Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI, East Sussex and Kent

Supporting Information

A supplement to the notification package

Issued by English Nature’s Kent Team on 16 August 2006

Contact points and further information

This supplement is issued on request by English Nature’s Kent Team and is to be read in conjunction with the notification package for owners, occupiers, and other notified parties. Our address for correspondence is:

English Nature Kent Team The Countryside Management Centre Coldharbour Farm Wye Ashford Kent TN25 5DB

Telephone number: 01233 811214 Fax number: 01233 812520 E-mail: [email protected]

Your contact point for enquiries relating to this notification is Jessica Daish-Miller

Page 2 of 125 Contents

Summary

1. Information used to support the selection of Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI

2. Explanation of how Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI meets the SSSI selection guidelines

3. Explanation of why parts of the previously notified SSSIs are not considered to be of special interest

4. Assessment of the current condition of Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI

5. Site unit map

6. Photographs

Page 3 of 125 Summary Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI is notified under section 28C of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as inserted by Schedule 9 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The site is considered to be of special interest for its nationally important:  coastal geomorphology  saltmarshes  sand dunes  vegetated shingle  saline lagoons  standing waters  lowland ditch systems  basin fens  populations of four species listed in Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)  assemblage of Schedule 8, nationally rare and nationally scarce vascular  populations of the vulnerable Warne’s thread-moss Bryum warneum  populations of water voles Arvicola terrestris  assemblage of breeding birds associated with shingle beaches and saltmarsh, lowland damp grasslands, lowland open waters and their margins, and scrub  breeding numbers of 16 species of bird  assemblage of over 20,000 waterfowl in the non-breeding season  wintering numbers of 17 species of bird and three species during passage periods  metapopulations of great crested newts Triturus cristatus  endemic species and subspecies of invertebrates  populations of two invertebrate species listed in Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)  populations of ten endangered, vulnerable and rare invertebrate species  assemblages of invertebrates occurring on dry coastal habitats  assemblages of wetland invertebrates

Parts of three of the previously notified SSSIs (Dungeness SSSI, Rye Harbour SSSI and Walland Marsh SSSI) are not considered to be of special interest. Accordingly, these areas are subject to notifications under Section 28D of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as inserted by Schedule 9 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

Page 4 of 125 1. Information used to support the selection of Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI Feature Data Source Author Date Content General Guidelines for selection of Nature 1989 National selection biological SSSIs Conservancy guidelines for Council biological Sites of Special Scientific Interest Guidelines for the English Nature 2005 National guidelines denotification of Sites of for identifying cases Special Scientific Interest where denotification may be appropriate Dungeness Ecology and Ferry, B.W. & 1985 A summary of Conservation, Focus on Waters, S.J.P. ecological, Nature Conservation geomorphological Number 12, Nature and human Conservancy Council interactive aspects of Dungeness Rye Explorer Database Culley, J., 2004 A Geographical Livingstone, D., Information System Duane, W., covering the Waller, M.P. & geomorphology, Yates, B. habitats and species of the Rye Bay area Dungeness RSPB reserve Akers, P. 2003 Details the habitats management plan 2002/3 – and species at 2006/7 Dungeness RSPB Reserve Biological survey of Lydd Henderson, K.L. 1984 Species records from Ranges 1984 & Henderson, Lydd Ranges A.C.B. British Plant Communities. Rodwell, J.S. 1991 National Vegetation Volume 1: Woodlands and (ed). Classification (NVC) scrub for woodlands and scrub British Plant Communities. Rodwell, J.S. 1991 NVC for mires and Volume 2: Mires and (ed). heaths heaths British Plant Communities. Rodwell, J.S. 1992 NVC for grasslands Volume 3: Grasslands and (ed). and montane montane communities communities British Plant Communities. Rodwell, J.S. 1995 NVC for aquatic Volume 4: Aquatic (ed). communities, communities, swamps and swamps and tall-herb tall-herb fens fens British Plant Communities. Rodwell, J.S. 2000 NVC for maritime Volume 5: maritime (ed) communities and communities and vegetation of open vegetation of open habitats habitats.

Page 5 of 125 Feature Data Source Author Date Content Sussex Biodiversity Sussex 2006 Species records from Records Centre Reports Biodiversity the East Sussex part Records Centre of the SSSI and comparator sites New Flora of the British Stace, C. 1997 Standard reference Isles. 2nd edition for plant species names Geomorphology An Introduction to the Ellis, N.V. (ed.), 1996 Background Geological Conservation Bowen, D.Q., information on the Review. Geological Campbell, S., Geological Conservation Review Knill, J.L., Conservation Review Series. Joint Nature McKirdy, A.P., Conservation Committee Prosser, C.D., Vincent M.A., & Wilson, R.C.L. Coastal Geomorphology of May, K.J. & 2003 Description and Great Britain. Geological Hansom, J.D. justification for Conservation Review inclusion of Series Volume 28. Joint Dungeness and Rye Nature Conservation Habour in the Committee. Geological Conservation Review Geomorphological interest Long, A., Plater, 2006 Assessment of features at Dungeness, A. & Waller, M. distribution and Kent – Report prepared for significance of English Nature (English geomorphological Nature Research Report in interestsoutside preparation) Dungeness SSSI Dungeness Collins, T. 2006 Justification for Geomorphology – Jury’s (English inclusion of the Gap to Camber Nature) stretch of coast between Jury’s Gap and Camber Soil Survey of Great Green, R.D. 1968 Soil survey map of Britain. Bulletin No. 4. the Romney Marsh Soils of Romney Marsh. area Flandrian barrier beaches Eddison, J. 1983a Describes the early of the coast of Sussex and formation of shingle south-east Kent. barrier beaches in the Quaternary Newsletter 39: Romney Marsh and 25-29. Rye Bay area The evolution of the Eddison, J. 1983b Describes the barrier beaches between evolution of shingle Fairlight and Hythe. barrier beaches in the Geographical Journal Romney Marsh and 149: 39-53. Rye Bay area Site visit – 16th and 17th English Nature 2006 Note of visit to areas January 2005 (file note) of geomorphological interest with English Nature’s specialists.

Page 6 of 125 Feature Data Source Author Date Content Saltmarsh Briefing on Rye Harbour Jones, A.J. 2003 English Nature’s SSSI – land on Rye (English submission to Harbour Road Nature) planning inquiry Summary of justification Jones, A.J. 2005 English Nature’s for restoration of Rye (English submission to Saltings Nature) planning inquiry The saltmarsh survey of Burd, F. 1989 National saltmarsh Great Britain. An survey inventory of British saltmarshes. NCC Research and survey in nature conservation No.17 Saltmarsh survey of Great Fojt, W. 1985 Saltmarsh survey of Britain. County report: the lower River Sussex. Rother and other Sussex sites Environment Agency Halcrow Group 2006 Saltmarsh survey of River Rother Tidal Walls Limited part of the River Improvement – Saltmarsh Rother Monitoring Unpublished mapping Yates, B. 1998 GIS layer of survey of saltmarsh in the saltmarsh extent in River Rother the River Rother Sand dunes Sand Dune Survey of Doody, J.P. 2005 A vegetation survey Camber Sands, East of sand dunes at Sussex, and Romney Camber Sands, Warren and Greatstone, Romney Warren and Kent. Vegetation survey, Greatstone status and management Sand Dune Vegetation Radley, G.P. 1994 National sand dune Survey of Great Britain: A survey national inventory. Part 1: England. Peterborough, JNCC. Sand Dune Survey of Hedley, S.M. 1990 Survey of sand dune Great Britain, Site Report vegetation at Romney No 77, Romney Warren Warren Kent, NCC Sand Dune Survey of Doarks, C., 1990 Survey of sand dune Great Britain, Site Report Hedley, S.M. & vegetation at Camber No 78, Camber Sands, Woolven, S.C. Sands East Sussex NCC Sandwich Bay dunes, Dargie, T. 2002 Survey of sand dune Kent: NVC survey 2001 vegetation at Sandwich Bay Vegetated Dungeness: a vegetation Ferry, B.W., 1990 Vegetated shingle shingle survey of a shingle beach Lodge, N. & survey of Dungeness Waters, S.J.P. Dungeness vegetation Fuller, R.M. 1989 Maps of shingle survey: mapping. Final vegetation at report Dungeness

Page 7 of 125 Feature Data Source Author Date Content Coastal vegetated shingle Sneddon, P. & 1993 National survey of structures of Great Britain: Randall, R.E. vegetated shingle main report. Peterborough, JNCC. Coastal vegetated shingle Sneddon, P. & 1994 Information on structures of Great Britain: Randall, R.E. survey of vegetated Appendix 3. Shingle sites shingle at Rye in England. Peterborough, Harbour JNCC. A survey of the lichens and Ferry, B. & 1991 Survey of lichens and bryophytes associated with Lodge, N. bryophytes associated the blackthorns at with blackthorns Dungeness growing on shingle Saline lagoons Guidelines for selection of Joint Nature 1996 National selection biological SSSIs: intertidal Conservation guidelines for marine habitats and saline Committee biological SSSIs in lagoons intertidal marine habitats and saline lagoons Saline Lagoon Survey, Bamber, R.N., 2005 Survey of saline Lydd Ranges, Kent Evans, N.J. & lagoons at Lydd Chimonides, Ranges P.J. Standing waters Report on the present and , F. 1997 Vegetation survey of and basin fens past botanical interest of the Open Pits the Open Pits on Dungeness Beach, with suggestions for future management. English Nature Natural wetlands on Ferry, B.W. & 1988 Description of natural shingle at Dungeness, Waters, S.J.P. shingle wetlands at Kent, England. Biological Dungeness Conservation 43: 27-41 The vegetation of natural Ferry, B.W. & 1984 Vegetation surveys of freshwater pits at Henderson, A. natural shingle Dungeness – I: higher wetlands at plants. Transactions of the Dungeness Kent Field Club 9(3): 143- 153 The vegetation of natural Ferry, B.W. & 1984 Vegetation surveys of freshwater pits at Waters, S.J.P. natural shingle Dungeness – II: Lichens wetlands at and Bryophytes. Dungeness Transactions of the Kent Field Club 9(3): 153-158 Notes of observations Meade, R. 2006 Notes following a site made during site visit on 5 (English visit to the Open Pits April 2006 Nature) Lowland ditch Ditch monitoring at Williams, P., 2000 Survey of plant systems Walland Marsh SSSI Banks, B., species in ditches on 1993/1994. English Nature Cameron, R., & Walland Marsh Research Reports no.132. Cooke, R.

