has to be

cleared annually. Accumulations of droppings from larger birds such as Canada Geese and gulls further

encourage plant growth and also require regular clearance to prevent an increase in the parasitic load.

Devon Birds is currently of the opinion that the case for an island is not sufficiently strong to outweigh the

associated increase in workload required to maintain it but will seriously consider the installation of a

gravel/shingle bank on one margin of the scrape. This would not reduce the maintenance requirements

but access would be easier and draining of the scrape would be avoided. If constructed with an

75


impermeable plastic membrane at its base, management would involve the removal of vegetation in the

early spring and in the autumn, combined, where possible, with flooding over winter. Resurfacing the

bank will be required if it is to remain attractive for birds. This task should take no longer than 15-30

minutes. Hand weeding or raking should be sufficient, (RSPB, 2016a).

8.3.5 Objective 5 - Water Voles

Ph

oto

: ©

Ch

ris

Go

me

rsa

ll

To determine the presence, number and distribution of Water Voles within the reserve and, if present,

to adapt management procedures to accommodate their requirements and statutory protection.

Rationale. The current status of Water Voles at South Huish Nature Reserve is unclear. It has been

confirmed that the species was reintroduced by the previous landowner in 2010 and there is evidence

from contractors and the reserve manager that animals are still present. It is recommended that a survey

be commissioned to determine the current situation. If a population survives within the reserve, this

should be celebrated as the last major Water Vole survey carried out by Devon Wildlife Trust in 2002

returned no positive results at 100 sites in Devon with around 50km of waterways surveyed. Animals

arising from a reintroduction scheme in the Lower Axe Valley currently represent the only known

population in the County.

If a survey confirms the continued presence of Water Voles at South Huish there are implications for the

ditch maintenance protocols. In the UK, Water Voles and their habitat are fully protected by law under the

Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). It is therefore an offence to:

• intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place used by a

Water Vole for shelter or protection.

• intentionally or recklessly disturb Water Voles whilst occupying a structure or place used for that

purpose, (Environment Agency, 2011).

The law in practice: It is clearly not the intention of the law to prevent all management or maintenance

works in areas used by Water Voles. However, legal protection does require that due attention is paid to

their presence and appropriate actions are taken to avoid committing offences. If it can be demonstrated

that any action that would otherwise have been an offence was the ‘incidental result of a lawful operation

and could not reasonably have been avoided’, this constitutes a defence against prosecution under the

Act. This defence thus provides for the carrying out of works that intentionally but incidentally commit

offences, such as damaging Water Vole burrows, but requires that reasonable steps are taken to avoid

any unnecessary damage, (Natural England, 2008). Landowners wishing to alter areas used by Water

76


Voles must ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to minimise impacts on the animals or their

burrows. Offences under Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act carry a maximum penalty of a fine

not exceeding Level 5 on the standard scale (currently £5000), imprisonment for up to six months, or

both. In addition, the courts may order the forfeiture of any vehicle or other thing that was used to

commit the offence, (Gloucester Wildlife Trust, 2008).

It is also important to recognise that when a watercourse is too overgrown, it can eventually provide poor

habitat for Water Voles. Bank maintenance is therefore essential in conserving this legally-protected

habitat, provided it is not too intensive and it avoids the end of March through until August. This is an

important time for breeding Water Voles and other species protected by law, such as spawning fish and

nesting birds, (Environment Agency, 2011).

In practice, the management protocols already in place at South Huish Nature Reserve have been

designed to be as ecologically sensitive as possible and would require only minor modification to

accommodate the presence of Water Voles. No changes to the water level management calendar are

envisaged as this already maintains suitable levels throughout the Water Vole breeding season. If the

animals are still present in the reserve then they have demonstrated that they are well adapted to deal

with seasonal and other sporadic flooding events. Existing ditch management protocols already

incorporate most of the recommendations applicable to Water Vole conservation but the following

additional recommendations will also have to be taken into consideration, (Arnott, 2001; Environment

Agency, 2011; Dean et al., 2015).

• Works to remove silt and weed from a watercourse must also take care not to damage the banks as

this could harm Water Voles and is likely to expose their burrows, making them more vulnerable to

predators.

• Heavy machinery should not be driven onto banks.

• Operations take place from one bank only.

• Vegetation next to the bank should be retained, with weed and silt taken from the middle of the

channel.

• Silt and weed should be deposited at least 5m away from the top of the bank to avoid smothering

burrows and damaging important habitats.

• Refuge zones are left as often as practicable, up to 20m in width, leaving about one third of the ditch

untouched.

• Where slubbed1 vegetation and silt material is to be placed onto banks, known Water Vole sites are

avoided and alternate banks are used at 50m intervals (but avoid using both banks for operations).

• Vegetation is not removed or cut back, but if this has to be carried out then the bank face vegetation,

a continuous strip of marginal vegetation and as much of the bank top vegetation should remain.

An idealised ditch management protocol incorporating the legal constraints if Water Voles are present on

the reserve and current best practice is presented in Section 8.5.8.

1 Slubbing out removes the sediment and vegetation from the bottom and sides of the ditches and starts a new cycle of plant

growth.

77


8.3.6 Objective 6 - Infrastructure

Ph

oto

: A

lan

Po

mro

y

Figure 8.5: Sluice at South Huish Nature Reserve in August 2016.

To monitor and maintain the reserve infrastructure.

Rationale. The importance of maintaining the reserve infrastructure equals that of the land

management tasks. Changes to the hydrology caused by blocked drains or damaged sluices could have

serious consequences. Regular monitoring and maintenance keeps costs down and enables potential

issues to be identified, planned and budgeted for. The maintenance of the perimeter fencing and gates

remains the responsibility of the National Trust.

8.3.7 Objective 7 - Disturbance

Ph

oto

: D

EF

RA

To consider construction of a low Devon bank along the western perimeter of the reserve to reduce

levels of disturbance, particularly by dogs.

Rationale. Disturbance to birds is defined as any human activity inducing unusual behaviour. Any

deviations from normal behaviour, but particularly escape responses from the disturbed site, are bound

to result in extra energy expenditure. These extra costs have to be compensated for by an increase in food

intake, achieved either by longer foraging bouts or by more efficient foraging. Birds disturbed suffer loss

of foraging time which should also be compensated for. Because of this extra food consumption the

carrying capacity of sites for waterbirds, as expressed by the available food resources, is likely to be

reduced in frequently disturbed areas. If the birds do not grow accustomed to human disturbance,

78


repeated disturbances of areas will result in a lowering of their carrying capacity for waterbirds or in a

decrease in body condition of the birds. Both these effects may lead to increased adult mortality,

emigration and/or decreased reproductive success and therefore, to negative effects on population sizes,

(Platteeuw et al. 1997).

Birds typically respond when people are within 100m, although responses have been recorded up to

170m, (Liley et al. 2015). A review of 50 unpublished and peer-reviewed, published studies that examined

the effects of human disturbance on waterfowl, diving duck, wading birds, and shorebird species found

that human-caused disturbances impacted the study species in 86% of cases. Human-caused disturbances

such as boating and walking were shown to alter waterbird behaviour, diverting time and energy away

other essential behaviours such as feeding. Responses to disturbance varied significantly among species,

types of disturbance, body condition, food availability, and frequency of disturbance. However 57% of the

studies reviewed reported birds taking flight in response to a human caused disturbance, (Borgmann,

2011). In a separate study Burger et al. (2004) found that birds flew away and did not return to forage in

response to 58% of human disruptions.

Disturbance at South Huish is unintentional and a consequence of the lack of screening between the

reserve and the adjacent car park. Human activity and dogs both cause disturbance there, whereas at

similar reserves in the Southwest, such as RSPB Bowling Green Marsh, with screened car parking, access

tracks and viewing positions, birds are more confiding and allow closer views. The impact at South Huish is

hard to quantify but there is no doubt that the proximity of the National Trust car park to the reserve

boundary and the increasing popularity of the beach and nearby café has led to birds avoiding the

western end of the reserve.

The only data available for use of the car park, (Table 8.1), were collected in 2005 for a planning

application for improved coastal defences, (National Trust, 2008). This document concluded with “There

are no plans to increase the number of parking spaces and thus no rise in vehicular movements is

envisaged”. In reality the number of vehicles has increased considerably since then, frequently reaching

capacity on fine summer days, (see Figure 8.6), and requiring the use of an adjacent field as an overflow.

The bay is also increasingly popular with the developing watersports of wind and kite surfing especially

during the winter months.

March April May June July August September October

233 172 538 996 2105 3886 470 70

Table 8.1: The number of cars using South Milton Sands car park each month between March and October 2005,

(National Trust 2008).

79


Figure 8.6: Traffic queues leading to

South Milton Sands on Bank Holiday

Monday, 29th

August 2016 when 750

vehicles tried to use the car park,

(South Milton Newsletter, 2016).

Dog walking is the principal activity associated with disturbance at South Huish. Whilst many arctic-

breeding species, particularly juvenile birds, can be remarkably tolerant of humans, dogs are always

regarded as potential predators. In a study at Chesil Beach in Dorset over half (58%) of all the major flights

(flights of more than 50m) and 83% of all the disturbance recorded were linked to dog walking or dogs off

leads, (Liley et al., 2015). Uncontrolled dogs have also entered the reserve and worried the livestock

grazing there on several occasions, (Tucker, 2007). Dog ownership in the UK has increased considerably

since the establishment of the reserve, from an estimated 6.9 million animals in 1994 up to 8.5 million in

2016, (Source: Pet Food Manufacturers Association webpages).

The following recommendation was made in the first management plan “A dry-stone wall to the west

boundary of the site would be a return to the definition of the boundary noted in the early 19th

century. It

would offer a good degree of screening for wildlife from the intensively used South Milton Sands. It would

create further habitat diversity, whilst being traditional in construction and in keeping with the site”,

(Stevens, 1995). In practice, the cost of construction, coupled with uncertainties about the duration of

Devon Birds’ involvement with the site and subsequent changes in ownership, prevented this

recommendation from being progressed.

It is proposed that the construction of a turf-faced Devon bank along the western boundary of the reserve

be considered. This is a lower cost option than a dry-stone wall and a bank of 1.5m height, with a ditch

along its inner face would provide both screening and additional stockproofing when compared to the

existing fence. The ditch would provide some of the material for the bank, (Devon Hedge Group, 2016a),

with spoil, currently located along the northern perimeter of the reserve, supplying the remainder.

Maintenance requirements would be significantly lower than a dry-stone wall, (Devon Hedge Group,

2016b). Siting the bank along the line of the previous boundary would minimise any possible landscape

impact, (Natural England, 2008b), both within the South Devon AONB and from the South West Coast

Path, and still allow unimpeded views along and across the valley.

80


8.3.8 Objective 8 - Viewing points

Ph

oto

: R

SP

B

Figure 8.8: Sand Martin hide at Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust’s Attenborough Nature Reserve.

To consider the construction of a hide or viewing blind to enhance the visitor experience.