Page 8 of 125 Feature Data Source Author Date Content Ditch monitoring at Pett Banks, B. 1987 Survey of plant Level SSSI. Unpublished (English species in ditches on Nature) Pett Level Ditch monitoring at Banks, B. 1996 Survey of plant Cheyne Court. (English species in ditches at Unpublished Nature) Cheyne Court A standard method for the Alcock, M.R, & 1985 Standard ditch survey of ditch vegetation. Palmer, M.A. vegetation survey Nature Conservancy methodology Council (CST Notes No. 37, unpublished) Vascular plants New Atlas of the British Pearson, C.D., 2002 Information on plant and Irish Flora Pearman, D.A. species distribution & Dines, T.D. The Red Cheffings, C.M. 2005 Threat status of Data List for Great Britain & Farrell, L. plants British Red Data Books 1. Wigginton, M.J. 1999 Threat status of Vascular plants plants Assessing vascular plant Botanical Unit, 2006 Treatment of species interest features English Nature threatened plants that (especially ‘scoring do not form part of combinations’) on SSSIs scoring combinations using the vascular plant master-spreadsheet: a guidance note from the Botanical Unit, English Nature. Jersey Cudweed Gurney, M. 2004 Distribution and Gnaphalium luteoalbum L. history of Jersey at Dungeness RSPB Cudweed at Reserve, East Kent. Dungeness Watsonia 25: 107-113 Personal observations Banks, B. Various Plant records (English Nature) Personal observations Dear, J. Various Plant records (English Nature) Personal observations Smith, J. & Various Plant records Williams, P. (English Nature) Personal observations Leyshon, O. Various Plant records (Romney Marsh Countryside Project) Personal observations Philp, E. Various Plant records Monthly surveys Philp, E. 1996/97 Plant records Rare and endangered McGlathery, K. 1980 Plant records plants in Kent Walland Marsh SSSI Plant Nature 1980-82 Plant records from Distribution Maps Conservancy Walland Marsh Council

Page 9 of 125 Feature Data Source Author Date Content Sium Records Romney Anon. 2000 Records of greater Marsh water-parsnip in Romney Marsh Ditch Reports Davey, S. 1992 Plant records from ditches Lydd Ranges Botanical Harmes, Spiers 2003 Plant records from Survey 2003 and Sussex Lydd Ranges Botanical Recording Society Notes of Survey of Saline Shardlow, M. & 1998 Plant species Lagoons and Ponds, Lydd Gilliland, P. recorded in saline Ranges, Dungeness lagoons at Lydd Ranges Vascular Plants of Dungeness Bird 2003 Plant records from Dungeness Bird Observatory Dungeness Observatory Recording Area Plants of Dungeness Bird Dungeness Bird 1980 – Plants records from Observatory Recording Observatory 1985 Dungeness Area A survey of Sea Pea Leyshon, O. 2001 Sea pea records from (Lathyrus japonicus) Dungeness populations on Dungeness National Nature Reserve Shingle plant communities Smith & 1983 Plant records from and their general ecology Thomas Dungeness at Dungeness, Kent Orchids of the British Isles Foley, M., 2005 Information on early Clarke, S. & spider-orchid Taylor, I. Orchids of Britain and Harrap, A. 2005 Information on lizard Ireland: a field and site orchid guide Warne’s thread- Guidelines for selection of Joint Nature 1992 National selection moss biological SSSIs: non- Conservation guidelines for vascular plants Committee biological SSSIs for non-vascular plants British Red Data Books: Church, J.M., 2001 Threat status of mosses and liverworts Hodgetts, N.G., mosses and Preston, C.D. & liverworts Stewart, N.F. Coastal mosses of the Holyoak, D.T. 2002 Surveys of Warne’s Bryum. Report to thread-moss Plantlife on work carried out in England during 2001

Page 10 of 125 Feature Data Source Author Date Content Water voles Addition to Guidelines for Joint Nature 2005 Additional text selection of biological Conservation covering selection of SSSIs – Chapter 13: Committee biological SSSIs for Mammals water voles. Approved by Joint Committee in 2001 but not yet formally published Personal comment Tate, M. 2006 Water vole records (Romney Marsh Countryside Project) Romney Marsh water vole McConnell, H. 2001 Water vole records report 2001: Romney Marsh Countryside Project. Romney Marsh water vole McConnell, H. 2002 Water vole records report 2002: Romney Marsh Countryside Project. Romney Marsh water vole Tate, M. 2003 Water vole records report 2003: Romney Marsh Countryside Project. Romney Marsh water vole Tate, M. 2004 Water vole records and mink raft project reports 2003: Romney Marsh Countryside Project. Birds Population estimates of Baker, H., 2006 National population birds in Great Britain and Stroud, D.A., estimates of breeding, the United Kingdom. Aebischer, N.J., wintering and British Birds 99: 25-44. Cranswick, passage birds P.A., Gregory, R.D., McSorley, C.A., Noble, D.G. & Rehfisch, M.M. Rules for deriving national Baker, H. 2006 Recomends the way 1% thresholds from bird (JNCC) and the in which 1% population estimates. Inter-Agency thresholds should be Paper to the Chief Ornithologists derived from bird Scientists’ Group Working Group population estimates (not yet endorsed) The Wetland Bird Survey Collier, M., 2005 Annual Wetland Bird 2003/04– Wildfowl and Banks, A., Survey results Wader Counts. BTO/ Austin, G., WWT/RSPB/JNCC Hearn, R. and Musgrove, A. Dungeness Bird Dungeness Bird 2000 – Bird records at Observatory Annual Observatory 2004 Dungeness Reports

Page 11 of 125 Feature Data Source Author Date Content Email communications Walker, D. 2005/6 Bird records from regarding Dungeness (Dungeness Dungeness Bird Observatory) Breeding Birds of Rye Rye Harbour 2000 – Breeding bird records Harbour Recording Area LNR 2005 at Rye Harbour Email communications Yates, B. (Rye 2005/6 Bird records from regarding Rye Harbour Harbour LNR) Rye Bay Email communications Jones, P. (The 2005/6 Bird records from the regarding Pannel Valley Wetland Trust) Pannel Valley Email communications Norman, R. 2005/6 Hen harrier roost regarding hen harriers counts Kent Bird Report 2000, Braggs, J. (ed.) 2002 Wintering ruff Kent Ornithological records Society The Sussex Bird Report Paul, P.N. (ed.) 2005 Wintering ruff No. 57, 2004. The Sussex records Ornithological Society Breeding bird survey of McMinn, S. 2003 Breeding birds at proposed wind farm area at (Marsh Cheyne Court Little Cheyne Court, Environmental) Romney Marsh in Kent 2003. Report to National Wind Power Breeding bird survey of McMinn, S. 2004 Breeding birds at proposed wind farm at (Marsh Cheyne Court Little Cheyne Court, Environmental) Romney Marsh in Kent 2004. Report to NPower Renewables Little Cheyne Court Wind Percival, S. 2002 Breeding birds at Farm – Ornithological (Ecology Cheyne Court Assessment: confidential Consulting) appendix Little Cheyne Court Wind Innogy 2004 Mute swan counts Farm – Ornithological from Cheyne Court Assessment: update on wintering birds Counts of Bewick’s swans McMinn, S. 2006 Records of birds at Wheelsgate Reservoir using Cheyne Court and records of birds using and counts of Cheyne Court. Bewick’s swans Unpublished data roosting on a small reservoir near Wheelsgate Great crested Unpublished surveys of Bank, B. Various Great crested newt newt great crested newt (English records breeding ponds Nature)

Page 12 of 125 Feature Data Source Author Date Content The migrations and Duff, R.A. 1989 Movements and terrestrial habitat habitat use by great utilisation of a population crested newts of great crested newts, Triturus cristatus, at Little Wittenham Wood, Oxfordshire The migratory ecology and Franklin, P.S. 1993 Movements and terrestrial habitat habitat use by great preferences of the great crested newts crested newt, Triturus cristatus, at Little Wittenham Nature Reserve Great crested newt Langton, T., 2001 Movements and conservation handbook Beckett, C. & habitat use by great Foster, J. crested newts Population ecology of the Kupfer, A. & 2000 Movements and great crested newt Kneitz, S. habitat use by great (Triturus cristatus) in an crested newts agricultural landscape: dynamics, pond fidelity and dispersal A survey of the great Nixon, A. 1998/99 Great crested newt crested newt (Triturus records cristatus) in the Romney Marsh Natural Area Invertebrates British Red Data Books 2. Shirt, D.B. (ed.) 1987 Status of species British Red Data Books 3. Bratton, J.H. 1991 Status of invertebrate Invertebrates other than (ed.) species other than insects insects Grazing marsh Drake, C.M. 2004 National assessment assemblages and site of invertebrates of classification using grazing marshes, invertebrates. English including Walland Nature Research Reports Marsh, Pett Level and No. 579 Rye Harbour The development of ISIS: Webb, J.R. & 2006 Description of the a habitat-based Lott, D.A. ISIS prototype invertebrate assemblage invertebrate classification system for assemblage assessing conservation classification system interest in England. Journal of Insect Conservation 10: 179-188 A review of the scarce and Falk, S.J. & 2005 Invertebrate records threatened flies of Great Crossley, R. Britain Part 3, JNCC A review of the scarce and Falk, S.J. & 2005 Invertebrate records threatened flies of Great Chandler, P.J. Britain Part 2, JNCC Personal observations Clancy, S.P. 2004 Invertebrate records

Page 13 of 125 Feature Data Source Author Date Content Records of bees, wasps Bee, Wasp & 2004 Invertebrate records and ants Ant Recording Society The Coleoptera of Rye Hodge, P.J. & 2000 Invertebrate records Bay Yates, B. Records collected for Smith, C. 2000 Invertebrate records RMC Ltd. A survey of invertebrate Morris, R.K.A. 1992 Invertebrate records communities on the & Parsons, M.S. shingle of Dungeness, Rye Harbour and Orfordness Dungeness Bird Dungeness Bird 2005 Invertebrate records Observatory records Observatory from Dungeness Annual report Dungeness Bird 2003 Invertebrate records Observatory from Dungeness Invertebrate Site Register English Nature Various Invertebrate records (ISR) for Dungeness from Dungeness Timed Bumblebee Pinchen, B.J. 2004 Invertebrate records transects on the RSPB from Dungeness Dungeness reserve and field margins at Old Romney, 2004 Ground Walters, J. 2004 Invertebrate records (Carabidae), Dungeness from Dungeness RSPB Reserve Bumblebees on ex-arable Pinchen, B.J 2003 Invertebrate records and gravel extraction land. from Dungeness RSPB Dungeness reserve and Bretts Aggregates land at Scotney Court gravel pit, Lydd, Kent RSPB reserve records RSPB 2005 Invertebrate records from Dungeness Records collected on the Paul, J. 2002 Invertebrate records RSPB reserve from Dungeness Records collected on the Whitton, P. 2002 Invertebrate records RSPB reserve from Dungeness Records collected on the Philp, E. 2001 Invertebrate records RSPB reserve from Dungeness Records collected on the Allen, A. J. 2001 Invertebrate records RSPB reserve from Dungeness Records collected on the Allen, A.J. & 2001 Invertebrate records RSPB reserve Owen, J.A from Dungeness Records collected on the Clemons, L. & 2000 Invertebrate records RSPB reserve Heal, N. from Dungeness Records collected on the Hodge, P. 1999 Invertebrate records RSPB reserve from Dungeness Records collected on the Telfer, M. 1998 Invertebrate records RSPB reserve from Dungeness Records collected on the Carr, R. 1998 Invertebrate records RSPB reserve from Dungeness Records collected on the Hodge, P. & 1996 Invertebrate records RSPB reserve Hance, D. from Dungeness

Page 14 of 125 Feature Data Source Author Date Content of Dungeness and Redshaw, K. 2000 Invertebrate records the surrounding area from Dungeness A survey of the water Drake, C.M. 2005 Invertebrate records beetles of Walland Marsh from Walland Marsh and Cheyne Court SSSIs, Kent, 2005 Survey of Ditches at East Hodge, P.J. 2004 Invertebrate records Guldeford from Walland Marsh Water records at the Beebee, T. 2004 Invertebrate records Dowels from Walland Marsh Rye Bay insect report No Hodge, P.J. 2003 Invertebrate records 11. Moneypenny Pits from Walland Marsh The water beetles of ‘The Denton, J. 1991 Invertebrate records Dowels’ part of the from Walland Marsh Walland Marsh SSSI, Kent A survey of the aquatic Hodge, P. 1990 Invertebrate records insects of East Guldeford from Walland Marsh Level Invertebrate Site Register English Nature Various Invertebrate records for Walland Marsh from Walland Marsh Survey of Lydd Ranges Butterfly 2003 Invertebrate records Conservation from Lydd Ranges Invertebrate records for Roper, P. 2003 Invertebrate records Lydd Ranges from Lydd Ranges Denge Marsh, Lydd Cresswell 1998 Invertebrate records Ranges EIA Associates from Lydd Ranges An invertebrate survey of Barclay, M. for 1997 Invertebrate records the proposed new ranges at Cresswell from Lydd Ranges Denge Marsh, Lydd Associates An invertebrate survey of Telfer, M.G. 2006 Invertebrate records Rye Harbour SSSI. from Rye Harbour Produced for Rye Harbour LNR The Marsh Mallow Clancy, S.P. 2005 Marsh mallow moth (Hydraecia osseola Stgr. survey records ssp. hucherardi Mab.) survey The Marsh Mallow Moth Clancy, S.P. 2003 Marsh mallow moth (Hydraecia osseola Stgr. survey records ssp. hucherardi Mab.) survey 2003. Butterfly Conservation Report No. S03-34 The Sussex Emerald Moth Clancy, S.P. 2005 Sussex emerald moth ( fimbrialis Scop.) survey records Survey 2005. Butterfly Conservation Report No. S05-30 The Sussex Emerald Moth Clancy. S.P 2004 Sussex emerald moth (Thalera fimbrialis Scop.) survey records Survey 2004. Confidential Report to Butterfly Conservation