Rationale The possible installation of a hide at South Huish Nature Reserve was proposed by Burridge,

(1992), and included in the first management plan, (Stevens, 1995), but, as with the Devon Bank proposal,

the cost of construction, uncertainties about the duration of Devon Birds’ involvement with the site and

subsequent changes in ownership, prevented this recommendation from being progressed. The lack of

viewing facilities is frequently raised by members who visit the site and Devon Birds has considered four

options for the location of a hide; on the higher ground in the north-west corner between the café and the

toilet block, on the high ground at either end of the lower car park and on the northern boundary of the

reserve opposite the scrapes. The last option was favoured as it would provide the best views, (National

Trust, 2013). It would, however, be facing directly into the sun, particularly during the winter months, and

require screened access. The good and evolving relationship between Devon Birds and the National Trust

provides an opportunity to re-visit this proposal in combination with other efforts to reduce disturbance

and increase public engagement at the site.

The primary purpose of a hide is to enable the observer to get closer to his objective than could otherwise

have been achieved, and to allow observation without alarming the subject. It is therefore necessary for

the observer to blend in with the environment as much as possible. Hides are concerned with more than

keeping the observer out of sight; it is equally important that the birds or animals are not alarmed by

sounds such as voices, shuffling of the observers, the sound of camera shutters or flapping of fabric

coverings. A telescope will assist viewing from a greater distance, (Shanks, 1998). Blinds can support a

site’s educational efforts, offering new experiences and perspectives to school groups, recreational

learners and the wider public. Interpretive media in blind settings can enhance visitor knowledge and

appreciation. Blinds may serve “double-duty” as shelter from snow, cold, rain, heat or insects – assuring

more enjoyable wildlife watching, (Oberbillig, 2013). In locations where vandalism and security may be

issues, an open design is best, with the blind open to the approach so that it can be viewed by staff and

passing visitors. All facilities where children are common users should be open to view and equal

consideration given to access for those with mobility issues, (Croft Consultants, 2010).

The ideal location for a wildlife observation blind or hide is on the south-east, south or south-west side of

a water body. The allows the sun to shine directly on to the subject for most of the year. A blind could be

81


situated on the north side of a water body , but viewing and photographing would not be ideal, except in

summer, due to the angle of the sun. In addition, wildlife tends to be more active at dawn and dusk, when

the lighting is from the south-east and south-west. (Croft Consultants, 2010). The location should allow a

clear view of a place that is inhabited or regularly visited by many birds. Permanent hides are sometimes

sited within metres of the edge of wetlands, ponds or lakes, so that birds approach the viewing position

very closely. They soon accept a building near their territory. Migratory birds coming to use the area

temporarily may not so readily accept an indication of human presence. If birds frequent a very open

position, placing a hide there may pose problems. In an exposed location it is almost impossible to avoid

detection of persons entering and leaving the hide, (Shanks, 1998). A further consideration at South Huish

Nature Reserve is that the location selected should be above the water level during flooding events.

There is a wealth of guidance available on the options for the location, design and construction of hides,

blinds and their approaches, (Oberbillig, 2013; Rewilding Europe, 2014; Shanks, 1998) and guidelines for

the provision of birdwatching facilities in areas of outstanding natural beauty, (Wood, 2002). These offer a

variety of potential solutions suitable for use at South Huish if a decision to proceed is reached. It has also

been suggested that a viewing position might also present an opportunity to construct a Sand Martin

bank, either underneath an elevated platform or alongside as an integral component of the screened

approaches. This would normally require excavation of a pool at its base to reduce the threat from

mammalian predators, (Hopkins, 2001; RSPB, 2016b). A few pairs of Sand Martins breed each year in the

dunes behind South Milton Sands and the species is a common and regular visitor to the reserve and can

be attracted to artificial nesting sites.

8.3.9 Objective 9 - Public engagement

Ph

oto

: Jo

n C

raig

Ph

oto

gra

ph

y

To establish a program, in collaboration with the National Trust, to increase engagement with members

of both organisations and the wider public.

Rationale. In the first management plan for South Huish Nature Reserve Peter Stevens, (1995),

concluded that, “The combination of a site of excellent integrity, with its proximity to a very popular public

area, gives potential for development of the site as an interpretive resource”. A recent review of all of their

82


reserves, commissioned by Devon Birds also concluded that the site has “great potential for people

engagement and membership recruitment,” (Townend, 2015).

The latter report used the example of the Spurn Migration Festival but the presence of birds cannot be

guaranteed at South Huish and it is considered that the reserve would be better suited to a BioBlitz style

event, which has the potential both to engage members, local schools and the public with interests beyond

the avian fauna and to provide valuable additional information on the biodiversity of the reserve.

Successful events have already been held in Devon at Mothecombe and Wembury. There is a substantial

amount of literature and guidance available to support the planning and execution of a BioBlitz and an

event held over a weekend in late summer, after the breeding season and before the bulk of autumn

passage, has the capacity to attract significant participation.

At present there is no signage at South Huish to indicate that the area is managed as a nature reserve or by

whom and, although this has been discussed over several years, no progress has been made to date. The

National Forest Company, (2016), has prepared guidance on the construction and installation of

information boards and interpretation panels and it is recommended that this is addressed as a priority in

conjunction with objectives 7 and 8, the reduction of disturbance and possible installation of a hide or

viewing blind, and a comprehensive plan for improved and continued public engagement is agreed with

the National Trust.

8.3.10 Objective 10 - Monitoring

To establish a program to monitor and record the completion and impact of management actions.

Inviting Devon Birds’ members and other conservation organisations to assist with monitoring tasks and

to undertake research relating to the flora and fauna of the reserve.

Rationale. Monitoring is an essential and integral component of management planning: there can be

no planning without monitoring. The adaptive planning process and all other functional management-

planning processes are entirely dependent on an assessment of the status of the features, and this is

obtained through monitoring.

This management plan highlights a number of areas where data on the flora and fauna of the reserve are

inadequate or lacking and presents an opportunity to involve Devon Birds’ members and those of other

conservation bodies with specialist experience, in undertaking surveys within the reserve and to

contribute to our understanding of the reserve’s ecology. All of the management objectives detailed in

this plan require a monitoring element both to ensure tasks are completed and to assess their

effectiveness. Proposals for future projects, together with associated risk assessments will be evaluated

by the management team and access to the reserve would be subject to the condition that relevant data

and any subsequent reports are made available to Devon Birds.

8.3.11 Objective 11 - Data storage and retrieval

To introduce an internet based system for the storage, retrieval and updating of the management

plan and associated documents and to develop, in parallel, systems for the recording, monitoring

and evaluation of management actions by making a permanent and accessible record of significant

83


activities (including management), events and anything else that has relevance to the site.

Rationale. The concept of an integrated recording, reporting and planning system for

conservation management is not new. Unfortunately, managers rarely place a sufficiently high

priority on this aspect of their work. This is quite surprising, because the collection of information

about wildlife is the first activity that engages many individuals who eventually become conservation

management professionals. They bring into the profession a ‘recording ethic’, but relevant

information is not always recorded.

Recording management activities must be given the highest priority: if something is worth doing it

must be worth recording. One of the most irritating problems that reserve managers have to face is

knowing that, at some time or other, some form of management actions were taken but they don’t

know when or what. They may be aware of the results, but where these are favourable the

management cannot be repeated, and if they are unfavourable there is a danger that the same

mistakes will be made again.

When management activities are carried out by a third party, as the consequence of a management

agreement, for example, the work must be recorded. This is sometimes called ‘compliance

monitoring’. It is a means of checking that planned work is actually completed. The maintenance of

records on a site is occasionally a legal requirement, for example, compliance with health and safety

legislation. The advent of a litigious society has placed a considerable burden on the managers of all

public access sites. Safety checks have become routine, and these activities must be recorded.

Whenever a management activity is planned a system for recording the work must also be

established. This will ensure that nothing of significance goes unrecorded.

The establishment of an accessible system for data recording and storage will facilitate execution of

the annual work plan by ensuring relevant information is available to all members of the

management team and should ensure continuity in the event of unforeseen changes to the team.

Access will be limited to Council members, the management team and invited members.

8.4 Constraints

As with any relatively small conservation organisation, the principal constraints on meeting the objectives

within this management plan are both financial and manpower. The progress made to date towards

achieving favourable conservation status is the result of considerable investment by Devon Birds and the

tireless efforts and vision of a small group of dedicated volunteers without whose contribution much less

would have been accomplished. A continuing commitment, coupled with constructive dialogue with the

National Trust, will be required to fulfil all of the current objectives.

84


8.5 Annual work plan

Ph

oto

: k

ev

in C

ox

Figure 8.9: Scrape maintenance at South Huish Nature Reserve in September 2016.

This section details the management activities required over the next five years in order to meet the

current objectives. Each action has been prioritised in the columns on the right according to the following

criteria:

Priority 1: Essential actions. Actions which the site is legally bound to undertake; actions required to

achieve or maintain species or habitats in favourable condition; essential habitat management which

would lead to immediate deterioration of the habitat if not undertaken.

Priority 2: Important actions. Actions important for the routine management of the site including habitat

management, which could be missed for one year without immediate deterioration of the key

conservation interest.

Priority 3: Desirable actions. Actions, which could be undertaken after all priority 1 and 2 actions are

complete, and if time and other resources become available.

8.5.1 Habitat conservation and protection

Objective 1

To maintain the functionality and optimise the biodiversity of the drainage ditches and their

banks.

Activity Brief description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

1.1

Monitor the condition of ditches and banks in

relation to erosion, silting and the growth of

emergent and aquatic vegetation.

1 1 1 1 1

1.2

Maintain on rotation, when required, non-adjacent

sections of the ditches over a three or four-year

cycle in accordance with the ditch and scrape

maintenance protocol.

1 n/a n/a n/a *

* The most recent four-year ditch and scrape maintenance cycle will be completed in 2017. Local conditions

will determine when the next cycle commences.

85


Objective 2

To maintain a water level management regime that is consistent with the ecological requirements

of the reserve.


2.1 To adjust water levels in accordance with the water

level management protocol and calendar. 1 1 1 1 1

2.2

To record the impact of combinations of sluice

heights on water levels following completion of

ditch and scrape maintenance or other work, which

might affect the topography of the site.

2 2 2 2 2

Objective 3

To use grazing to maintain and enhance existing habitats while ensuring there is minimal conflict

with the wider nature conservation objectives of the site.


3.1

To monitor the implementation of the grazing

protocol and adjust in response to local

environmental conditions.

1 1 1 1 1

3.2

To use mechanical topping of rushes and other

invasive perennials if grazing is insufficient to

control their spread.

2 2 2 2 2

Objective 4

To maintain the extent and depth of scapes by periodic reprofiling and removal of marginal

vegetation.


3.1 To monitor the area and depth of scrapes and the

encroachment of vegetation at their margins. 1 1 1 1 1

3.2

Maintain on rotation, when required, over a three-

year cycle in accordance with the ditch and scrape

maintenance protocol.

n/a n/a n/a n/a *

3.3 To consider the installation of a gravel or shingle

bank at the rear of the main scrape. 3 3 3 3 3

* The most recent ditch and scrape maintenance cycle will be completed in 2017. Local conditions will determine

when the next cycle commences.

Objective 5

To determine the number and distribution of Water Voles within the reserve and, if present, to

adapt management procedures to accommodate their requirements and statutory protection.


3.1 To discuss with the National Trust the

commissioning of a Water Vole survey. 1

3.2

If present, to adapt management procedures to

accommodate their requirements and statutory

protection.*

1

3.3

To consider if the habitat can be improved for Water

Voles without detriment to the avian features of

interest.

3 3 3 3 3

86


* Management protocols already incorporate current best practice guidelines but some options may become

mandatory if Water Voles are present.

8.5.2 Reserve infrastructure

Objective 6

To monitor and maintain the reserve infrastructure.


5.1 Inspect ditches and sluices annually. 1 1 1 1 1

5.2 Inspect boundary fencing and gates every 6 months

and report defects to the National Trust as required. 1 1 1 1 1

8.5.3 Disturbance

Objective 7

To consider construction of a low Devon bank along the western perimeter of the reserve to

reduce levels of disturbance, particularly by dogs.


6.1

To discuss with the National Trust the construction

of a low Devon bank along the western perimeter of

the reserve.

3 3 3 3 3

8.5.4 Viewing points

Objective 8

To consider the construction of a hide or viewing blinds to enhance the visitor experience.


6.1

To discuss with the National Trust the construction

of a hide or viewing blind with a screened approach

along the northern perimeter of the reserve.

3 3 3 3 3

6.2

To consider incorporation of a Sand Martin bank as

part of the screened approach to a hide or viewing

blind.

3 3 3 3 3

8.5.5 Public engagement

Objective 9

To establish a program, in collaboration with the National Trust, to increase engagement with

members of both organisations and the wider public.


6.1

To discuss with the National Trust the location,

wording and installation of signage and

interpretation boards.

3 3 3 3 3

6.2 To discuss with the National Trust the practicalities

of a BioBlitz type of event. 3 3 3 3 3

6.3

To develop a program, in collaboration with the

National Trust, to increase engagement with

members of both organisations and the wider

public.

3 3 3 3 3

87


8.5.6 Monitoring and research

Objective 10

To establish a program to monitor and record the completion and impact of management actions.

Inviting Devon Birds’ members and other conservation organisations to assist with monitoring

tasks and to undertake research relating to the flora, fauna, hydrography and chemistry of the

reserve.


7.1 Identify gaps in current knowledge and attempt to

develop a program to rectify shortcomings. 3

7.2 Invite Devon Birds’ members to contribute to a

research and monitoring program. 3 3 3 3 3

7.3

Invite other groups and individuals with specialist

knowledge to contribute to a research and

monitoring program.

3 3 3 3 3

8.5.7 Administration and data recording

Objective 11

To introduce an internet-based system for the storage, retrieval and updating of the management

plan and associated documents and to develop, in parallel, systems for the recording, monitoring

and evaluation of management actions.


11.1 Establish an internet-based data and document

storage facility. 3

11.2

Produce timetables, protocols and datasheets to

facilitate and monitor the progress of the annual

work plan.

3 3 3 3 3

88


8.5.8 Ditch and scrape maintenance protocol

The idealised three-year maintenance calendar and plan in Table 8.2 and Figure 8.10 incorporates the best

practice recommendations listed underneath. In practice the reserve management team will determine

annual priorities, sequences and which banks to operate from after assessing conditions across the

reserve. The frequency and duration of maintenance operations will be dependent on the condition of the

ditches and scrapes and rates of sedimentation and vegetation growth but will be on the longest practical

rotation. In 2014 a four-year maintenance program was initiated and this longer cycle may be adopted in

the future if it proves less disruptive to the site’s ecology.

Calendar

Year Ditch and associated bank number

1 1 4

2 2 3 5

3 1 2 3 4 5 Scrapes

and pools

Table 8.2. Annual ditch and bank maintenance calendar associated with an idealised 3-year plan.

Figure 8.10. Idealised 3-year ditch and scrape maintenance schematic incorporating current best practice and taking

into account the legal constraints if Water Voles are present.

89


Although the majority were already practiced, the following best practice principals, (Environment Agency,

2003), have been incorporated into the protocol:

● When vegetation clearing or de-silting, leave parts of the ditch undisturbed to ensure some refuge

habitat is kept, enabling wildlife to re-colonise areas disturbed through management.

● Manage ditches in an upstream direction, to help wildlife return to the disturbed length downstream.

● Work from one bank only, avoiding damage to the working bank by careful operation of a machine that

is appropriate to the channel size.

● Ditch management in late summer/early autumn avoids disturbance to wildlife whilst access is generally

easier because of the drier ground conditions.

● If removing aquatic vegetation, leave cut material adjacent to the watercourse for several hours so

wildlife can return to the water. But avoid leaving large amounts of decomposing weed on the banks

because the liquor could pollute the water (keep livestock away from dredgings that might contain

poisonous plants such as Hemlock, Hemlock Water-dropwort or iris), (Environment Agency, 2003).

● Maintain on a 5-6 year rotation (15-20% per year). Restore over 2-3 years.

● Re-profile ditch banks to gentle gradients (maximum 45 degrees) to provide shallow water fringes for

aquatic plants and wildlife.

● Leave one bank and channel margin intact throughout, or leave blocks of ditch habitat undisturbed

(approximately 8-10m).

● Create shallow water shelves (berms) to increase diversity and maintain the capacity of the ditch.

● Avoid producing or adding to a raised spoil bank (levee), previously created through repeated de-silting

works. Levees can be removed at intervals (or entirely) to re-connect the ditch to the flood plain.

● Excavate shallow, scalloped, drinking bays for livestock. This helps limit erosion and increases habitat

diversity.

● Do not fill in wetland features with spoil from ditch works.

The following additional constraints will require incorporation into protocols if surveys confirm the

presence of Water Voles:

● Works to remove silt and weed from a watercourse must also take care not to damage the banks as this

could harm Water Voles and is likely to expose their burrows, making them more vulnerable to predators.

● Vegetation next to the bank should be retained, with weed and silt taken from the middle of the

channel.

● Silt and weed should be deposited at least 5m away from the top of the bank to avoid smothering

burrows and damaging important habitats.

● Refuge zones are left as often as practicable, up to 20m in width, leaving about one third of the ditch

untouched.

● Where slubbed vegetation and silt material is to be placed onto banks, known Water Vole sites are

avoided and alternate banks are used at 50m intervals (but avoid using both banks for operations).

● Vegetation is not removed or cut back, but if this has to be carried out then the bank face vegetation, a

continuous strip of marginal vegetation and as much of the bank top vegetation should remain.

90


8.5.9 Water level management protocol

Although the topography of the site was meticulously mapped by Peter Hopkin in 1995 to enable

excavation of the scrapes, it has not been practical to monitor the subsequent impacts of scrape

enlargement, reprofiling and the deposition of spoil from ditch maintenance operations. Therefore, for

the purposes of management, ground level is per individual sector not the site as a whole and is judged by

assessing the water level over the greater land area in a sector. At ground level the soil should be just wet

at the surface and therefore, to lower the water table by 10cm, drains should be set at 10cm below this

ground level.

8.5.9.1 Water level calendar

Month Activity Rationale

January - March Maintain the water table at least to

ground level datum

April

Start to lower the water table to

20cm below ground level datum over

a period of 15 days starting after the

middle of the month, to leave the

ground wet with some surface water

in the lowest areas.

Removes any extensive shallow

flooding and prevents anoxic soil

conditions and death of soil

invertebrates.

May - June

Maintain the water table at 20cm

below ground level datum except for

Sector 1

Soil dwelling invertebrates will

remain close to the surface making

them available to wading birds.

Maintains soft surface soil to aid

probing by waders.

July By mid-month lower the water table

to 50cm below ground level datum

Depth of pools decrease providing

areas of mud and shallow water as

feeding habitat for wading birds.

August - September Maintain the water table at 50cm

below ground level datum.

As pools continue to dry they become

available to migrating waders.

October Allow water levels to rise naturally.

Brings invertebrates closer to the soil

surface making them available to

waders.

November

Raise the water table to above

ground level datum to reintroduce

surface wetness with standing water

in low lying areas.

Creates areas suitable for grazing and

roosting waterfowl.

December Maintain the water table at least to

ground level datum

91


8.5.9.2 Drainage by Sector

For the purposes of water level management, Stevens, (1995) partitioned the reserve into four sectors with

Sector 1 being the wettest, seaward sector, including the scrapes and pool, and sectors 2 to 4 corresponding

to the land between each of transverse ditches moving from west to east (see Figure 8.1). Experience has

demonstrated that small adjustments to the height of sluices at 2 and 3 will have significant impacts on

subsequent water levels.

Sector Timing Rationale

Sector 1

• Do not commence draining

before 25th-30th April.

• Drain only 50% of water to

below ground level by lowering

the drain to c.10cm.

• Draining may not be necessary

every spring.

• Draining too early is disruptive to

birds using the sector and is

detrimental to the flora and

fauna.

• This is the most difficult sector in

which to influence summer water

levels due to the shallowness of

the scrapes and the porous

substrate of the seaward scrape.

• Natural drying out of the first

scrape by mid June – mid-July is

acceptable as this facilitates the

grazing or mowing of excess

vegetation.

Sector 2

• Commence draining around 25th

April by lowering the drain to 15-

20cm below ground level datum.

• If required, lower the drain by a

further 10cm around 25th

June

after monitoring levels of

standing surface water.

• This complements the regime in

Sector 1.

• This sector also includes the

scrapes and wet flushes which

should remain wet whilst the rest

of the sector should not retain

significant surface water after the

25th

April.

Sector 3

• Commence draining around 25th

April by lowering the drain to 10-

15cm below ground level datum.

• If water levels remain too high,

lower the drain to >20cm around

25th

June and increase to 50cm

in mid-July if required.

• This regime assists in maintaining

a tussocky, medium quality sward

Sector 4

• Since 2009, this sector has been

set on permanent full drain.

• This allows development of a

good quality, grazing sward.

• Little or no standing water early

in the growing season is essential

to achieve this aim.

92


8.5.10 Grazing protocol

Ph

oto

: Jo

hn

Kir

kh

qa

m

Flexibility is the keyword and the timing of the introduction of livestock to the site will be dependent on

weather, water levels and the subsequent length of the growing season. It is important that the grazier has an

understanding of the conservation requirements of the site and cooperates to achieve these.

In a dry spring, with early growth of the sward, cattle may be introduced as early as the first week of May and

can remain on site for 20-26 weeks, normally being removed from the wet marsh at the end of October or

mid- November at the latest when the reserve is re-flooded. The semi-improved grassland including the front

scrape and running to the western boundary can be grazed all year if required.