Page 15 of 125 Feature Data Source Author Date Content The Sussex Emerald Moth Clancy. S.P 2003 Sussex emerald moth (Thalera fimbrialis Scop.) survey records Survey 2003. Confidential Report to Butterfly Conservation The Sussex Emerald Moth Clancy. S.P 2001 Sussex emerald moth (Thalera fimbrialis Scop.) survey records Survey 2001. Confidential Report to English Nature The Sussex Emerald Moth Clancy. S.P. 2000 Sussex emerald moth (Thalera fimbrialis Scop.) survey records Survey 2000. Butterfly Conservation Report No. S001 The Sussex Emerald Moth Kirby, P. 1996 Sussex emerald moth (Thalera fimbrialis Scop.) survey records Survey 1995. Report to English Nature The Sussex Emerald Moth Kirby, P., 1993 Sussex emerald moth (Thalera fimbrialis Scop.) Parsons, M.S. & survey records Survey 1993. JNCC Haggett, G.M Report No. 178 The Sussex Emerald Moth Kirby, P. & 1992 Sussex emerald moth (Thalera fimbrialis Scop.) Parsons, M.S. survey records Survey 1992. JNCC Report No. 135 The Sussex Emerald Moth Kirby, P. & 1991 Kirby, P. & Parsons, (Thalera fimbrialis Scop.) Parsons, M.S. M.S. Survey 1991. JNCC Report No. 151 A Survey of the Medicinal Nixon, A. (for 1998 Medicinal leech Leech (Hirudo the Romney survey records medicinalis) within the Marsh Romney Marsh Natural Countryside Area – Interim report, Project) 1998 A Survey of the Medicinal Nixon, A. (for 1999 Medicinal leech Leech (Hirudo the Romney survey records medicinalis) within the Marsh Romney Marsh Natural Countryside Area, 1998/99 Project) A study of medicinal leech McConnell, H. 2000 Medicinal leech (Hirudo medicinalis) (for the Romney survey records populations in the Romney Marsh Marsh Natural Area, 2000 Countryside Project) A summary of Medicinal McConnell, H. 2002 Medicinal leech Leech survey & (for the Romney survey records monitoring work on the Marsh Romney Marsh, 2002- Countryside 2002 Project)

Page 16 of 125 Feature Data Source Author Date Content A study of the medicinal Leyshon, O. & 2004 Medicinal leech leech (Hirudo medicinalis) Tate, M. records from Walland populations on Walland Marsh Marsh SSSI, East Guldeford, 2004 Survey of medicinal leech Leyshon, O. & 2004 Medicinal leech (Hirudo medicinalis) Tate, M. records from Lydd populations at Lydd Water Water Sports Centre Sports Centre, June 2004 Melanotus punctolineatus Alexander, 2004 Records of Melanotus (Pelerin) survey and study K.N.A. punctolineatus of UK BAP priority click beetles in Britain Species Recovery Program Hoy, S. 2001 Records of Anergates Survey for the ant atratulus Anergates atratulus (Schenk, 1852) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Dungeness survey report – 2001

2. Explanation of how Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay meets the SSSI selection guidelines This section explains how the information listed in section 1 has informed our decision to notify the SSSI, according to the Guidelines for selection of biological SSSIs (Nature Conservancy Council, 1989), hereafter referred to as ‘the Guidelines’; the Guidelines for selection of biological SSSIs: intertidal marine habitats and saline lagoons (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 1996), hereafter referred to as ‘the Intertidal Guidelines’; the Guidelines for selection of biological SSSIs: non-vascular plants (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 1992), hereafter referred to as ‘the Non-vascular Plant Guidelines’; and the selection guidelines listed in An Introduction to The Geological Conservation Review (Ellis et al., 1996). In March 2001 the Joint Nature Conservation Committee approved amendments to Chapter 12 (Mammals) of the Guidelines to cover selection of sites for water voles Arvicola terrestris. Although these amendments to the Guidelines have not been formally published, they are eligible for use in selection of SSSIs and are hereafter referred to as ‘the Water Vole Guidelines’. Where appropriate, comparisons with other sites in the relevant Areas of Search are considered on a feature-by-feature basis. Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI lies within the Romney Marshes Joint Character Area (JCA). As there are no other sites (with the exception of Hastings Cliff to Pett Beach SSSI, which includes a small area of vegetated shingle) within the JCA supporting similar features of special interest, comparisons within the JCA context are not included.1

1 Joint Character Areas (JCAs) are distinct geographical areas that cover the whole terrestrial area of England. The 159 areas have been identified by analysing geology, soils, landform and land-use across England. They arose from the joint work on the Countryside Character Areas undertaken by the Countryside Agency, English Nature and English Heritage. In boundary terms they are also referred to as Countryside Character Areas in some publications. Each JCA is either the same as, or a sub-set of, Natural Areas

Page 17 of 125 2.1 Coastal geomorphology

2.1.1 Selection of Geological Conservation Review sites The Geological Conservation Review uses rigorous selection criteria to identify key geological sites that contribute to our understanding of the geological evolution of Great Britain. Sites fall into one or more of three Geological Conservation Review categories: i. Sites of importance to the international community of geologists; ii. Sites that are scientifically important because they contain exceptional features; iii. Sites that are nationally important because they are representative of an Earth Science feature, event or process which is fundamental to Britain’s Earth history. Dungeness and Rye Harbour are component sites that form the geological interest in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI. They were selected by the Geological Conservation Review (see table 1, below). The coastal geomorphological interests at Dungeness and Rye Harbour qualify under categories i, ii and iii. The site is of international importance as the best developed cuspate foreland, with associated depositional environments, in Northern Europe. It was also selected as containing exceptionally well developed and preserved shingle features, alongside representative features associated with the evolution of shingle forelands. Table 1 Geological Conservation Review (GCR) entries for Dungeness and Rye Harbour GCR Name of GCR Network GCR Block Site No. GCR Site 2771 Dungeness Coastal Geomorphology of Great Coastal Geomorphology of Britain Great Britain 2772 Rye Harbour Coastal Geomorphology of Great Coastal Geomorphology of Britain Great Britain

Source: May & Hansom (2003)

2.1.2 Coastal geomorphology of Dungeness and Rye Harbour Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI comprises the largest cuspate foreland in Britain and forms part of a system of barrier beaches that can be traced for 40 km from Fairlight to Hythe. The site is well documented through both geological study and historical records. The cuspate foreland comprises a series of shingle barrier beach and spit systems. Over approximately the last 5,500 years, shingle has been transported to the site from the west by the process of longshore drift, and deposited as a series of shingle ridges. Sections of these ridges have then been eroded by wave and tide action, modified and re-deposited elsewhere along the coastline. Beach ridges are shingle structures preserving earlier episodes of beach construction. They may also represent spits, which are accumulations of deposited materials projecting from the shore into a water body. These spits and beach ridges may be reworked, either as they are being driven onshore or as wave direction changes. Recurves occur when, under the influence of differing wave direction and sediment input, structures are forced to realign at one or both ends.

Page 18 of 125 The areas between the beach ridges and spits represent a set of very different depositional environments. Dependent upon the geography of the area and the influence of the shingle structures, these areas may reflect saline, brackish or freshwater environments, evident as marsh interface and peatland landscape deposits. At Dungeness, the marsh interface and peatland landscapes associated with the development of the shingle foreland have been assessed by Long et al. (2006). The extent and distribution of the marsh and peat deposits is indicated on the map (after Long et al., 2006) that follows the photographs at the end of this package. At Rye Harbour, the marsh interface deposits have not been assessed as fully as those at Dungeness but the Rye Explorer database (Culley et al., 2004) does identify an area of high geomorphological importance, which includes marsh deposits landward of the exposed shingle. Part of the value of these areas is that the fine grained deposits contained within them hold palaeo-environmental records for the area and allow for a chronology to be established. This record is obtained through study and analysis of the organic and depositional information obtained from the deposits. At Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay the emphasis is currently on establishing the palaeo-environmental history of the site and dating the coastal changes. This is supported by other records of change, for instance archaeological and historical information. Cuspate forelands, also referred to as a ‘ness’, are the result of aggradation of shingle as a result of wave advance from two directions. The origins of Dungeness are complex but appear closely linked to the breakdown of older barrier beaches. Rye and Dungeness are clearly related to the same landform but, as a result of their respective geographical locations on the coastline, they exhibit different features. The ridge features, their development across the site and the related finer grained deposits are representative of changing sediment transport and deposition rates. Shingle ridges are clearly evident on the surface of the foreland itself and adjacent areas. However, the geological importance of the site lies not only in these exposed ridges but also in the sub-surface or buried ridges, and those finer grained deposits which lie between the ridges. In order to fully understand the evolution of the coastline in response to coastal processes, climate change and human intervention, it is critical that the site can be studied and interpreted in three dimensions. The features, both surface and sub-surface (buried or relict features), provide evidence of changing sediment transport and deposition over the last 5,500 years. The alignment and orientation of the ridges, both surface and sub-surface, provide evidence for the process of development from barrier beach through to the now artificially managed cuspate foreland. A number of locations with shingle ridges not specifically documented by May & Hansom (2003), Long et al. (2006) or Culley et al. (2004) have been identified using aerial photographs and soil survey maps (Green, 1968). These are at Dogs Hill (Winchelsea Beach), in and around the south-west of Rye Harbour Local Nature Reserve (LNR), the northern edge of Lydd, and around Romney Warren. These areas have all been visited to confirm the presence of the shingle ridges suggested by the aerial photographs and soil survey maps.

Dungeness Dungeness (see aerial photograph 1) is identified through the GCR as an example of shingle beach ridge development, relict barrier beaches, palaeo-environmental evidence and cuspate foreland development. Dungeness is the largest cuspate foreland in Britain and is

Page 19 of 125 internationally significant due to the range of features and the volume of flint material that it contains. May (in May & Hansom, 2003) provides a detailed account of the development of the Dungeness foreland and the formation of the ridges, but the following draws out key points of the landforms’ evolution. Re-working of barrier beaches to the west of Dungeness initially deposited the low lying shingle at Broomhill and Sandylands, on the surface of the Lower Cretaceous bedrock. This initial phase of deposition probably took place between 4,000 and 5,500 years ago (Eddison, 1983a & b). Once this low-lying shingle was in place, barrier beach development began, gradually extending eastwards towards Hythe in a series of recurves, which deposited shingle in the Romney embayment. Shingle was then deposited in a series of higher beaches and barriers, with fine grained deposits, such as peat, being deposited between the ridges. Following this phase of beach and shingle deposition, the ness feature formed, with shingle ridges continuing to be created to the east. From around AD1600, significant ridge development also occurred to the western edge of the foreland, at Rye Harbour (see below). The importance of Dungeness, in an international context, lies in the number of ridge features present on site (see photograph 4). For instance, to the east of Jury’s Gap around 500 separate ridges have been recorded. These ridges fall into four separate depositional groups, together forming the ness. It is probable that the ness feature seen at Dungeness today has been formed from the re-working of ridges from an earlier ness form further to the west. The exposed ridges, for example at Jury’s Gap, probably also represent relict recurved beach ridges associated with the earlier ness.

Rye Harbour Rye Harbour is identified by the GCR as being of importance for its beach ridge development (see photograph 1), shingle beach plain and palaeo-environmental evidence. Although Rye Harbour is clearly related to the formation of the Dungeness cuspate foreland, its geographical position and the presence of the River Rother have been important controls in its development (see aerial photograph 2). Prior to the deposition of the land at Rye Harbour, shingle banks were present, as shown by the destruction of ridges, the loss of Winchelsea town and the diversion of the Rother by storms in 1287. From this point, shingle was again deposited but most notably from the mid 16th century onwards. Fanning out from Winchelsea beach, initial deposition of shingle occurred as a series of west- south-west to west-north-west trending lateral ridges, which were then modified or truncated by later storm events. This was followed by deposition of south to north trending ridges, then by the north-east trending Nook Beach ridge system, and finally a series of ridges more closely aligned with the modern coastline. To the north, beyond the River Rother, westward trending recurves marked the boundary between the cuspate foreland and the area of eastern shingle ridge development. Shingle ridge development from the east and west would have resulted in enclosing of the River Rother estuary. By around AD1600, the present day pattern of longshore drift and sediment movement was established. This brought material into the Rother mouth from both the east and west, along the southern shoreline of the ness and then northwards towards Greatstone.

Page 20 of 125 2.1.3 Significance of the site Dungeness and Rye Harbour are unusual as the sites demonstrate active coastal evolution, and also the static features associated with the initial development of the foreland and the evolution of the landform. The interest is both lateral and vertical. The features are well preserved, documented and dated. There are 44 GCR sites selected in the Coastal Geomorphology of Great Britain block. Of these, three are in Kent and two are in East Sussex. Dungeness and Rye Harbour are part of a suite of GCR sites, within the Coastal Geomorphology of Great Britain network, that illustrate the characteristics of gravel and shingle beaches. They are complemented by other similar structures along the Channel coast: Slapton Sands, Chesil Beach, Hurst Castle Spit and Pagham Harbour. Together this suite of sites illustrates a wide variety of landforms and also shows how such systems continue to respond to a reduction in contemporary sediment supply.

2.2 Coastal habitats The principal coastal habitats of special interest in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI are saltmarsh, sand dunes and shingle beaches. Selection of these habitats is covered by Chapter 1 (Coastlands) of the Guidelines. Saline lagoons are a coastal habitat too but their selection is covered by the Intertidal Guidelines (see section 2.3, below). A series of natural freshwater pits amongst the shingle at Dungeness are also part of the suite of coastal habitats but their selection is covered by Chapters 6 (Freshwater habitats) and 7 (Fens) of the Guidelines (see sections 2.4 and 2.5, below). The Guidelines (Chapter 1, section 1.1, p.46) state that: ‘Coastal habitats are classified into four main types – saltmarshes, sand dunes, shingle beaches, and seacliffs and slopes.’ The Guidelines (Chapter 1, section 1.4, p.46) go on to state that: ‘Representation of plant communities (based upon National Vegetation Classification [NVC] communities where the classification is available) within each of the four main coastal habitats should form the basis for choosing sites within each AOS [Area of Search]…The most important sites are…those with some or all of the following attributes: 1.4.1 the widest range and the best examples of the NVC communities and of other coastal vegetation communities not described in the NVC; 1.4.2 a complete succession or zonation, including pioneer and mature communities; 1.4.3 transitions to other, terrestrial vegetation types; 1.4.4 a large area or lateral extent (in continuous or discrete units depending on the degree of natural or man-made interruptions); 1.4.5 important physiographic features.’

2.2.1 Saltmarshes The saltmarsh habitats of Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI are located in the estuary of the River Rother, which falls entirely within the East Sussex AOS. The saltmarshes of the River Rother are most extensive downstream of the A259 road bridge.

Page 21 of 125 These areas were surveyed in 1985 as part of the Saltmarsh Survey of Great Britain (Burd, 1989). This survey pre-dates the NVC classification of saltmarsh communities but table 2 (below) shows the translation between the two classifications (in some cases the communities identified in 1985 match to more than one NVC type). The 1985 survey mapped the extent of each saltmarsh type but there appear to be errors in the area calculations; therefore these have not been presented here and they have not been used to assess total saltmarsh extent. The River Rother upstream of the A259 road bridge is canalised and there are only narrow strips of saltmarsh habitat along the flood banks. Small areas upstream of the bridge were surveyed in 2005 as part of the Environment Agency’s River Rother Tidal Walls Improvement project. The saltmarsh habitats of the entire River Rother were mapped using a Geographic Information System (GIS) in 1998. This accurately recorded extent of saltmarsh but did not include any specific information on saltmarsh type. These three information sources have been combined to assess the saltmarsh habitats of the Rother, with the Saltmarsh Survey of Great Britain and recent Environment Agency information used to assess distribution of saltmarsh communities, and the GIS data used to assess total extent. The Guidelines (Chapter 1, section 3.5, p.48) state that: ‘There are particular geographical relationships within the saltmarsh habitat which can be used as a guide to selecting the best sites within an AOS’. Section 3.7 of Chapter 1 of the Guidelines (p.49) is concerned with south and south-west England and states that: ‘3.7.1 This area is characterised by the presence of large expanses of Spartina anglica marsh which have developed in the major estuaries and embayments. There are no reasons for selecting this type of marsh on botanical grounds, although it often forms an integral part of an estuarine system selected for its ornithological interest… 3.7.2 Other types of saltmarsh are very restricted, being limited to a narrow fringe above the Spartina marsh or present in small estuaries and rias. All areas above 50 ha should be selected.’ The River Rother contains 48 ha of saltmarsh habitat (including approximately 5 ha landward of sea defence embankments that were constructed in 1990 as part of a proposal to develop a marina – see below). This area is insufficient to satisfy section 3.7.2 of Chapter 1 of the Guidelines. Section 3.13 of Chapter 1 of the Guidelines (p.50) is concerned with ‘outliers’ and states that: ‘If other saltmarsh communities…occur in any geographical region but are not included within sites chosen for the main types, the best example in each AOS should be selected. Every saltmarsh sub-community of the NVC present in an AOS should also be represented, preferably by the best example. Quality should be assessed by size and floristic richness.’ With reference to the attributes listed in section 1.4 of Chapter 1 of the Guidelines (see section 2.2 above) and comparison with the River Cuckmere (the only other site with saltmarsh in the East Sussex AOS), the saltmarshes of the River Rother meet the Guidelines by: 1. Demonstrating the widest range and the best examples of the main NVC communities within the AOS – although the River Cuckmere supports a similar range of saltmarsh communities (see table 2 below), the examples of many communities in the River Rother are much larger in extent (especially low-mid marsh communities) and it contains particularly good representation of upper saltmarsh communities (Fojt, 1985);

Page 22 of 125 2. Demonstrating a complete succession or zonation of saltmarsh habitats – both the Rother and the Cuckmere show a succession from pioneer marsh, through low-mid and mid-upper marsh communities, to drift line and upper marsh swamp (see table 2 below). The Rother differs from the Cuckmere in that it also supports Spartina saltmarsh and different upper marsh swamp types (common reed as opposed to sea club-rush Bolboschoenus maritimus); 3. Demonstrating a large area – the River Rother contains a total of 48 ha of saltmarsh compared to less than 10 ha in the River Cuckmere; Downstream of the A259 road bridge, the north bank of the river supports the largest areas of undisturbed saltmarsh in the estuary. Near the town of Rye the marsh is heavily grazed and pasture species have invaded the sward. The site supports higher saltmarsh communities on raised areas adjacent to the river, with low-mid marsh communities colonising the inner areas of the marsh. In the immediate vicinity of Rye Harbour, there is a pure stand of sea-purslane Atriplex portulacoides. A limited survey upstream of the road bridge recorded the low-mid marsh SM14 Halimione portulacoides saltmarsh community, although two of the five sample quadrats closely matched the drift line SM24 Elymus pycnanthus saltmarsh community (Halcrow Group Ltd, 2006). In 1987 outline planning permission was granted for construction of a marina, houses and industrial unit on land adjacent to Harbour Road, Rye (at grid reference TQ936193). In 1988 the land was notified as part of Rye Harbour SSSI because the planning permission had not been implemented and the land supported approximately 5 ha of saltmarsh habitat, mostly low-mid marsh communities. In 1990 seawalls were constructed around the riverward boundary of the land but no further works have taken place. The 1987 planning permission for construction of a marina, housing and industrial unit is no longer valid. The land adjacent to Harbour Road has not been inundated by seawater for 15 years, resulting in the reduction of saltmarsh species and their replacement with species more typical of rough grassland not tolerant of saline flooding. However, the restoration of tidal inundation (through managed realignment) would be likely to result in the rapid regeneration of saltmarsh. There is still a small area supporting saltmarsh species in the north east corner of the area, which suggests that there are saltmarsh seeds left in the sediment and that there is either leakage or seepage of saltwater into the area. This (in combination with the fact that the 1987 planning permission has expired) means that there is potential for the complete restoration of this land to saltmarsh. It is therefore treated as part of the saltmarsh interest of the site. With regard to defining the boundaries of coastal sites, the Guidelines (Chapter 1, section 11.2.3, p.58) state that: ‘…it may be convenient to draw a line across the mouth of the estuary from suitable points on the shoreline. Because channels and intertidal banks move, this is the only way of ensuring that those areas which qualify are within the SSSI.’ Section 11.2.14 of Chapter 1 of the Guidelines (p. 59) is concerned with landward boundaries for saltmarsh sites and states that: ‘All examples should be carefully investigated and, where they form an integral part of the system, they should be included in the SSSI.’ In accordance with the approach set out in the Guidelines, all areas of saltmarsh in the River Rother from the tidal limit at Scott’s Float sluice downstream to the mouth are included in the SSSI, as are the entirety of the adjacent intertidal mud and sand flats and the river channel.

Page 23 of 125 Table 2 Comparison of saltmarsh communities and NVC stand types in the River Rother and the River Cuckmere Saltmarsh communities NVC equivalents River River Rother Cuckmere 1. Spartina SM4 Spartina maritima saltmarsh ✔ SM5 Spartina alterniflora saltmarsh SM6 Spartina anglica saltmarsh 2. Other a. Salicornia/ SM7 Arthrocnemum perenne stands ✔ ✔ pioneer marsh Suaeda SM8 Annual Salicornia saltmarsh SM9 Suaeda maritima saltmarsh b. Aster SM11 Aster tripolium var. discoideus ✔ ✔ saltmarsh SM12 Rayed Aster tripolium on saltmarshes 3. Low-mid a. Puccinellia SM10 Transitional low-marsh with ✔ ✔ marsh Puccinellia maritima, annual Salicornia species and Suaeda maritima SM13 Puccinellia maritima saltmarsh b. Halimione SM14 Halimione portulacoides saltmarsh ✔ ✔ 4. Mid-upper b. Puccinellia/ SM13 Puccinellia maritima saltmarsh ✔ ✔ marsh Festuca/ SM16 saltmarsh Plantago SM17 Artemisia maritima saltmarsh c. SM16 Festuca rubra saltmarsh ✔ gerardii 5. Drift line a. Agropyron SM24 Elymus pycnanthus saltmarsh ✔ ✔ (Elymus) SM28 Elymus repens saltmarsh 6. Upper i. S20 Scirpus lacustris ssp ✔ marsh swamp tabernaemontani swamp S21 Scirpus maritimus swamp ii. Phragmites S4 Phragmites australis swamp ✔

Source: Fojt (1985). NVC descriptions after Rodwell (1995; 2000). Saltmarsh communities after Burd (1989).

2.2.2 Sand dunes Sand dunes are important systems illustrating vegetation succession and coastal physiographic processes. The Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI includes three sand dune systems in two Areas of Search: at Camber (in the East Sussex AOS), and Romney Warren and Greatstone (both in the Kent AOS). Together these three systems support 85 ha of sand dune vegetation (see table 3, below). There are no other sand dune systems in the East Sussex AOS and only one other sand dune system in the Kent AOS, at Sandwich Bay. The Guidelines (Chapter 1, section 5.5, p.52) state that: ‘As with saltmarshes, sand-dunes need to be treated as whole ecosystems…’ The Guidelines (Chapter 1, section 5.6, p.53) go on to state that: ‘Within each AOS containing sand-dune systems, the following are [amongst those] eligible for selection: 5.6.7 If not covered by 5.6.6 [dune systems exceeding 200 ha in area], the largest dune systems with acidic, intermediate and calcareous substrates or representing different structural types.