Experience gained with various breeds over the years has demonstrated that the Highland cattle currently

used are particularly well suited to the relatively wet environment at South Huish and are effective at

controlling most invasive perennial plants. A maximum stock level of 12 adult cattle, occasionally

supplemented with ponies is the most the site can sustain. Stocking rates for Highland cattle or larger horses

should be the same as their rates of food consumption are similar.

The aim is to maintain the sward height at c.15cm with a diverse structure. Sheep may also be used in the

drier grassland areas of Sector 1 to assist in maintaining a shorter sward there of c.7.5cm. Other areas of the

reserve are too wet for sheep to be used effectively.

93


9. References

Alexander, M., (2010). A guide to management planning. CMS Consortium, Talgarth, Wales, UK

Allport, G., (1989). The effect of grazing on the distribution and feeding efficiency of the western

taiga bean goose Anser fabalis in the Yare Valley. PhD thesis, University of East Anglia.

Arnott, D., (2001). Water Vole mitigation techniques. English Nature. Peterborough, UK

Blaylock, S. and Neophytou, M., (2004). South Milton Sands and Southdown Farm: Initial

Archaeological Assessment, The National Trust, Hyder Consulting Ltd, Plymouth UK

Borgmann, K., (2011). A Review of Human Disturbance Impacts on Waterbirds. Audubon, California,

USA

British Ornithologists Union, (2016). The British List, 30 June 2016.

Buglife, (2011). Grazing Marsh Ditches - Sheet 2: Creation and restoration for invertebrates, Buglife,

Peterborough, UK

Buglife, (2013a). Promoting Habitat Mosaics for Invertebrates; Coastal Grazing Marsh, Buglife,

Peterborough, UK

Buglife, (2013b). Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh. Published on Buglife website

(www.buglife.org.uk)

Buglife, (2016). Notable invertebrates associated with coastal and floodplain grazing marsh. Buglife,

Peterborough, UK

Buisson, R., Wade, P., Cathcart, R., Hemmings, S., Manning, C. and Mayer, L. (2008). The Drainage

Channel Biodiversity Manual: Integrating Wildlife and Flood Risk Management. Association of

Drainage Authorities and Natural England, Peterborough, UK

Burger, J., Jeitner, C., Clark, K. and Niles, L., (2004). The effect of human activities on migrant

shorebirds: successful adaptive management. Environmental Conservation, 31: 283-288

Burridge, R., (1992). South Huish Reserve – Preliminary Report. Devon Birds unpublished.

Clarke, R., (1970). Quaternary sediments off south-east Devon. Quarterly Journal of the Geological

Society, London, 125, 277-381

Crofts, A. and Jefferson, R., (1999). The Lowland Grassland Management Handbook: 2nd edition.

English Nature/The Wildlife Trusts, Peterborough, UK

Croft Consultants, (2010). Country Viewpoints and Blinds. Factsheet for Carmarthenshire Disabled

Access Group.

94


Davies, M., (1999). South Huish Water Meadows – RSPB site visit and rush control advice.

Unpublished.

Dawson, D., (2012). The Impact of sea level rise on the London-Penzance railway line. Unpublished

PhD thesis, University of Plymouth, UK

Dean, M., Strachan, R., Gow, D. and Andrews, R., (2016). The Water Vole Mitigation Handbook (The

Mammal Society Mitigation Series). Eds Fiona Mathews and Paul Chanin, The Mammal Society

London, UK

DEFRA, (2007). Wetting up farmland for birds and other diversity. Research Project Final Report.

DEFRA, (2013). Extensive cattle grazing: what is the best approach to improve species-poor pastures

for birds and invertebrates? Two page summary.

Devon Birds, (1980). The Devon Bird Report 1980

Devon Birds, (2012). The Harrier, August 2012, No. 4

Devon Birds, (2013). The Harrier, August 2013, No. 4

Devon Hedge Group, (2016a). Devon hedge creation: new turf faced banks and planting.

Devon Hedge Group, (2016b). Devon hedge management 1: maintaining and repairing turf and stone

facing.

Devon Wildlife Trust, (1992). South Huish Marsh Botanical Survey.

Drake, C., Stewart, N., Palmer, M. and Kindemba, V., (2010). The ecological status of ditch systems -

An investigation into the current status of the aquatic invertebrate and plant communities of grazing

marsh ditch systems in England and Wales, Technical Report Volume 1: Summary of methods and

major findings, Buglife, Peterborough, UK

Durant, D. and Fritz, H., (2006). Variation of pecking rate with sward height in wild wigeon Anas

Penelope. Journal of Ornithology (2006) 147: 367–370

D'Urban, W. and Matthew, M., (1895). The Birds of Devon. 2nd edition. London

Eaton, M., Aebischer, N., Brown, A., Hearn, R., Lock, L., Musgrove, A., Noble, D., Stroud, D. and

Gregory, R., (2015). Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the UK,

Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds, Vol 108, 708–746.

Environment Agency, (2003). Ditch Management.

Environment Agency, (2011). Water Vole Habitat Maintenance

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, (1980). FAO training series: Simple

Methods for Aquaculture – Pond Construction, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations, Rome

95


Fox, H., (1975). The Chronology of Enclosure and Economic Development in Medieval Devon, XXVIII.

2:181-202

Gardiner, S., Hanson, S., Nicholls, R., Zhang, Z., Jude, S., Jones, A., Richards, J., Williams, A.,

Spencer, T., Cope, S., Gorczynska, M., Bradbury, A., McInnes, R., Ingleby, A. & Dalton, H. (2007).

The Habitats Directive, Coastal Habitats and Climate Change - Case Studies from the South Coast of

the UK. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 108.

Gehrels, W., Dawson, D., Shaw, D. and Marshall, W., (2011). Using Holocene relative sea-level data

to inform future sea-level predictions: An example from southwest England. Global and Planetary

Change, 78, 116-126

Gloucester Wildlife Trust, (2008). Managing land for Water Voles. Gloucester, UK.

Hails, J., (1975). Sediment distribution and Quaternary history of Start Bay, Devon. Journal of the

Geological Society, London, 131, 19-35.

Gwent Wildlife Trust, (2013). Land management Toolkit No 9: Saltmarsh and Coastal Grazing Marsh.

Hooke, D., (1994). The Pre-Conquest Charter-bounds of Devon and Cornwall. Boydell Press,

Woodbridge.

Hopkins, L., (2001). Best Practice Guidelines: Artificial Bank Creation for Sand Martins and

Kingfishers. Environment Agency, London, UK

Johnson, S., (2007). Recommendations arising from the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group visit to

South Milton Marshes, April 2007, unpublished.

Kenderdine, L., (2009). Devon Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh Project: South Huish Marsh

Botanical Survey.

Kirby, P. (1992). Habitat Management for Invertebrates: a practical handbook. RSPB, Sandy, UK

Liley, D., Underhill-Day, J. and Gartshore, N., (2015). The Fleet Bird Disturbance Survey. Unpublished

Report to Natural England, Footprint Ecology, Wareham.

Maddock, A., (2008). UK Biodiversity Action Plan; Priority Habitat Descriptions. BRIG

Massey, A., Gehrels, W., Charman, D. and White, S. (2006). An intertidal foraminifera-based transfer

function for reconstructing Holocene sea-level change in the southwest England. Journal of

Foraminiferal Research 36 (3), 215-232.

Massey, A., Gehrels, W., Charman, D., Milne, G., Peltier, R., Lambeck, K., and Selby, K. (2008).

Relative sea-level change and postglacial isostatic adjustment the coast of south Devon, UK. Journal

of Quaternary Science 23 (5), 415-433

Merritt, A., (1994). Wetlands, Industry and Wildlife: a manual of principles and practices. Wildfowl &

Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge, UK

96


Miles and Sokoloff. (1999). The Lowland Grassland Management Handbook: 2nd edition. Eds. Crofts,

A. and Jefferson, R., English Nature/The Wildlife Trusts, Peterborough, UK

Milsom, T., Ennis, D., Haskell, D., Langton, S. & Mcvay, H., (1998). Design of grassland feeding areas

for waders during winter: The relative importance of sward, landscape factors and human

disturbance. Biological Conservation 84: 119-129.

Milsom, T., Langton, S., Parkin, W., Peel, S, Bishop, J. Hart, J. and Moore, N., (2000). Habitat models

of bird species’ distribution: an aid to the management of coastal grazing marshes. Journal of Applied

Ecology 37: 706-727.

Mooij, W., Hülsmann, S., De Senerpont Domis, L., Nolet, B., Bodelier, P., Boers, P., Dionisio Pires,

M., Gons, H., Ibelings, B., Noordhuis, R., Portielje,R., Wolfstein, K. and Lammens, E., (2005). The

impact of climate change on lakes in the Netherlands: a review. Aquatic Ecology 39: 381–400.

Morey, C., (1976), The natural history of Slapton Ley Nature Reserve, IX. The morphology and history

of the lake basins. Field Studies, 4, 353–68.

Morey, C., (1983), The evolution of a barrier-lagoon system – a case study from Start Bay.

Proceedings of the Ussher Society, 5, 454–9

Moss, B., Kosten, S., Meerhoff, M., Battarbee, R.W., Jeppesen, E., Mazzeo, N., Havens, K., Lacerot,

G., Liu, Z., de Meester, L., Paerl, H., & Scheffer, M. (2011). Allied attack: climate change and

eutrophication. Inland Waters 1, 101-105.

National Trust, (2008). South Milton Sands Planning Application: Design and Access Statement,

Hyder Consulting, Plymouth, UK

National Trust, (2009). The National Trust Book of the Countryside, National Trust Books, London.

(ISBN: 9781905400690)

National Trust, (2012). National Consultancy: Nature Conservation Evaluation, South Milton, Devon.

National Trust, (2013). South Huish Management Committee minutes, 18 January 2013.

Natural England, (1999). The management of lowland wet grassland for birds

Natural England, (2008a). Water voles – the law in practice, Guidance for planners and developers

Natural England, (2008b). Technical Information Note TIN039: Devon field boundaries: restoration

standards for agri-environment schemes.

Natural England, (2010a). Local Nature reserves in England: A guide to their selection and

declaration.

Natural England, (2010b). Illustrated guide to ponds and scrapes

Natural England,(2011). Natural England Technical Information Note TIN089: Illustrated guide to

managing lowland wet grassland for snipe

97


Natural England and RSPB, (2014). Climate Change Adaptation Manual, Chapter 22, Coastal

Floodplain and Grazing Marsh.

Natural England, (2016). Countryside Stewardship: Higher tier options, supplements and capital-

items, May 2016.

Oberbillig, D., (2013). A Guide to Wildlife Viewing and Photography Blinds, Colorado Division of

Wildlife, Denver, USA.

Owen, M. (1973). The management of grassland for wintering geese. Wildfowl, 24: 123–130.