Page 24 of 125 5.6.8 The best example of any dune system containing plant sub-communities of Table 2b2 [of the Guidelines] not represented by selection under 5.6.6 or 5.6.7 or occurring as better examples or in different combinations and relationships. 5.6.9 The best combinations of dune with other coastal habitats (particularly saltmarsh or shingle). 5.6.12 It is important that within this selection the best examples of the range of physiographic feature, representing the different processes of dune formation, are included.’ Taken together, the three dune systems in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay represent different structural types of sand dune and sand dune formation associated with the shingle structures of Dungeness and Rye Harbour. Individually, each sand dune system is assessed against the Guidelines as follows:

Camber Sands Camber Sands form a relatively extensive ness/cuspate foreland dune system stretching from the mouth of the River Rother in the west to the village of Camber some 2 km to the east. Camber Sands consists of a zone of foredunes fronting a dune system that has developed over a series of shingle ridges radiating from its eastern end. This system is constrained at its western end by the seawall flanking the artificially straightened channel of the River Rother, which lies perpendicular to the dune front. The Rye golf course is included within this system. Camber Sands supports a typical successional sequence of dune habitats from foredune and mobile dune to semi-fixed dune, fixed dune grassland and dune scrub. The foredune vegetation lies in a narrow arc that broadens at the east end of the system. It contains a classic sequence of sand couch Elytrigia juncea dune (SD4 Elymus farctus ssp. boreali-atlanticus foredune community) and marram arenaria dune with sand couch and red fescue Festuca rubra (SD6 Ammophila arenaria mobile dune community, see photograph 2). The foredune also supports sea-buckthorn Hippophae rhamnoides scrub (SD18 Hippophae rhamnoides dune scrub). Further from the sea, the semi-fixed marram vegetation (SD7 Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune community) leads into fixed dune grassland (SD8 Festuca rubra-Galium verum fixed dune grassland), which covers the golf course (outside of the greens and fairways). Locally this includes small patches of more lichen-rich open dune vegetation (SD11a Carex arenaria-Cornicularia aculeata dune community, Ammophila arenaria sub-community). In the deeper roughs (areas with a taller sward) there is a tendency for mesotrophic grassland (MG1 Arrhenatherum elatius grassland) to develop with sea couch Elytrigia atherica and, on the higher ground, marram (SD9a Ammophila arenaria-Arrhenatherum elatius dune grassland, typical sub-community). The sand dunes at Camber Sands meet the Guidelines by: 1. representing the only dune system within the East Sussex AOS; 2. supporting 49 ha of sand dune habitat.

2 Table 2b in Chapter 1 of the Guidelines was based on an early version of the NVC for maritime communities and vegetation of open habitats. Following the publication of the final version (Rodwell, 2000), the Joint Nature Conservation Committee has assessed table 2b against the published NVC. The published NVC equivalents of the communities listed in table 2b are now used when assessing sand dune habitats against the Guidelines.

Page 25 of 125 Greatstone Dunes Greatstone Dunes extend for approximately 1.5km along the frontage of Greatstone-on-Sea. They are a narrow bay dune system, in contrast to Sandwich Bay which is a shingle spit dune system, and Romney Warren which is a ness/cuspate foreland dune system. Greatstone Dunes consist largely of a successional sequence of dune habitats from foredune to mobile dune and dune scrub habitats. An important feature of these dunes is the transitions they demonstrate between vegetated shingle beach (SD1 -Glaucium flavum shingle community) and foredune communities (see photograph 3), especially where the dunes meet shingle in the north and south of the system. For much of their length the dunes are also fronted by a strandline community (SD2 Honkenya peploides-Cakile maritima strandline community), although in places there are deposits of bare shingle, indicative of onshore movement of material or shingle below the high tide line. The foredunes support a narrow and discontinuous band of sand couch (SD4 Elymus farctus ssp. boreali-atlanticus foredune community) fronting marram-dominated mobile dunes (SD6 Ammophila arenaria mobile dune community) which make up the majority of the dune system. There are also areas of sea-buckthorn scrub (SD18 Hippophae rhamnoides dune scrub). Where the dunes are broader towards the north of the site the mobile dunes grade into areas of semi-fixed dune (SD7 Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune community) and fixed dune grassland (SD8 Festuca rubra-Galium verum fixed dune grassland). The sand dunes at Greatstone meet the Guidelines by: 1. representing the only example of a bay dune system within the Kent AOS; 2. demonstrating the best examples of dunes with other coastal habitats within the AOS. The dunes have mobile transitions to vegetated shingle beach habitat (SD1).

Romney Warren Romney Warren is a stable ness/cuspate foreland dune system developed over a series of ancient shingle ridges lying between Littlestone-on-Sea and St Mary’s Bay. The sand dunes contain 30 ha of sand dune habitat. Much of the dune system is covered by the Littlestone golf course. The entire zone of foredune which would normally be present at the seaward edge of the system has been obliterated by a seawall of concrete and bulldozed shingle for the whole of its length. The vegetation behind this consists mainly of sand dune and mesotrophic grassland communities. There are two main types of fixed dune grassland communities. In the south and south-east of the site occur short or tall grasslands dominated by mixtures of red fescue, common bent Agrostis capillaris, sea couch, smooth meadow-grass Poa pratensis, crested hair-grass Koeleria macrantha and sand sedge Carex arenaria (SD8b Festuca rubra- Galium verum fixed dune grassland, Luzula campestris sub-community). In contrast, the northern end of the site supports dense species-poor swards dominated by sand sedge and sheep’s fescue Festuca ovina, developed over acidic sands (SD12a Carex arenaria-Festuca ovina-Agrostis capillaris dune grassland, Anthoxanthum odoratum sub-community). This grassland type is of especial importance due to its very local representation in south-east England. Neither of these sub-communities occurs at Greatstone Dunes. Sandwich Bay contains a very small area (<0.1 ha) of SD8b and a 2001 survey (Dargie, 2002) did not locate any SD12a there. In the south-west of the site dense mesotrophic grassland has developed over richer soils. This is dominated by false oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius and sea couch, with cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata and red fescue (MG1 Arrhenatherum elatius grassland). The sand dunes at Romney Warren meet the Guidelines by:

Page 26 of 125 1. representing the only example of a ness/cuspate foreland dune system within the Kent AOS; 2. supporting the best examples of Festuca rubra-Galium verum fixed dune grassland, Luzula campestris sub-community (SD8b) and Carex arenaria-Festuca ovina-Agrostis capillaris dune grassland, Anthoxanthum odoratum sub-community (SD12a) in the Kent AOS. With reference to defining the boundaries of sand dune sites, the Guidelines (Chapter 1, section 11.2.7, p.58) state that: ‘Normally those systems that have been identified as being of importance will be included in totality; i.e. the site selected will include the whole system together with the sandy shore above Mean Low Water Mark.’ The total known extent of sand dune habitat in each of the three dune systems has been included within the SSSI boundary. At Camber Sands and Greatstone Dunes, which are not fronted by hard sea defences, this includes the beach plain that provides the immediate source of the sediment supply to the dunes. At Romney Warren the dunes are fronted by a sea wall and so the beach plain is not part of the functioning dune system, although the majority of the foreshore is included within the SSSI because it is used by wintering waterfowl. In relation to golf courses, the Guidelines (Chapter 1, section 11.2.8, p. 58) state that: ‘These may not always be highly modified and may contain, particularly in the non- intensively managed ‘roughs’, substantial areas of important vegetation.’ The dunes at Camber Sands and Romney Warren both include substantial areas that are used as golf courses. As suggested by the Guidelines, these include significant areas of sand dune habitat, particularly in less intensively used areas, and they are therefore included within the SSSI. The Guidelines (Chapter 1, section 11.2.11, p.59) discuss the issue of ungrazed dune with invasive dense scrub and state that: ‘Where this forms part of a natural succession or where control measures are likely to be successful in maintaining the interest of the site, the stands should be included…There may be some scrub types – notably Hippophae in the east – where some examples should be included within the SSSI series.’ Greatstone Dunes and Camber Sands both contain areas of sea-buckthorn scrub. As this nationally scarce species is native in this part of south-east England (although some is known to have been planted at Camber Sands) and management efforts are likely to be successful in maintaining an appropriate balance between scrub and more open dune vegetation communities, these areas are included in the SSSI. Table 3 Areas of sand dune communities found within Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI NVC Descriptive name Camber Greatstone Romney Total community Sands Dunes Warren (ha) SD1 Rumex crispus-Glaucium flavum shingle community - Present - - SD1a/SD8a/ Rumex crispus-Glaucium flavum shingle community, 0.5 - - 0.5 SD11a typical sub-community/Festuca rubra-Galium verum fixed dune grassland, typical sub-community/Carex arenaria-Cornicularia aculeata dune community, Ammophila arenaria sub-community

Page 27 of 125 NVC Descriptive name Camber Greatstone Romney Total community Sands Dunes Warren (ha) SD1b/SD7d Rumex crispus-Glaucium flavum shingle community, 1.3 - - 1.3 Lathyrus japonicus sub-community/Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune community, Elymus pycanthus sub-community SD2 Honkenya peploides-Cakile maritima strandline <0.1 <0.1 - <0.2 community SD4 Elymus farctus ssp. boreali-atlanticus foredune 1.1 0.7 - 1.8 community SD5/SD6b mobile dune community/Ammophila 0.1 - - 0.1 arenaria mobile dune community, Elymus farctus- Leymus arenarius sub-community SD6 Ammophila arenaria mobile dune community 2.2 3.6 - 5.8 SD6/SD7 Ammophila arenaria mobile dune community/ - 0.7 - 0.7 Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune community SD6/SD8 Ammophila arenaria mobile dune community/Festuca - 0.6 - 0.6 rubra-Galium verum fixed dune grassland SD6a Ammophila arenaria mobile dune community, Elymus 1.8 - - 1.8 farctus sub-community SD6b Ammophila arenaria mobile dune community, Elymus <0.1 - - <0.1 farctus-Leymus arenarius sub-community SD6e Ammophila arenaria mobile dune community, Festuca 0.4 - - 0.4 rubra sub-community SD6e/SD7a Ammophila arenaria mobile dune community, Festuca 0.4 - - 0.4 rubra sub-community/Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune community, typical sub- community SD6e/SD18a Ammophila arenaria mobile dune community, Festuca 1.7 - - 1.7 rubra sub-community/Hippophae rhamnoides dune scrub, Festuca rubra sub-community SD7 Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune 0.8 - - 0.8 community SD7a Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune 5.8 - - 5.8 community, typical sub-community SD7a/SD7d Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune 0.3 - - 0.3 community, typical sub-community/ Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune community, Elymus pycanthus sub-community SD7a/SD8a Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune 0.6 - - 0.6 community, typical sub-community/Festuca rubra- Galium verum fixed dune grassland, typical sub- community SD7a/SD8a/ Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune 0.1 - - 0.1 SD18a community, typical sub-community/Festuca rubra- Galium verum fixed dune grassland, typical sub- community/ Hippophae rhamnoides dune scrub, Festuca rubra sub-community SD7d Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune 1.1 - - 1.1 community, Elymus pycanthus sub-community SD7d/SD8a Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune 2.1 - - 2.1 community, Elymus pycanthus sub-community/ Festuca rubra-Galium verum fixed dune grassland, typical sub-community

Page 28 of 125 NVC Descriptive name Camber Greatstone Romney Total community Sands Dunes Warren (ha) SD7d/SD9a/ Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune 0.3 - - 0.3 SD18b community, Elymus pycanthus sub- community/Ammophila arenaria-Arrhenatherum elatius dune grassland, typical sub- community/Hippophae rhamnoides dune scrub, Urtica dioica-Arrhenatherum elatius sub-community SD7d/ Ammophila arenaria-Festuca rubra semi-fixed dune <0.1 - - <0.1 SD18a community, Elymus pycanthus sub-community/ Hippophae rhamnoides dune scrub, Festuca rubra sub-community SD8a Festuca rubra-Galium verum fixed dune grassland, 15.7 - - 15.7 typical sub-community SD8a/SD11a Festuca rubra-Galium verum fixed dune grassland, 0.5 - - 0.5 typical sub-community/ Carex arenaria-Cornicularia aculeata dune community, Ammophila arenaria sub- community SD8b Festuca rubra-Galium verum fixed dune grassland, - - 9.5 9.5 Luzula campestris sub-community SD8b/ Festuca rubra-Galium verum fixed dune grassland, - - 3.5 3.5 SD12a Luzula campestris sub-community/Carex arenaria- Festuca ovina-Agrostis capillaris dune grassland, Anthoxanthum odoratum sub-community SD9a Ammophila arenaria-Arrhenatherum elatius dune 0.6 - 0.5 1.1 grassland, typical sub-community SD11a Carex arenaria-Cornicularia aculeata dune 1.5 - - 1.5 community, Ammophila arenaria sub-community SD11a/ Carex arenaria-Cornicularia aculeata dune 1.1 - - 1.1 SD12a community, Ammophila arenaria sub- community/Carex arenaria-Festuca ovina-Agrostis capillaris dune grassland, Anthoxanthum odoratum sub-community SD12 Carex arenaria-Festuca ovina-Agrostis capillaris dune - - 3.4 3.4 grassland (0.8ha + 2.6ha of rank grassland with SD12 in patches) SD12a Carex arenaria-Festuca ovina-Agrostis capillaris dune 1.7 - 12.9 14.6 grassland, Anthoxanthum odoratum sub-community SD18 Hippophae rhamnoides dune scrub 3.4 0.9 - 4.3 SD18a Hippophae rhamnoides dune scrub, Festuca rubra 3.2 - - 3.2 sub-community SD18b Hippophae rhamnoides dune scrub, Urtica dioica- 0.7 - - 0.7 Arrhenatherum elatius sub-community Total area (ha) 49.0 ha 6.5 ha 29.8 ha 85.3 ha Sources: Doarks et al. (1990), Doody (2005), Hedley (1990). NVC descriptions after Rodwell (2000).

2.2.3 Vegetated shingle Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI includes two of the largest shingle structures in the British Isles. Dungeness contains a classic sequence of shingle beaches and is the best example of a cuspate shingle foreland in Great Britain. Rye Harbour is an example of a complex apposition beach (a beach that has grown in area as a result of successive deposition of ridges over time) and the total shingle area occupies an approximate triangle delimited by the Winchelsea beach road, the road to Rye Harbour and the coastal shoreline. The Guidelines (Chapter 1, section 6.1, p.54) state that:

Page 29 of 125 ‘The shores of Britain are extensively fringed by shingle beds, usually intertidal but extending to a higher, storm-beach level. Locally, ancient shingle deposits now well above tide level are found on raised beaches. The bulk of the shingle beaches are either virtually devoid of vegetation or only sparsely colonised by higher plants. Some high-lying and superficially bare examples are, however, important for lichens. The NVC….recognises only two shingle plant communities (Table 2c), but certain other types, mainly within the lowland heathland categories, occur on the more strongly vegetated and high-lying shingle beds. Shingle often occurs in mixtures with sandy shores and dune systems and also with saltmarsh and seacliff. It is often botanically varied, with a good invertebrate fauna, and often provides important nesting habitat for some coastal birds.’ The Guidelines (Chapter 1, section 6.2.2, p. 54) state that: ‘Any area of vegetated shingle structure covering more than 25ha should be selected. Because of the rarity of this habitat, however, all…examples should be considered. Combinations of vegetated shingle with other sedimentary coastal habitat should also be represented.’ With respect to setting the boundaries of vegetated shingle sites, the Guidelines (Chapter 1, section 11.2.16, p.59) state that: ‘This is a rare habitat and consideration should always be given to its inclusion…even though it may not be particularly species-rich.’

Dungeness Over 1,650 ha of the exposed shingle beach at Dungeness remains largely intact (see photograph 4), and a further 570 ha has been damaged or destroyed (in terms of the vegetated shingle interest) as a result of excavation, built development or bulldozing. The vegetation of the shingle beach ranges from coastal pioneer communities to inland terrestrial acid heathland and wetlands, as well as bare shingle and disturbed areas (see table 4, below). Because of its size the site supports the most diverse range of shingle communities in the UK, several of which are unique to this site. One of the most unusual pioneer species is prostrate broom Cytisus scoparius ssp. maritimus which is a significant component of the vegetation just inland of the pioneering driftline and false oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius grassland communities. On older shingle ridges the broom starts to die out and is eventually replaced by other species such as sweet vernal-grass Anthoxanthum odoratum, wood sage Teucrium scorodonia and common sorrel Rumex acetosa, and a rich lichen sward and ‘thin heath’ develops (see photograph 5), with natural variation occurring where the shingle grades into grazing marsh, and on the eroding south coast of the site. Even the areas of apparently bare shingle are often covered by encrusting lichens, including the near-threatened species Rinodina aspersa, and should therefore be regarded as vegetated. An unusual element of the vegetation is the range of blackthorn that occurs on low-lying areas of shingle, varying from 2m high shrubs to prostrate forms. The older blackthorn shrubs have a very rich epiphytic lichen flora dominated by Usnea spp., Evernia prunastri, or Hypogymnia physodes. This lichen community is unique to shingle and has its best representation at Dungeness. Lydd Ranges supports the only known example of a ‘holly Ilex aquifolium wood’ on shingle. Another unique feature of the site is the natural shingle wetlands which occur in low lying hollows in the shingle (see sections 2.4 and 2.5, below). Around the landward edge of the shingle beaches (particularly at the northern end of Lydd Ranges and at the entrance to Lydd Airport) there are relict areas of sandy shingle which probably represent old dune systems. The shingle communities at Dungeness are not always

Page 30 of 125 covered by the NVC and have been subject to a separate classification by Ferry et al. (1990) as set out in table 4 (below). The vegetated shingle at Dungeness meets the guidelines by: 1. Demonstrating a shingle structure of over 25 ha. The area of exposed shingle (vegetated and bare) at Dungeness exceeds 1,600 ha. 2. Demonstrating transitions to other sedimentary coastal habitats. The exposed shingle shows transitions to sand dune habitats at Greatstone and to natural percolation saline lagoons at the seaward end of Lydd Ranges.

Rye Harbour The shingle ridges at Rye Harbour cover over 200 ha and support four broad vegetation communities (see table 5, below). On naturally bare ridges near the coast, soil development is limited and only a few specialised pioneer plant species can colonise, such as sea-kale Crambe maritima, sea pea Lathyrus japonicus ssp. maritimus, sea campion and curled dock Rumex crispus. As finer material accumulates within the gravel matrix, more species become established including viper’s-bugloss , yellow horned-poppy Glaucium flavum and herb-robert Geranium robertianum ssp. maritimum. The thin, well-drained soil on the older shingle ridges (which may have been grazed in the past) supports a variety of grassland species including buck’s-horn plantain Plantago coronopus, common stork’s-bill Erodium cicutarium, sand spurrey rubra, the vulnerable smooth cat’s-ear Hypochaeris glabra and some fifteen species of vetch and clover. Around Camber Castle there are unique ancient ridges that have an extremely specialised grass flora. Where the shingle has been disturbed or removed in the past to a level above the water table there is a succession of plants different to that elsewhere. Here, species such as Danish scurvygrass Cochlearia danica, common bird’s-foot-trefoil Lotus corniculatus, rue-leaved saxifrage Saxifraga tridactylites and the endangered least lettuce Lactuca saligna occur. The vegetated shingle at Rye Harbour meets the guidelines by: 1. Demonstrating a shingle structure of over 25 ha. The area of exposed shingle (vegetated and bare) at Rye Harbour exceeds 200 ha. 2. Demonstrating transitions to other sedimentary coastal habitats. The exposed shingle shows transitions to saltmarsh habitats in the estuary of the River Rother.

Page 31 of 125 Table 4 Comparison of the Dungeness shingle vegetation types and NVC stand types Shingle vegetation communities NVC equivalent Area (ha) C – strand line communities SD1 Rumex crispus – glaucium flavum shingle community; 19.5 MC6 Atriplex prostrata – Beta vulgaris ssp. maritima seabird cliff comunity B3 – Arrhenatherum elatius MG1 Arrhenatherum elatius mesotrophic grassland; coastal 88.4 grassland and a few non-coastal stands fit MG1a Festuca rubra sub- community closely A1 – Cytisus scoparius scrub W23 Ulex europaeus – Rubus fruticosus underscrub 63.8 community; some affinity with W23b sub- community A2 – calcifuge grassland U1 Festuca ovina – Agrostis capillaris – Rumex acetosella 220.9 calcifuge grassland community; a close fit to U1a Cornicularia aculeata – Cladonia sub-community A3 – slightly mesotrophic U1 Festuca ovina – Agrostis capillaris – Rumex acetosella 33.0 calcifuge grassland calcifuge grassland community; some affinity with U1f Hypochaeris radicata sub-community. A2S – shingle margin calcifuge U1 Festuca ovina – Agrostis capillaris – Rumex acetosella 72.8 grassland calcifuge grassland community; no obvious affinity with any sub-community B1 – mesotrophic vegetation U1 Festuca ovina – Agrostis capillaris – Rumex acetosella 54.4 calcifuge grassland community; in part a good fit to U1d Anthoxanthum odoratum – Lotus corniculatus sub- community I – Ilex aquifolium scrub No described NVC category 2.1 E – Sambucus nigra scrub No described NVC category 1.2 IE – Ilex aquifolium/Sambucus No described NVC category 0.9 nigra scrub P – Prunus spinosa scrub No described NVC category 11.4 U – Ulex europaeus scrub No described NVC category 17.0 B2 – wetlands W24 Rubus fruticosus – Holcus lanatus underscrub; M23 34.1 Juncus effusus – Galium palustre mire B2S – wetlands with Salix W1 Salix cinerea – Galium palustre woodland community 19.9 cinerea A2F – Festuca rubra grassland/ A2F matches: MC8 Festuca rubra – Armeria maritima 29.7 G – Geranium robertianum maritime cliff community; close to MC8a typical sub- community (coincides very community; also MC5 Armeria maritima – Cerastium closely with distribution of A2F) diffusum therophyte communities. No described NVC category for G. Bare shingle 981.5 Total area: 1,650.6 ha

Sources: Ferry et al. (1990); Fuller (1989). NVC descriptions after Rodwell (1991a; 1991b; 1992; 2000). Shingle vegetation communities after Ferry et al. (1990).

Page 32 of 125 Table 5 Comparison of the Rye Harbour shingle vegetation types and NVC stand types Major division Shingle vegetation communities NVC equivalent Area (ha) Scrub SH122 Prunus spinosa – Eurynchium W22 Prunus spinosa – Pteridium 0.5 communities praelongum community aquilinum community (not a good match) SH119 Rubus fruticosus – W24 Rubus fruticosus – Holcus 2.6 Arrhenatherum elatius scrub lanatus underscrub (with less H. community lanatus in SH119) SH109 Ulex europaeus – Rubus W23 Ulex europaeus – Rubus 1.0 fruticosus – Agrostis capillaris scrub fruticosus community community Grassland SH71 Arrhenatherum elatius MG1a Arrhenatherum elatius 6.5 communities grassland community grassland, Festuca rubra sub- community (SH71 represents a species-poor version) SH67 Festuca rubra – Dactylis SD8a Festuca rubra – Galium verum 14.0 glomerata – Lolium perenne – fixed dune, typical sub-community Bromus hordeaceus community Mature SH70 Festuca rubra – Silene SD7c Ammophila arenaria – Festuca 1.5 grassland maritima – Lotus corniculatus rubra semi-fixed dune, Ononis repens communities community sub-community SH48 Festuca rubra – Hypnum SD7 Ammophila arenaria – Festuca 5.0 cupressiforme – Lotus corniculatus – rubra semi-fixed dune community Plantago lanceolata community SH46 Festuca rubra – Ceratodon SD7 Ammophila arenaria – Festuca 9.2 purpureus – Sedum spp. grassland rubra semi-fixed dune community (but there is no Ammophila in SH46) SH45 Vulpia bromoides – Bromus U1f Festuca ovina – Agrostis 24.1 hordeaceus – Hypochaeris radicata capillaris – Rumex acetosella grassland community grassland, Hypochaeris radicata sub- community (not a close match) SH37 Arrhenatherum elatius – Silene No clear NVC equivalent 0.4 maritima grassland Pioneer SH10 Solanum dulcamara – No clear NVC equivalent 1.2 communities Arrhenatherum elatius community SH9 Crambe maritima – Solanum SD1 Rumex crispus – Glaucium 31.3 dulcamara pioneer community flavum shingle community (not a close match) SH2a Geranium robertianum – U24 Arrhenatherum elatius – 6.0 Arrhenatherum elatius open grassland Geranium robertianum community Disturbed shingle 80.5 Bare shingle 45.5 Total area: 229.3 ha

Source: Sneddon & Randall (1994). NVC descriptions after Rodwell (1991a; 1992; 2000). Shingle vegetation communities after Sneddon & Randall (1993).