Palmer, M., Drake, M. and Stewart, N., (2013). A manual for the survey and evaluation of the aquatic

plant and invertebrate assemblages of grazing marsh ditch systems, Version 6. Buglife, Peterborough,

UK

Platteeuw, M. and Henkens, R., (1997). Possible Impacts of Disturbance to Waterbirds: Individuals,

Carrying Capacity and Populations. Wildfowl, 48: 225-236

Polwhele, R., (1806). The History of Devonshire. Exeter: Printed by Trewman and Son, for Cadell,

Johnson and Dilly, London, UK.

Pomroy, A., (2016). South Milton Ley Nature Reserve, A Compendium and Management Plan, Devon

Birds.

Powell, P., (2000). The effects of hydrology and nutrient inputs at South Milton Ley on the ecology of

the common reed Phragmites australis (Cav. Trin. ex Steudal). Unpublished PhD thesis, University of

Plymouth, UK

Rannapp, R., Briggs, L., Lotman, K., Lepik, I. and Rannap, V., (eds), (2005). Coastal meadow

management : best practice guidelines. Ministry of the environment of the Republic of Estonia, Tallin,

Estonia

Reed, S. and Whitton, C., (1999). Archaeological Recording and Palaeoenvironmental Assessment of

an intertidal peat deposit, Thurlestone Sands, South Devon, 1998, Exeter Archaeology, Report No.

99.89

Rewilding Europe, (2014). Wildlife Watching Hides: A Practical Guide 2.1, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Risdon, T., (1811). Chorographical description or survey of the County of Devon, Rees and Curtis,

London

RSPB, (2003). Information and Advice Note: Creating wader scrapes and flashes on farmland.

RSPB, (2005). Wet Grassland Practical Manual: Breeding Waders

RSPB, (2006). SE RSPB grazing group / Grazing Animals Project - joint meeting with Defra RDS, Sussex,

UK

RSPB, (2008). Technical Case Study Series – Water management Structures for Conservation.

RSPB (2016a). Artificial Islands. RSPB webpages.

98


RSPB (2016b). Management and creation of sand martin nest sites. RSPB webpages.

RSPB, English Nature and Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (1997). The Wet Grassland Guide:

Managing floodplain and coastal wet grasslands for wildlife. RSPB, Sandy.

Scottish Natural Heritage (2007). Local Nature Reserve Management Planning Guidance: The Process

and the Plan

Shanks, B., (1998). Bird Hides and Boardwalks, Bird Observers Club of Australia, Report No 8, Victoria,

Australia

Smith, R., (2007). South Huish Ley Botanical Survey.

Stevens, P., (1994). Dyke Management South Huish 1994-1999, Devon Birds, unpublished.

Stevens, P., (1995). South Huish Watermeadows Management Plan 1995-2000, Devon Birds,

unpublished.

Summers, R. and Critchley, C., (1990). Use of grassland and field selection by Brent Geese. Journal of

Applied Ecology, 27: 834–846.

Sussex Wildlife Trust, (2013). Wader Scrapes - What Are They and How Do I Make One?

Taylor, M., (2004). A late Holocene palaeoenvironmental reconstruction of the coastal marsh at

Thurlestone sands, South Huish valley, Devon, with implications for crustal subsidence data.

Unpublished BSc (Hons) Dissertation. Department of Geography, University of Plymouth, Devon, UK

The National Forest, (2016). Good Practice Guide: Information Boards & Interpretation Panels. The

National Forest Company, Derbyshire, UK

Toogood, S., Joyce, C. and Waite, S., (2008). Response of floodplain grassland plant communities to

altered water regimes, Plant Ecology 197: 285-298.

Townend, C., (2015). An Assessment of Bird Reserves Owned or Managed by Devon Birds, Devon

Birds, unpublished.

Townsend, N., (2011), Notes on meeting with the National Trust to discuss Devon Birds Lease and

management of Meadowlands, Devon Birds, unpublished.

Tucker, V., (2007). South Huish Water Meadows – The first decade of a reserve created from scratch.

Devon Birds, Vol 60:1, 21-25.

Volkelt-Igoe, B., (2009). Intertidal Foraminifera in south Devon and their use as sea-level indicators.

Unpublished BSc dissertation, University of Plymouth, UK

Ward, N., (2003). Minutes of the South Huish Reserve Management Committee, 9th

March 2003,

(unpublished)

Warren, H., Scollan, N., Nute, R., Hughes, S., Wood, J. and Richardson, R., (2008). Effects of breed

and a concentrate or grass silage diet on beef quality in cattle of 3 ages. II: Meat stability and flavour.

Meat Science, 78, 270–278

99


Webster, C., (ed.), (2007). The Archaeology of South West England, Somerset County Council

Wheeler, B., Gowing, D., Shaw, S., Mountford, J. and Money, R., (2004). Ecohydrological Guidelines

for Lowland Wetland Plant Communities (Eds. A.W. Brooks, P.V. Jose, and M.I. Whiteman,).

Environment Agency (Anglian Region).

White, G., (2002). Re-wetting grassland to benefit birds, RSPB

Wood, M., (2002). Guidelines for the Provision of Birdwatching Facilities in the Norfolk Coast Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty, Norfolk Coast AONB Team, Fakenham, UK

100


10. Abbreviations

AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

BAP Biodiversity Action Plan

BOU British Ornithologist’s Union

BOURC British Ornithologist’s Union Records Committee

BP Before present

BTO British Trust for Ornithology

DWT Devon Wildlife Trust

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

NERC Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

WeBS Wetland Birds Survey

101


11. Glossary

Anglo-Saxon period stretched over 600 years from 410 to 1066.

Bronze Age Britain refers to the period of British history that spanned from c. 2500 until c. 800 BC.

Diffuse sources are the result of rainfall, soil infiltration and surface runoff leaching into surface

waters and groundwater.

Foraminifera are single-celled planktonic animal with a perforated chalky shell through which slender

protrusions of protoplasm extend. Most kinds are marine and when they die thick ocean-floor

sediments are formed from their shells.

Glacial isostatic adjustment is the rise of land masses that were depressed by the huge weight of ice

sheets during the last glacial period, through a process known as isostasy. Rising land in the north of

the UK is causing the south to sink.

High Salt Marsh is the most common salt marsh community. It is strongly dominated by salt-meadow

cordgrass (Spartina patens), and occurs within the reach of higher than average high tides (including

spring tides and storm surges).

Holocene is the more recent of the two epochs of the Quaternary Period, beginning at the end of the

last major Ice Age, about 10,000 years ago.

Köppen Climate Classification System is the most widely used system for classifying the world's

climates. Its categories are based on the annual and monthly averages of temperature and

precipitation.

Lithostratigraphy is a sub-discipline of stratigraphy, the geological science associated with the study

of strata or rock layers. Major focuses include geochronology, comparative geology, and petrology. In

general a stratum will be primarily igneous or sedimentary relating to how the rock was formed.

Low Salt Marsh forms along the coast in protected bays, along rivers, and behind barrier beaches,

sand bars, and rocky spits. The term “low” refers to the height of the land, not the vegetation.

Medieval period lasted from the 5th

to the 15th

century.

Mesolithic period (or 'Middle Stone Age') in Britain dates from just after the end of the Pleistocene

('Ice Age') approximately 11,600 years ago, to the beginning of the Neolithic period about 4000

calibrated years BC.

Ordnance datum is the mean sea level as defined for Ordnance Survey.

Pleistocene is the geological epoch which lasted from about 2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago, spanning

the world's recent period of repeated glaciations.

Poaching is the physical breakdown of soil structure under load, for example from the passage of

heavy animals or vehicles.

102


Regressive Contact is a geological process occurring when areas of submerged seafloor are exposed

above the surface.

UK Red Data Books assign conservation status to our flora and fauna using internationally approved

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) criteria.

103


Appendix 1 Birds

Appendix 1.1 Species List

English name Scientific name BOU Category

Mute Swan Cygnus olor AC2

Bewick’s Swan Cygnus columbianus AE

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus AE

Bean Goose Anser fabalis AE

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus AE

White-fronted Goose (Eurasian race)* Anser albifrons albifrons AE

White-fronted Goose (Greenland race)* Anser albifrons flavirostris AE

Greylag Goose Anser anser AC2C4E

Canada Goose Branta canadensis C2E

Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis AC2E

Brent Goose (dark-bellied race)* Branta bernicla bernicla AE

Brent Goose (pale-bellied race)* Branta bernicla hrota AE

Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiaca C1E

Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea BDE

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna A

Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope AE

American Wigeon Anas americana AE

Gadwall Anas strepera AC2

Eurasian Teal Anas crecca A

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos AC2C4E

Northern Pintail Anas acuta AE

Garganey Anas querquedula A

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata A

Greater Scaup Aythya marila A

Common Pochard Aythya ferina AE

Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula A

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula AE

Smew Mergellus albellus A

Goosander Mergus merganser A

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis C1E

Common Quail Coturnix coturnix A

Red-legged Partridge Alectoris rufa C1E

Pheasant Phasianus colchicus C1E

Great Northern Diver Gavia immer A

Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis A

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus A

White Stork Ciconia ciconia AE

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus AE

Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia AE

Bittern Botaurus stellaris A

Squacco Heron Ardeola ralloides A

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis AE

104



Grey Heron Ardea cinerea A

Purple Heron Ardea purpurea A

Great White Egret Ardea alba A

Little Egret Egretta garzetta A

Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis A

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo A

Red Kite Milvus milvus AC3E

Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus A

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus A

Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus A

Common Buzzard Buteo buteo A

Osprey Pandion haliaetus AE

Kestrel Falco tinnunculus A

Merlin Falco columbarius A

Hobby Falco subbuteo A

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus AE

Water Rail Rallus aquaticus A

Spotted Crake Porzana porzana A

Moorhen Gallinula chloropus A

Coot Fulica atra A

Common Crane Grus grus A

Great Bustard Otis tarda AE

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus A

Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus A

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta A

Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius A

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula A

Kentish Plover Anarhynchus alexandrinus A

European Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria A

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola A

Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus A

Knot Calidris canutus A

Sanderling Calidris alba A

Little Stint Calidris minuta A

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos A

Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea A

Dunlin Calidris alpina A

Ruff Philomachus pugnax A

Jack Snipe Lymnocryptes minimus A

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago A

Woodcock Scolopax rusticola A

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa A

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica A

Eurasian Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus A

Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata A

Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos A

Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus A

105



Spotted Redshank Tringa erythropus A

Greenshank Tringa nebularia A

Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola A

Common Redshank Tringa totanus A

Turnstone Arenaria interpres A

Grey Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius A

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus A

Pomarine Skua Stercorarius pomarinus A

Arctic Skua Stercorarius parasiticus A

Great Skua Stercorarius skua A

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla A

Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus A

Little Gull Hydrocoloeus minutus A

Mediterranean Gull Larus melanocephalus A

Common Gull Larus canus A

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis A

Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus A

Herring Gull Larus argentatus A

Yellow-legged Gull Larus michahellis A

Iceland Gull* Larus glaucoides glaucoides A

Kumlien's Gull* Larus glaucoides kumlieni A

Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus A

Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus A

Black Tern Chlidonias niger A

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis A

Common Tern Sterna hirundo A

Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea A

Common Guillemot Uria aalge A

Razorbill Alca torda A

Little Auk Alle alle A

Stock Dove Columba oenas A

Woodpigeon Columba palumbus A

Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto A

European Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur A

Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus A

Barn Owl Tyto alba AE

Little Owl Athene noctua C1

Tawny Owl Strix aluco A

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus A

Common Swift Apus apus A

Kingfisher Alcedo atthis A

Hoopoe Upupa epops AE

Green Woodpecker Picus viridis A

Isabelline Shrike Lanius isabellinus A

Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio A

Great Grey Shrike Lanius excubitor A

Woodchat Shrike Lanius senator A

106



Magpie Pica pica A

Jay Garrulus glandarius A

Jackdaw Corvus monedula A

Rook Corvus frugilegus A

Carrion Crow Corvus corone A

Raven Corvus corax A

Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus A

Great Tit Parus major A

Coal Tit Periparus ater A

Bearded Tit Panurus biarmicus A

Skylark Alauda arvensis A

Woodlark Lullula arborea A

Sand Martin Riparia riparia A

Swallow Hirundo rustica A

House Martin Delichon urbicum A

Red-rumped Swallow Cecropis daurica A

Cetti’s Warbler Cettia cetti A

Long-tailed Tit Aegithalos caudatus A

Yellow-browed Warbler Phylloscopus inornatus A

Common Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita A

Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus A

Sedge Warbler Acrocephalus schoenobaenus A

Reed Warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus A

Grasshopper Warbler Locustella naevia A

Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla A

Lesser Whitethroat Sylvia curruca A

Common Whitethroat Sylvia communis A

Goldcrest Regulus regulus A

Firecrest Regulus ignicapilla A

Wren Troglodytes troglodytes A

Starling Sturnus vulgaris A

Rose-coloured Starling Sturnus roseus A

Blackbird Turdus merula A

Fieldfare Turdus pilaris A

Song Thrush Turdus philomelos A

Redwing Turdus iliacus A

Mistle Thrush Turdus viscivorus A

Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata A

Pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca A

Robin Erithacus rubecula A

Nightingale Luscinia megarhynchos A

Black Redstart Phoenicurus ochruros A

Common Redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus A

Whinchat Saxicola rubetra A

European Stonechat Saxicola rubicola A

Northern Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe A

Desert Wheatear Oenanthe deserti A

107



Dunnock Prunella modularis A

House Sparrow Passer domesticus A

Yellow Wagtail (UK race)* Motacilla flava flavissima A

Blue-headed Wagtail* Motacilla flava flava A

Black-headed Wagtail* Motacilla flava feldegg A

Ashy-headed Wagtail* Motacilla flava cinereocapilla A

Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea A

Pied Wagtail* Motacilla alba yarelli A

White Wagtail* Motacilla alba alba A

Tree Pipit Anthus trivialis A

Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis A

Rock Pipit Anthus petrosus A

Water Pipit Anthus spinoletta A

Richard’s Pipit Anthus richardi A

Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs AE

Brambling Fringilla montifringilla A

Greenfinch Chloris chloris AE

Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis A

Siskin Spinus spinus A

Linnet Linaria cannabina A

Lesser Redpoll Acanthis cabaret A

Common Crossbill Loxia curvirostra A

Common Rosefinch Erythrina erythrina A

Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula A

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis A

Lapland Bunting Calcarius lapponicus A

Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella A

Cirl Bunting Emberiza cirlus A

Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus A

Corn Bunting Emberiza calandra A

Table A1.1: List of species seen within the South Huish Nature Reserve recording area between 1969 and 2016

(see Figure: X for details) The taxonomic order is taken from the eighth edition of the British List, (BOU, 2014)

Ibis155: 635-676 and subsequent changes to the list included in BOURC reports. Birds marked with * are

subspecies

Each species on the BOU list is placed in one or more categories denoting its status on the List.

Category A Species recorded in an apparently natural state at least once since 1 January 1950.

Category B Species recorded in an apparently natural state at least once between 1 January 1800

and 31 December 1949, but have not been recorded subsequently.

Category C Species that, although introduced, now derive from the resulting self-sustaining

populations.

• C1 – Naturalized introduced species - species that have occurred only as a result of introduction,

e.g. Egyptian Goose (Alopochen aegyptiacus).

• C2 – Naturalized established species – species with established populations resulting from

introduction by Man, but which also occur in an apparently natural state, e.g. Greylag Goose

(Anser anser).

108


• C3 – Naturalized re-established species – species with populations successfully re-established by

Man in areas of former occurrence, e.g. Red Kite (Milvus milvus).

• C4 – Naturalized feral species – domesticated species with populations established in the wild,

e.g. Rock Pigeon (Dove)/Feral Pigeon (Columba livia).

Category D Species that would otherwise appear in Category A except that there is reasonable

doubt that they have ever occurred in a natural state. Species placed in Category D only form no part

of the British List, and are not included in the species totals.

Category E Species recorded as introductions, human-assisted transportees or escapees from

captivity, and whose breeding populations (if any) are thought not to be self-sustaining. Species in

Category E that have bred in the wild in Britain are designated as E*. Category E species form no part

of the British List (unless already included within Categories A, B or C).

Appendix 1.2 Birds of Conservation Concern

Common name Taxon name Status

Mute Swan Cygnus olor Annual

Bewick’s Swan Cygnus columbianus Occasional

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus Occasional

Taiga Bean Goose Anser fabalis Occasional

Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus Occasional

White-fronted Goose (Eurasian race)* Anser albifrons albifrons Occasional

White-fronted Goose (Greenland race)* Anser albifrons flavirostris Occasional

Greylag Goose Anser anser Occasional

Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis Occasional

Brent Goose (dark-bellied race)* Branta bernicla bernicla Occasional

Brent Goose (pale-bellied race)* Branta bernicla hrota Occasional

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna Annual, breeds

Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope Annual

Gadwall Anas strepera Regular

Eurasian Teal Anas crecca Annual

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Annual, breeds

Northern Pintail Anas acuta Occasional

Garganey Anas querquedula Regular

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata Regular

Common Pochard Aythya ferina Occasional

Greater Scaup Aythya marila Occasional

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula Occasional

Smew Mergellus albellus Occasional

Common Quail Coturnix coturnix Occasional

Great Northern Diver Gavia immer Occasional

Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis Occasional

Bittern Botaurus stellaris Occasional

Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia Occasional

Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus Regular

Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus Occasional

Osprey Pandion haliaetus Occasional

109



Spotted Crake Porzana porzana Occasional

Common Crane Grus grus Occasional

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta Occasional

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus Occasional

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola Occasional

Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus Annual

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula Regular

Eurasian Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Regular

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa Regular

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica Occasional

Knot Calidris canutus Occasional

Ruff Philomachus pugnax Regular

Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea Occasional

Sanderling Calidris alba Occasional

Dunlin Calidris alpina Regular

Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos Annual

Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus Regular

Spotted Redshank Tringa erythropus Occasional

Greenshank Tringa nebularia Occasional

Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola Regular

Common Redshank Tringa totanus Occasional

Woodcock Scolopax rusticola Occasional

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago Annual

Great Skua Stercorarius skua Occasional

Common Guillemot Uria aalge Occasional

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis Occasional

Common Tern Sterna hirundo Occasional

Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea Occasional

Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla Occasional

Black-headed Gull Chroicocephalus ridibundus Annual

Mediterranean Gull Larus melanocephalus Regular

Common Gull Larus canus Occasional

Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus Annual

Herring Gull Larus argentatus Annual

Yellow-legged Gull Larus michahellis Occasional

Iceland Gull* Larus glaucoides glaucoides Occasional

Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus Occasional

Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus Annual

Stock Dove Columba oenas Regular

European Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur Occasional

Common Cuckoo Cuculus canorus Occasional

Tawny Owl Strix aluco Regular

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Occasional

Common Swift Apus apus Annual

110



Kingfisher Alcedo atthis Regular

Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Annual

Merlin Falco columbarius Occasional

Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio Occasional

Skylark Alauda arvensis Annual

House Martin Delichon urbicum Annual

Willow Warbler Phylloscopus trochilus Annual

Grasshopper Warbler Locustella naevia Regular

Starling Sturnus vulgaris Annual

Fieldfare Turdus pilaris Annual

Song Thrush Turdus philomelos Annual

Redwing Turdus iliacus Annual

Mistle Thrush Turdus viscivorus Annual

Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata Occasional

Nightingale Luscinia megarhynchos Occasional

Pied flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca Occasional

Black Redstart Phoenicurus ochruros Occasional

Common Redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus Occasional

Whinchat Saxicola rubetra Regular

Dunnock Prunella modularis Annual

House Sparrow Passer domesticus Annual

Yellow Wagtail (UK race)* Motacilla flava flavissima Annual

Grey Wagtail Motacilla cinerea Regular

Tree Pipit Anthus trivialis Regular

Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis Annual

Water Pipit Anthus spinoletta Occasional

Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula Occasional

Linnet Linaria cannabina Annual

Lesser Redpoll Acanthis cabaret Occasional

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Occasional

Lapland Bunting Calcarius lapponicus Occasional

Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella Regular

Cirl Bunting Emberiza cirlus Regular

Reed Bunting Emberiza schoeniclus Annual

Corn Bunting Emberiza calandra Occasional

Table A1.2: Species currently red or amber listed as Birds of Conservation Concern, (Eaton et al., 2015),

recorded at South Huish Nature Reserve, 1969-2015. (Species order follows BOU 2016 and subsequent

changes to the list included in BOURC reports). Species with Regular status have been reported in 4 or more

of the 10 years prior to 2016 and those with Occasional status in 3 or less years respectively.