Page 33 of 125 2.3 Saline lagoons Saline lagoons are areas of marine saline water where the concentration of salts is reduced by ground or surface freshwater input or concentrated by evaporation. Connection with the open sea is limited by sediment, shingle or rocky barriers with the degree of separation being used as a basis for the distinction of five physiographic types. Within Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI there are good examples of natural/semi-natural percolation lagoons at Lydd Ranges. The terrestrial Areas of Search apply to saline lagoons. The Intertidal Guidelines (Chapter 3, section 3.9.2, p.38) state: ‘Sites which are selected for designation must satisfy some or all of the following criteria. 1. The site includes the best example of a particular habitat type with its associated communities within that AOS. 2. The site additionally contains good quality examples of specialised habitats such as bedrock exposures, tidal rapids or unusual features. 3. The site contains habitat or community features of a restricted nature on a national or international (north-east Atlantic) basis. 4. The site contains one or more of the marine species currently considered nationally rare or scarce, including those listed in schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). 5. The site exhibits a salinity gradient from fully marine seawater to low salinity brackish or fresh water. 6. The site is large in extent as a single unit or as several units joined together by natural or man-made connections. Assessment of importance will take account of whether the site has transitions inland to coastal terrestrial vegetation types, geological or geomorphological features…Sites which have such features will be more highly rated than otherwise identically rated locations.’ The lagoons at the seaward end of the Lydd Ranges were surveyed in 2005 (Bamber et al., 2005). Pools 9, 10 and 12 (as numbered by Bamber et al.) are typical, relatively stable, shingle percolation lagoons and cover a total area of 1.73 ha. They fall within the Kent AOS and lie seaward of the embankment. Salinity ranged from 14 (in pool 9, owing to freshwater inflow from a stream) to 40 parts per thousand. The fauna is comparatively diverse and includes the lagoonal specialist snail Ventrosia ventrosa. The periwinkles in pool 12 appeared to be of the lagoonal form Littorina saxatilis lagunae and a number of shells of the lagoon cockle Cerastoderma glaucum were present in pool 10, but no live specimens were found. The maritime influence of these three pools is shown by the presence of the bivalve mollusc Abra tenuis and the polychaete worm Capitella capitata. Pools 2, 2A and 3/5 are also typical shingle percolation lagoons, although they appear to have formed in artificial depressions. These pools fall within the East Sussex AOS and lie landward or the embankment. They cover a total area of 3.38 ha and salinity ranged from 26 to 38 parts per thousand. The pools are surrounded by grassland with sea-purslane and sea aster Aster tripolium and have a dense submerged flora of tasselweed Ruppia sp. The Ruppia is well colonised by the lagoonal specialist snail Ventrosia ventrosa, whilst the benthos predominantly comprises oligochaetes and opportunistic insects, ragworms Nereis diversicolor are also common.

Page 34 of 125 The saline lagoons at Lydd Ranges (pools 2, 2A, 3/5, 9, 10 and 12) meet the Intertidal Guidelines by: 1. Demonstrating the best examples of natural/semi-natural percolation lagoons in the East Sussex AOS and Kent AOS, supporting the snail Ventrosia ventrosa (a lagoonal specialist). Other percolation lagoons in East Sussex appear to be of artificial origin as do all except two in Kent. The exceptions are Plumpudding Island and Coldharbour Lagoons on the Thanet Coast, both of which are subject to coastal squeeze and less representative than the Lydd Ranges lagoons. 2. Demonstrating a salinity gradient. The salinity in the saline lagoons ranges from 14 to 40 parts per thousand (see table 6, below). The saline lagoons are also part of a wider series of waterbodies at Dungeness, including the natural freshwater wetlands known as the Open and Fossil Pits (see section 2.4.1 and 2.5 below). 3. Demonstrating a large total extent. The six lagoons that are of special interest cover a total area of 5.11 ha. 4. Demonstrating landward transitions to vegetated shingle habitats and to the shingle ridge geomorphology of Dungeness. Table 6 Saline lagoons in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI Lagoon Grid reference Area of Type Area Salinity (parts Search per thousand) Lydd Ranges Pool 2 TR0076517822 East Sussex Percolation 1.41 ha 38 Lydd Ranges Pool 2A TR0084617942 East Sussex Percolation 0.58 ha 26 Lydd Ranges Pool 3/5 TR0034417962 East Sussex Percolation 1.39 ha 30 Lydd Ranges Pool 9 TR0307517377 Kent Percolation 0.80 ha 14 Lydd Ranges Pool 10 TR0266017467 Kent Percolation 0.65 ha 33 Lydd Ranges Pool 12 TR0235017519 Kent Percolation 0.28 ha 40

Source: Bamber et al. (2005)

2.4 Freshwater habitats Many of the freshwater habitats in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI have been selected primarily because they support important avian, invertebrate and botanical species interests. However, the natural freshwater pits at Dungeness and the ditch systems in the extensive grazing marshes of Walland Marsh and Pett Level are of special interest as freshwater habitats, in addition to any particular species interests they may support. Selection of these habitats is covered by Chapter 6 (Freshwater habitats) of the Guidelines. The Guidelines (Chapter 6, section 1.1, p.112) state that: ‘For the purposes of SSSI selection, freshwater habitats are divided into three groups: 1.1.1 standing waters (e.g. lakes, pools, ponds, gravel-pits, reservoirs and canals); 1.1.2 lowland ditch systems (e.g. in grazing marshes); 1.1.3 flowing waters (rivers and streams).

2.4.1 Standing waters The vast shingle beach at Dungeness contains two large and a number of smaller pits, referred to as the Open and Fossil Pits (within Dungeness RSPB Reserve and Lydd Ranges). The

Page 35 of 125 following descriptions of the wetlands and the process of their formation are drawn very largely from Ferry & Henderson (1984) and Ferry & Waters (1988). These natural wetlands lie 60 to 70 shingle ridges inland from the coast. Those in the RSPB Reserve are thought to have been formed over a relatively short period approximately 800-1000 years ago , whilst those on Lydd Ranges are older. During this period new shingle spits occasionally extended unusually far seawards (perhaps as a result of unusual climatic conditions) and then coalesced further along the coast with pre-existing ridges. This process formed isolated lagoons which were filled with saline water, as evidenced by the marine silt deposits which line the base of the current wetland sediments. The transition to freshwater conditions as the pits became further from the coast (as more shingle ridges were deposited) appears to have been rapid. The oldest of these pits are now on the eroding south coast of Dungeness and have reverted to saline conditions once more (see section 2.3, above). The pits have been subject to natural colonisation by vegetation and (the Open Pits at least) display stages of a classic hydroseral succession, from open water and marginal reed-swamp (see photograph 6) through a form of marsh or fen to carr. The main wetland habitats present in the pits are sedge Carex-rich marsh (which, although absent for a number of years due to lack of management, is recovering in some areas following recent management to clear carr and graze the fen habitats), reedswamp and grey Salix cinerea carr. Although some contain permanent open water, others have accumulated large amounts of organic matter and now have only temporary standing water or, in extreme cases, damp peat (see section 2.5, below). The open water areas support soft hornwort Ceratophyllum submersum, blunt-fruited water-starwort Callitriche obtusangula and small or lesser pondweeds Potamogeton berchtoldii or P. pusillus. The Guidelines (Chapter 6, section 4.1, p.114) state that: ‘Standing waters are classified by treating submerged and floating (open water) vegetation separately from the emergent fringe.’ The Guidelines (Chapter 6, section 4.1.1, p.114) further state that: ‘A site can be classified by comparing its species lists with those in the columns of the table [table 12 of the Guidelines] and finding the closest match or by using the key given in table 13 [of the Guidelines].’ Accounts of the flora of the natural freshwater wetlands (e.g. Ferry & Henderson, 1984; Ferry & Waters, 1988; Rose, 1997) have concentrated on the emergent fen vegetation. Therefore it is not possible to classify the open water types according to the system described by the Guidelines. The Guidelines (Chapter 6, section 3.2, p.113) state that: ‘Although most freshwater sites are likely to fit within the classification schemes given here, a few may be difficult to categorise. However, this need not preclude their selection as SSSIs…’ Selection of the standing water interests of the natural freshwater wetlands has therefore been made on the basis of Guidelines that do not rely on the open water or emergent vegetation classification schemes, as follows: The Guidelines (Chapter 6, section 4.3.4, p.115) state that: ‘Diversity of physical features is an important factor to be taken into account when selecting open water sites. Varied shorelines, a range of pH, substrates and depths…are [among] the kinds of features which should be considered.’

Page 36 of 125 It is clear that much of the botanical interest of the natural freshwater pits arises from the diversity of physical habitat, in particular the shallow sloping shorelines that are generally missing from analogous artificial habitats. The Guidelines (Chapter 6, section 4.3.9, p.117) state that: ‘Palaeolimnological and geological features of lakes should be taken into account in site selection. For instance, good examples of undisturbed sediments (which are of value as records of lake development), corrie lakes, kettleholes, pingo systems or shingle-bar lagoons should be selected rather than poor examples with similar floras.’ The natural freshwater pits amongst the extensive shingle ridges of Dungeness are unique in the British Isles and probably also in Europe. This is true of both the geomorphology of the habitats and the communities of plants and that they support. The origin of the pits combined with the undisturbed nature of the habitats (including the underlying sediments) gives these waterbodies considerable palaeolimnological and geological significance. The Guidelines (Chapter 6, section 4.3.5, p.116) state that: ‘Unusual site types and community associations should be given special consideration. The following open water types [listed in the Guidelines]are relatively uncommon in Great Britain…sites showing a transition from freshwater to saline conditions…are of special value.’ The Guidelines (Chapter 6, section 4.3.10, p.117) further state that: ‘Emphasis should be given to sites which are constituents of ecological series. Examples are adjacent waterbodies which show the transition from fresh to brackish conditions or which demonstrate a range of nutrient states or stages in seral succession. Where an ecological series exists, it is important to include the full range…’ The site as a whole demonstrates a transition from saline water bodies (see section 2.3 above) to freshwater. Additionally, the pits display various stages of seral succession from open water through to fen vegetation (see section 2.5 below). There is a mix of species and communities associated with eutrophic (nutrient-rich), mesotrophic (intermediate nutrient content) and oligotrophic (nutrient-poor) conditions within the wetlands, and there is a tendency to form ombrotrophic (rain-fed) surfaces where vegetation builds above the groundwater. This is represents classic transition mire. The complete transition from early open water stages with saline conditions through to infilled waterbodies with ‘terrestrialised’ wetland vegetation adds to the interest of the site in terms of understanding the formation and natural succession of the waterbodies. Examples showing the transition from saline to freshwater are very rare nationally, given the extent of coastal defences and resulting modification of the interface between coastal and terrestrial habitats.

2.4.2 Lowland ditch systems With respect to lowland ditch systems, the Guidelines (Chapter 6, section 5.1, p.118) state that: ‘When new areas are surveyed, it is important that the standard method set out by Alcock & Palmer (1985) is employed. This is based on detailed records for 20 m ditch lengths as well as extensive survey of the ditch network.’