111


Appendix 1.3 WeBS Data

Species 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Mute Swan 8 2 2 2 1

Black Swan 1

Whooper Swan 1

Pink-footed Goose

White-fronted Goose 3 6 1

Greylag Goose 2 2

Canada Goose 32 25 120 49 117 200 187 262 130 273 356

Barnacle Goose 26 5 2 1 3 1

Bar-headed Goose 1

Brent Goose (Dark-bellied) 3 13 4 2 6 1 1 2

Egyptian Goose 1

Shelduck 1 3 2 7 2 12 3 5

Eurasian Wigeon 10 7 37 18 90 128 137 158 95 262 71

Gadwall 15 8 9 2 3 2 4 2

Eurasian Teal 28 22 37 10 41 36 94 47 69 62

Mallard 50 29 21 25 50 56 78 72 46 38 32

Northern Pintail 2 1

Garganey 7 3 2 3

Northern Shoveler 4 18 50 14 26 12 14 8 5 12 13

Common Pochard 18 28 2

Tufted Duck 11

Common Goldeneye 1

Cormorant 1

Little Egret 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3

Grey Heron 1 1 3 3 2 1 3 1 2 2 1

Little Grebe 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2

Spotted Crake

Moorhen 1 6 1 13 8 12 9 4 6 11 8

Coot 15 3 6 4 4 6 11

Oystercatcher 23 46 5 17 31 3 38 25 4 19 6

European Golden Plover

Grey Plover 1 1

Northern Lapwing 3 10 16 9 14 1 4 1 1

Little Ringed Plover 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 1

Ringed Plover 12 1 1 1 2 1

Eurasian Whimbrel 1 30 1 1 137 3

Eurasian Curlew 1 1 1 1 1 2

Black-tailed Godwit 2 14 1 1 2 1 7 1

Bar-tailed Godwit 1 2 1 14 1

Knot 3 1

Ruff 17 10 1 4 1 1 1 4 1

Curlew Sandpiper 3 1

Sanderling 4 1

Dunlin 1 1 3 3 24 5 12 7

Little Stint 2 27 1

112


Species 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Grey Phalarope

Common Sandpiper 2 1

Green Sandpiper 4 1 5 1

Spotted Redshank 1 1 1

Greenshank 1 1 1

Wood Sandpiper 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1

Common Redshank 1 1

Jack Snipe 2 1

Common Snipe 1 1 35 1 2 2 3

Arctic Tern 1

Kittiwake 1 2 7

Black-headed Gull 24 74 55 82 20 89 220 125 5 84 58

Mediterranean Gull 1 1 1 1

Common Gull 1 1 10

Lesser Black-backed Gull 200 6 9 3 3 50 12 46 8

Herring Gull 116 39 144 124 150 47 300 65 13 61 103

Yellow-legged Gull

Glaucous Gull

Great Black-backed Gull 6 32 8 7 23 7 95 6 5 3

Kingfisher 1

Table A1.3: Maximum number of each WeBS species recorded at South Huish Nature Reserve annually

between 1994 and 2004 (see Figure: X for details). The taxonomic order is taken from the eighth edition of the

British List, (BOU, 2014) Ibis155: 635-676 and subsequent changes to the list included in BOURC reports.

Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Mute Swan 2 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 6 3

Black Swan

Whooper Swan 6 3

Pink-footed Goose 1

White-fronted Goose 4 4 2

Greylag Goose 1 2 2 1 1 3

Canada Goose 279 419 432 436 181 220 177 254 162 335 210

Barnacle Goose 1 1 1 1

Bar-headed Goose 1

Brent Goose (Dark-bellied) 6 3 12

Egyptian Goose 2 4

Shelduck 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 6 17 27

Eurasian Wigeon 98 121 118 37 53 179 12 110 130 122 50

Gadwall 2 1 20 4 4 4 3 11 7 6

Eurasian Teal 48 145 14 57 148 94 45 110 170 150 150

Mallard 37 27 18 38 36 33 19 85 85 120 35

Northern Pintail 2 8 5 1

Garganey 5 2 1 2 1 2

Northern Shoveler 7 4 9 5 4 11 6 22 17 6

Common Pochard 1

Tufted Duck 3 2 1 2 1 2 1

Common Goldeneye 1 1

113


Species 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Cormorant 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

Little Egret 1 1 1 2 3 2 8 5 2 6 6

Grey Heron 3 4 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2

Little Grebe 1 2

Great Crested Grebe 1

Spotted Crake 1

Moorhen 6 4 8 8 14 8 7 12 15 6 15

Coot 4 4 3 2 2 6 3 1 3

Oystercatcher 1 3 40

European Golden Plover 250 31 2 30

Grey Plover 3 1 3

Northern Lapwing 1 29 2 19 125 35 110

Little Ringed Plover 1 1 1 14 1 4

Ringed Plover 2 23 26 4

Eurasian Whimbrel 3 1 90 30 36

Eurasian Curlew 1 2 3

Black-tailed Godwit 14 22 8 4 14 6 26

Bar-tailed Godwit 7 21

Knot 1 1 1 1 1

Ruff 1 1 2 1 3 5

Curlew Sandpiper 2 1 2 1

Sanderling 2 4

Dunlin 32 3 1 4 1 2 7 38 30 51

Little Stint 1 2 4 1

Grey Phalarope 1 1

Common Sandpiper 4 1

Green Sandpiper 1 4 10 1 6 1 3

Spotted Redshank 1

Greenshank 1 1 1 1 1

Wood Sandpiper 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3

Common Redshank 1 1 1 2

Jack Snipe 1 1 1 1

Common Snipe 1 1 54 2 75 125 50 120

Arctic Tern

Kittiwake 30

Black-headed Gull 40 8 6 54 62 36 25 300 130 250 250

Mediterranean Gull 8 2 5 2

Common Gull 2 1 10 4

Lesser Black-backed Gull 24 5 6 11 1 3 1 2 25 10 50

Herring Gull 228 144 125 156 18 49 100 29 30 61 150

Yellow-legged Gull 1 1 1 1 1

Glaucous Gull 1

Great Black-backed Gull 23 10 8 3 3 2 3 1 30 40 15

Kingfisher 1 1 1 1 1

Table A1.4: Maximum number of each WeBS species recorded at South Huish Nature Reserve annually

between 2005 and 2015 (see Figure: X for details). The taxonomic order is taken from the eighth edition of the

British List, (BOU, 2014) Ibis155: 635-676 and subsequent changes to the list included in BOURC reports.

114


Appendix 2 Vascular plants

Surveys of the flora at South Huish Nature Reserve by the Devon Wildlife Trust (DWT) in 1992, by

Roger Smith, the Royal Botanical Society’s official recorder for South Devon in 2007, by Lynne

Kenderdine, DWT’s County Wildlife Site Officer in 2009 and, most recently, by the National Trust

National Consultancy in 2012 identified a significant number of species which are listed below.

Appendix 2.1 Cryptograms

Ph

oto

: W

ikim

ed

ia C

om

mo

ns

Figure A2.1: Water Horsetail, (Equisetum fluviatile).

Family Common Name Latin Name

Equisetaceae Field Horsetail Equisetum arvense

Equisetaceae Water Horsetail Equisetum fluviatile

Equisetaceae Marsh Horsetail Equisetum palustre

Appendix 2.2 Dicotyledons

Ph

oto

: W

ikim

ed

ia C

om

mo

ns

Figure A2.2: Tubular Water Dropwort, (Oenanthe fistulosa)

115



Araliaceae Marsh Pennywort Hydrocotyle vulgaris

Brassicaceae Black Mustard Brassica nigra

Brassicaceae Wavy Bitter-cress Cardamine flexuosa

Brassicaceae Hairy Bitter-cress Cardamine hirsuta

Brassicaceae Cuckoo Flower Cardamine pratensis

Brassicaceae Common Whitlowgrass Erophila vernaa

Brassicaceae Lesser Swine-cress Lepidium didymum

Brassicaceae Water-cress Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum

Caryophyllaceae Sea Mouse-ear Cerastium diffusum

Caryophyllaceae Common Mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum

Caryophyllaceae Ragged Robin Lychnis flos-cuculi

Caryophyllaceae Procumbent Pearlwort Sagina procumbens

Caryophyllaceae Red Campion Silene dioica

Caryophyllaceae Sea Spurry Spergularia marina

Caryophyllaceae Rock Sea-Spurry Spergularia rupicola

Caryophyllaceae Bog Stitchwort Stellaria alsine

Caryophyllaceae Lesser Stitchwort Stellaria graminea

Ceratopyllaceae Soft Hornwort Ceratopyllum submersum

Lythraceae Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria

Amaranthaceae Spear-leaved Orache Atriplex prostrata

Amaranthaceae Sea Beet Beta vulgaris

Caprifoliaceae Devil’s-Bit Scabious Succisa pratensis

Primulaceae Bog Pimpernel Anagallis tenella

Primulaceae Cowslip Primula veris

Geraniaceae Cut-leaved Crane’s-bill Geranium dissectum

Geraniaceae Dove’s-foot Crane’s-bill Geranium molle

Geraniaceae Herb Robert Geranium robertianum

Orobanchaceae Yellow Rattle Rhinanthus minor

Malvaceae Common Mallow Malva sylvestris

Fabaceae Meadow Vetchling Lathyrus pratensis

Fabaceae Common Bird’s-foot Trefoil Lotus corniculatus

Fabaceae Greater Bird’s-foot trefoil Lotus pedunculatus

Fabaceae Spotted Medick Medicago arabica

Fabaceae Common Restharrow Ononis repens

Fabaceae Lesser Trefoil Trifolium dubium

Fabaceae Red Clover Trifolium pratense

Fabaceae White Clover Trifolium repens

Fabaceae Tufted Vetch Vicia cracca

Hypericaceae Square-stalked St John’s-wort Hypericum tetrapterum

Rosaceae Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna

Rosaceae Meadowsweet Filipendula ulmaria

Rosaceae Silverweed Potentilla anserina

Rosaceae Creeping Cinquefoil Potentilla reptens

Rosaceae Blackthorn Prunus spinosa

Rosaceae Bramble Rubus fruticosus

Onagraceae Great Willowherb Epilobium hirsutum

Apiaceae Angelica Angelica sylvestris

Apiaceae Cow Parsley Anthriscus sylvestris

116



Apiaceae Fool’s Water cress Apium nodiflorum

Apiaceae Wild Carrot Daucus carota

Apiaceae Hogweed Heracleum sphondylium

Apiaceae Hemlock Water Dropwort Oenanthe crocata

Apiaceae Tubular Water Dropwort Oenanthe fistulosa

Apiaceae Alexanders Smyrnium olusatrum

Ranunculacea Marsh Marigold Caltha palustris

Ranunculacea Meadow Buttercup Ranunculus acris

Ranunculacea Bulbous Buttercup Ranunculus bulbosus

Ranunculacea Lesser Celandine Ranunculus ficaria

Ranunculacea Lesser Spearwort Ranunculus flammula

Ranunculacea Greater Spearwort Ranunculus lingua

Ranunculacea Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens

Ranunculacea Celery-leaved Buttercup Ranunculus sceleratus

Polygonaceae Amphibious Bistort Persicaria amphibia

Polygonaceae Pale Persicaria Persicaria lapathifolium

Polygonaceae Redshank Persicaria maculosa

Polygonaceae Common Sorrel Rumex acetosa

Polygonaceae Curled Dock Rumex crispus

Polygonaceae Broad-leaved Dock Rumex obtusifolius

Urticacea Common Nettle Urtica dioica

Betulaceae Hazel Corylus avellana

Boraginaceae Changing Forget-me-not Myosotis discolor

Boraginaceae Tufted Forget-me-not Myosotis laxa

Boraginaceae Water Forget-me-not Myosotis scorpiodes

Convolvulaceae Hedge Bindweed Calystegia sepium

Convolvulaceae Field Bindweed Convolvulus arvensis

Solanaceae Bittersweet Solanum dulcamara

Solanaceae Black Nightshade Solanum nigrum

Scrophulariaceae Water Figwort Scrophularia auriculata

Lamiaceae Gipsywort Lycopus europaeus

Lamiaceae Water Mint Mentha aquatica

Lamiaceae Marsh Woundwort Stachys palustris

Lamiaceae Hedge Woundwort Stachys sylvaticca

Plantaginaceae Water-starwort Callitriche aggregate

Plantaginaceae Foxglove Digitalis purpurea

Plantaginaceae Buck’s-horn Plantain Plantago coronopus

Plantaginaceae Ribwort Plantain Plantago lanceolata

Plantaginaceae Greater Plantain Plantago major

Plantaginaceae Wall Speedwell Veronica arvensis

Plantaginaceae Brooklime Veronica beccabunga

Rubiaceae Cleavers Galium aparine

Rubiaceae Slender Marsh Bedstraw Galium debile

Rubiaceae Hedge Bedstraw Galium mollugo

Rubiaceae Common Marsh Bedstraw Galium palustre

Rubiaceae Lady’s Bedstraw Galium verum

Asteraceae Yarrow Achillea millefolium

Asteraceae Lesser Burdock Arctium minus

117



Asteraceae Mugwort Artemisia vulgaris

Asteraceae Daisy Bellis perennis

Asteraceae Musk Thistle Carduus nutans

Asteraceae Slender Thistle Carduus tenuiflorus

Asteraceae Common Knapweed Centauria nigra

Asteraceae Creeping Thistle Cirsium arvense

Asteraceae Marsh Thistle Cirsium palustre

Asteraceae Spear Thistle Cirsium vulgare

Asteraceae Beaked Hawk’s-beard Crepis vesicaria

Asteraceae Cat’s-ear Hypochaeris radicata

Asteraceae Nipplewort Lapsana communis

Asteraceae Lesser Hawkbit Leontodon saxatilis

Asteraceae Oxeye Daisy Leucanthemum vulgaris

Asteraceae Pineapple Weed Matricaria discoidea

Asteraceae Bristly Ox-tongue Picris echioides

Asteraceae Common Fleabane Pulicaria dysenterica

Asteraceae Marsh Ragwort Senecio aquaticus

Asteraceae Common Ragwort Senecio jacobaea

Asteraceae Prickly Sowthistle Sonchus asper

Asteraceae Smooth Sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus

Asteraceae Dandelion Taraxacum aggregate

Alismataceae Water Plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica

Appendix 2.3 Monocotyledons

Ph

oto

: W

ikim

ed

ia C

om

mo

ns

Figure A2.3: Jointed Rush, (Juncus articulatus)


Juncaceae Sharp-flowered Rush Juncus acutiflorus

Juncaceae Jointed Rush Juncus articulatus

118



Juncaceae Toad Rush Juncus bufonius

Juncaceae Soft Rush Juncus effusus

Juncaceae Hard Rush Juncus inflexus

Orchidaceae Southern Marsh-orchid Dactylorhiza praetermissa

Iridaceae Yellow Iris Iris pseudacorus

Araceae Common Duckweed Lemna minor

Typhaceae Branched Bur-reed Sparganium erectum

Cyperaceae Sea Club-rush Bolboschoenus maritimus

Cyperaceae Sand Sedge Carex arenaria

Cyperaceae Hairy Sedge Carex hirta

Cyperaceae Common Sedge Carex nigra

Cyperaceae False Fox-sedge Carex otrubae

Cyperaceae Carnation Sedge Carex panicea

Cyperaceae Greater Tussock-sedge Carex paniculata

Cyperaceae Common Spike-rush Eleocharis palustris

Cyperaceae Common Cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium

Cyperaceae Grey Club-rush Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani

Gramineae Soft Brome Bromus hordeaceus

Poaceae Creeping Bent Agrostis stolonifera

Poaceae Marsh Foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus

Poaceae Meadow Foxtail Alopecurus pratensis

Poaceae False Brome Brachypodium sylvaticum

Poaceae Crested Dog’s-tail Cynosurus cristatus

Poaceae Cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata

Poaceae Bearded Couch Elymus caninus

Poaceae Common Couch Elymus repens

Poaceae Tall Fescue Festuca arundinacea

Poaceae Red Fescue Festuca rubra

Poaceae Floating Sweet-grass Glyceria fluitans

Poaceae Yorkshire Fog Holcus lanatus

Poaceae Perennial Rye-grass Lolium perenne

Poaceae Reed Canary-grass Phalaris arundinacea

Poaceae Timothy-grass Phleum pratense subs. Pratense

Poaceae Common Reed Phragmites australis

Poaceae Spreading Meadow-Grass Poa humulis

Poaceae Smooth Meadow-Grass Poa pratensis

Poaceae Rough Meadow-grass Poa trivialis

Table A2.1: Vascular plants of South Huish Nature Reserve, from Devon Wildlife Trust (1992 and

2009), Smith (2007) and National Trust (2012) surveys. Family order is taken from the British

Museum of Natural History webpages. Species within families are listed alphabetically by Latin Name.

119


Appendix 3 Climate change projections

Natural England and the RSPB published a Climate Change Adaptation Manual in 2014, which

includes the following table detailing the possible impacts of climate change on coastal floodplain

and grazing marsh habitats:

Cause Consequence Implications

Hotter summers Longer growing season.

￭ Phenology may change significantly,

with flowering and seed setting occurring

earlier in the season.

￭ The earlier onset of the growing season

may lead to less favourable conditions for

ground nesting birds that require a short

sward.

Drier summers Drought.

￭ Drier conditions will favour stress

tolerant (e.g. deep-rooted) and ruderal

species.

￭ Food availability for ground nesting birds

in late spring and summer could be

reduced.

￭ In peat rich areas, dryer conditions could

cause damage to soil structure and

increase erosion.

￭ Any increase in water abstraction could

lower water tables and reduce water

availability, and potentially lead to

increased saline intrusion on coastal sites.

Wetter winters

Winter flooding.

Higher winter water

table.

￭ Changes to inundation patterns on

wetter sites could lead to changes in

floodplain wetland plant communities and

affect suitability for over-wintering water

birds.

￭ Higher spring soil moisture levels

(combined with higher spring

temperatures) may boost total biomass

and favour more competitive species.

￭ Wetter ground conditions may create

difficulties for grazing.

120



Altered seasonal

rainfall patterns

Altered flow regimes.

Greater fluctuation of

water tables.

￭ Plant communities on wetter sites may

change as specialist wetland species are

outcompeted by more generalist species

adapted to drier and/ or fluctuating

conditions (Toogood et al. 2008).

Floodplain wetlands dependant on

marked flow peak and snow melt are

especially sensitive.

￭ Increased disturbance could increase

susceptibility to the spread of invasive

species.

More extreme events Flooding

￭ More frequent flooding will increase the

risk of pollution run-off.

￭ Flooding of brackish water bodies and

sites with fresh water could lead to the

loss of specialist species.

Sea level rise

Altered coastal

dynamics

Saline Intrusion

Increased frequency of

saline inundation

Managed realignment,

or

unmanaged realignment

following the

abandonment of coastal

defence structures

￭ Sea level rise could result in the loss of

intertidal habitats, increasing the threat of

inundation and erosion of adjacent

grazing marsh.

￭ Saline intrusion will lead to a change in

community structure on freshwater sites

close to the coast and estuaries, with a

shift from freshwater to brackish

communities.

￭ More frequent inundation could

increase the area of exposed mud, making

marshes more susceptible to invasive

plants and erosion.

￭ Coastal realignment could lead to the

loss of both coastal and floodplain grazing

marsh (Gardiner et al 2007).

121



In combination Increased pollution and

nutrient loading

￭ Increased mineralisation at higher

temperatures, combined with reduced

dilution due to lower flows, could lead to

increase nitrogen loading in water

courses, which could contribute to the

eutrophication of ditch networks and

watercourses (Mooij et al 2005, Moss et

al. 2011).

Table A3.1: The potential impacts of climate change on floodplain and grazing marsh, (Natural England and

RSPB, 2014)

122


Appendix 4 Sluice Design and Operation

The sluice design at South Huish Reserve is a variation of a widely used and well-described low-cost

water control method based on the raising and lowering of either a flexible or right-angled pipe,

connecting to a drain, (FAO, 1980; Merritt, 1992; RSPB, 2008). The design has proved both reliable

and durable but has not been documented previously and is included here for reference.

The sluices installed at South Huish consist of a robust, vertical, wooden post through which passes,

at an angle, an adjustable, wooden control rod, which is attached at its lower end to a length of

flexible pipe connecting to a drain, (Figure A4.1). The control rod can be raised or lowered and is

secured in place by a retaining pin pushed through one of a series of holes. This system requires only

one person to operate and enables fine control of the water table within the reserve.

Damage by livestock, which find the structures attractive as scratching posts, has required minor

repairs and increasing levels of protection over time (Figures A4.2 and A4.3) but the system has

proved effective in the long term.

Figure A4.1: Front and Side view diagram of the water control mechanisms installed at South Huish Reserve.

A = Adjustable Control Rod; B = Wooden Post with an angled slot for the control rod; C = Retaining pin pushed

through one of a series of holes; D = Flexible piping connecting to the drain and attached to the control rod.

123


124


Figure A4.2-4.4: Water control mechanisms installed at South Huish Reserve.

Sluice operation

The following record provides an insight into adjustment of the sluices at South Huish to achieve

partial or complete drainage of the scrapes. Adjustments to the levels were made with the saddle of

the control arm close to the rope attached to the end of the pipe (see Figure A4.8).

Figure A4.5: Front scrape about 60% covered by water, 11 July 2016

125


Figure A4.6: Back scrape about 80% covered by water, 11 July 2016.

Figure A4.7: Both sluices were set with five holes visible, 11 July 2016.

Figure A4.8: Both sluices were just spilling, 11 July 2016.

126


At 12:30pm the back sluice was lowered by one hole (four holes visible). This resulted in the pipe

being lowered by around 75mm

Figure A4.9: Back sluice set with four holes visible, 12:30pm, 11 July 2016.

The sluices were not adjusted on 12 July and the water in the scrapes reduced marginally to 50% on

front scrape and 70% on back scrape. The level in the ditch drained by the back sluice reduced to

below the level of the channel into the back scrape.

On 13 July the back sluice was lowered by one hole (three holes visible) and by 14 July the water level

had dropped in the ditch drained by the back sluice by around 50mm. This will provide some margin

for water to drain from this ditch without overflowing into the back scrape. The invert of the sluice

was still about 50mm below the water level in the ditch but there appeared to be little/no outflow,

probably due to water backing up from the main channel which was clogged with reeds.

On 13 July the front sluice was also lowered by one hole (four holes visible) which lowered the sluice

by about 50mm. By 14 July, the front scrape was completely drained and the back scrape was still

about 10% covered by water. The scrapes were still being drained as the sluice was still flowing – the

water level in the ditch/scrapes was about 20mm above the invert of the pipe.

127


Published by Devon Birds

[email protected]

www.devonbirds.org

Registered Charity 228966

© 2017 Devon Birds

Documents

Devon Birds - South Huish Nature Reserve Management Plan ... · 3 Devon Birds - South Huish Nature Reserve Management Plan 2017-2021, Version 1.0, December 2016 ii. Introduction South