Page 37 of 125 Within Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI, the ditch systems in the grazing marshes of Pett Level and Walland Marsh have been surveyed according to the method described in the Guidelines.

Walland Marsh Walland Marsh consists of discrete blocks of long-established grazing marsh separated by intensive arable land. Though a few arable fields on Walland Marsh are included in the SSSI, the majority of the land within the SSSI boundary in this area is permanent pasture and farmed intensively for sheep. The extensive system of ditches and dykes (see photograph 8) which drains the marsh is an important example of lowland, slow-moving and eutrophic (nutrient-rich) waters, with a brackish influence near the sea and also inland in the large ditches) or where peat deposits, which leach salt, lie close to the surface. The grazing marsh ditches on Walland Marsh were monitored in 1993/94 (Williams et al., 2000) when over 500 20 m ditch sections, covering a total length of over 10 km (but representing a much greater total ditch length), were surveyed. There are five main areas of grazing marsh across Walland Marsh, all of which were surveyed in 1993/94 (Williams et al., 2000): 1. The Dowels lies furthest to the north, about 12 km from the coast at approximate grid reference TQ9730 and covers an area of approximately 300 ha. One 20 m section in each of 117 ditches was surveyed on The Dowels in 1993/94. 2. Snargate lies directly to the south, separated from the east side of The Dowels by a road. It is at approximate grid reference TQ9829 and covers an area of approximately 130 ha. One 20 m section in each of 45 ditches was surveyed at Snargate in 1993/94. 3. Fairfield lies about 1 km south of Snargate at approximate grid reference TQ9727 and covers an area of approximately 70 ha. One 20 m section in each of 43 ditches was surveyed at Fairfield in 1993/94. 4. Woolpack lies about 5 km from the coast, just over 2km south-east of Fairfield, at approximate grid reference TQ9823 and covers an area of approximately 90 ha. One 20 m section in each of 39 ditches was surveyed at Woolpack in 1993/94. 5. East Guldeford lies adjacent to the coast between Rye and Camber. This area has been divided into north (approximate grid reference TQ9423), east (TQ9720) and west (TQ9421) sections and covers a total area of approximately 1,400 ha. One 20 m section in each of 274 ditches was surveyed at East Guldeford in 1993/94. In addition to the areas surveyed in 1993/4, the ditches at Cheyne Court were surveyed in 1996 (B. Banks, unpublished). Cheyne Court is contiguous with Woolpack, lying to the south-east at approximate grid reference TQ9922, and covering an area of approximately 55 ha. One 20 m section in each of 22 ditches was surveyed at Cheyne Court in 1996. The Dowels contains the greatest proportion of freshwater ditches on Walland Marsh and has the highest plant species diversity, with the nationally rare sharp-leaved pondweed Potamogeton acutifolius and several nationally scarce species, including greater water-parsnip Sium latifolium and marsh-mallow Althaea officinalis. It also supports frogbit Hydrocharis morsus-ranae, whorled water-milfoil Myriophyllum verticillatum and marsh stitchwort palustris, which are all listed as vulnerable (Cheffings & Farrell, 2005). It is the main locality in Walland Marsh for water-violet Hottonia palustris and is also important for fan-leaved water-crowfoot Ranunculus circinatus, shining pondweed Potamogeton lucens, arrowhead Sagittaria sagittifolia and bladderworts Utricularia spp.

Page 38 of 125 Although components of this diverse flora are also found in the adjacent northern end of Snargate, the majority of Snargate is similar to Fairfield, Woolpack and Cheyne Court, where most of the ditches contain a characteristic but less diverse brackish community. The typical aquatic species are soft hornwort Ceratophyllum submersum, spiked water-milfoil Myriophyllum spicatum, fennel pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus, brackish water-crowfoot Ranunculus baudotii, thread-leaved water-crowfoot R. trichophyllus and horned pondweed Zannichellia palustris. The nationally scarce saltmarsh goosefoot Chenopodium chenopodioides is occasionally found where shallow brackish ditches dry out to bare mud in the summer, whilst rootless duckweed Wolffia arrhiza (also nationally scarce) is abundant in the small number of freshwater ditches at Fairfield and elsewhere on the site. The dominant emergent species in these areas are sea club-rush Bolboschoenus maritimus, common reed Phragmites australis and lesser bulrush Typha angustifolia, with which several scarce invertebrate species are associated. The ditch banks support a number of upper saltmarsh species, such as saltmarsh rush , sea-milkwort Glaux maritima, sea arrowgrass Triglochin maritimum and the nationally scarce divided sedge Carex divisa (which also grows further out into the fields from the ditch banks), the last two species being restricted to Fairfield and Woolpack. The large area of grazing marsh at East Guldeford also contains predominantly brackish ditches, although overall it is less brackish than Snargate, Fairfield and Woolpack. Management across East Guldeford is less uniform than in the other areas, with parts less heavily grazed than others and more hay cropping. Some arable fields are included within the SSSI in this area as they are integral to the grazing marsh. The ditches which are ungrazed or only lightly grazed are particularly important for the nationally scarce marsh-mallow Althaea officinalis, which is the food plant of the endangered marsh mallow moth Hydraecia osseola ssp. hucherardi.

Pett Level The grazing marsh ditches on Pett Level range from freshwater to brackish, and this contributes to the diversity of the fauna and flora. There are several scarce aquatic plants and many rare invertebrates, with the beetles (Coleoptera) and some flies (Diptera) particularly well represented. Recently cleared ditches rapidly become invaded by aquatic plants, such as fennel pondweed, soft hornwort and bladderwort Utricularia australis in the brackish ditches, and rigid hornwort Ceratophyllum demersum, broad-leaved pondweed Potamogeton natans and hairlike pondweed P. trichoides in those with a freshwater influence. The brackish ditches eventually become invaded by emergent species such as sea club-rush and grey club-rush Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani, while arrowhead, lesser bulrush Typha angustifolia, greater pond-sedge Carex riparia, and water dock Rumex hydrolapathum are more common in the freshwater ditches. Eventually, the late succession ditches become dominated by common reed. The grazing marsh ditches on Pett Level were monitored in 1987 (B. Banks, unpublished), when over 150 20 m ditch sections were surveyed, covering a total length of over 3 km (but representing a much greater total ditch length). The Guidelines set out a classification for diversity of ditch flora based on number of species per 20 m ditch lengths. The Guidelines (Chapter 6, section 5.2.2, p.119) state that: ‘Ditch systems are often very species-rich. Some grazing marsh SSSIs support over 100 species of aquatic higher plants… However, some types of system, notably brackish ditches, are intrinsically species-poor, but these are still worthy of

Page 39 of 125 representation. Within individual 20 m ditch lengths the following standards apply for plants. Diversity No. of submerged/floating/emergent/wet bank species per 20 m Freshwater Exceptional 15 or more Good 10-14 Fair 6-9 Poor 5 or fewer Brackish Exceptional 10 or more Good 6-9 Fair/poor 1-5’ The Guidelines (Chapter 6, section 5.2.3, p.120) go on to state that: ‘Generally, for an area to qualify for selection as an SSSI on botanical grounds alone, at least 50% of wet ditches in a complex should rate as ‘good’ or ‘exceptional’…’ The results of the 1993/94 and 1996 survey of ditches on Walland Marsh (Williams et al., 2000; B. Banks, unpublished) and the 1987 survey of Pett Level ditches (B. Banks, unpublished) are summarised in table 7 (below). In total, 79% of ditches on Walland Marsh and 53% of ditches on Pett Level rate as good or exceptional. In the case of brackish ditches this means that they contain six or more plant species per 20 m ditch length and freshwater ditches contain ten or more plant species per 20 m length. Both areas meet the figure stated in section 5.2.3 of Chapter 6 of the Guidelines. Table 7 Proportion of 20 m ditch lengths on Walland Marsh and Pett Level rated as ‘good’ or ‘exceptional’ in terms of their plant species diversity Grazing marsh block % of ditches rated good or exceptional Walland Marsh The Dowels 62% Snargate 73% Fairfield 74% Woolpack 79% Cheyne Court 95% East Guldeford 88% Walland Marsh combined 79% Pett Level 53%

Sources: Williams et al. (2000); B. Banks (unpublished).

The Guidelines (Chapter 6, section 5.2.5, p.120) state that: ‘The existence of a transition from fresh to brackish water lends great importance to a site. Extensive brackish systems are rare in Britain and should receive special consideration. The more extensive the ditch system, the greater the chances of maintaining the populations of rare and localised species of plants and animals and of enhancing the wildlife interest through management.’ Both Pett Level and Walland Marsh have a mixture of freshwater and brackish ditches, and transitions between the two. On Walland Marsh ditches were recorded as ‘freshwater’, ‘moderate’, ‘brackish’ or ‘very brackish’, which demonstrates that a range of salinities occurs.

Page 40 of 125 On Pett Level there are only three brackish ditches, compared to approximately 150 freshwater ditches. At Walland Mash over 370 ditches were recorded as ‘moderate’, ‘brackish’ or ‘very brackish’ and over 150 contained freshwater. Walland Marsh contains a very extensive ditch system covering approximately 2,000 ha, whilst Pett Level, although much smaller, is still significant at over 300 ha. With respect to identifying suitable SSSI boundaries around lowland ditch systems, the Guidelines (Chapter 6, section 5.2.6, p.120) state that: ‘Where a ditch system is of SSSI quality but the grassland matrix has little intrinsic interest for its vegetation or birds, the fields should nevertheless be included as a ‘buffer zone’ for the ditches… It is inadvisable to include extensive arable areas within an SSSI unless the flora and fauna can be shown to have special interest on a ditch-by-ditch basis or the land is an integral part of the hydrological system…’ Fields with permanent grassland either side of ditches that are of special interest have been included within the SSSI boundary, as have arable fields that are within or integral to the grazing marsh blocks. In some cases the fields within the ditch systems are also of special interest for geomorphology or because they support rare or scarce plants or invertebrates, or birds.

2.5 Basin fens Section 2.4.1 (above) describes the natural freshwater wetlands (the Open and Fossil Pits) that have formed in the shingle at Dungeness, in particular their open water interests, the range of salinities of the pools across the site, and the hydroseral succession evident within individual pits and across the series of pits. A number of the Open Pits have reached a stage in the hydroseral succession where they have little or no open water remaining and are now typical basin fens (see photograph 7). Section 2.4.1 (above) describes how these hollows formed as the shingle ridges were deposited during the evolution of Dungeness. The majority of the Open Pits have little or no open water and most have floating rafts of vegetation, varying in the degree to which they have stabilised. These floating rafts of vegetation are typical of the ‘Schwingmoor’ type of basin fen, where layers of peat are separated by lenses of water. The structure of the vegetation in pits with a floating raft follows a ‘castle and moat’ pattern, though the ‘castle’ is not necessarily in the centre of the depression. This occurs because the centre is furthest away from groundwater seepage, and most easily becomes predominantly influenced by atmospheric water, leading to ombrotrophy. This is a small-scale version of how raised bogs are formed. Accumulating dead vegetation (peat) raises the surface above the ground water, leading to a change from (possibly) neutral to alkaline pH and high base ion status, to one of acid pH and low base status. The pits differ from a raised bog in that complete separation from occasional ground water inundation is unlikely, so the apparently ‘ombrotrophic’ parts should still be described as nutrient-poor fen rather than bog. The pits contain a mix of vegetation types from single species swamps to more complex communities. Between the 1960s and 1997 the pits lost most of their open communities and became dominated by grey willow Salix cinerea in the absence of grazing, lowered water levels, and a peat fire in one of the pits. Since then there has been a programme of scrub clearance, grazing and mowing which has resulted in the recovery of some nutrient-poor fen communities. Areas of nutrient-poor fen support a number of plant species that are rare in Kent such as common cottongrass angustifolium, great fen-sedge Cladium mariscus, marsh cinquefoil palustris and the nationally scarce marsh fern

Page 41 of 125 Thelypteris palustris. Other species have reappeared following recent management, including bog pondweed Potamogeton polygonifolius, bottle sedge Carex rostrata, common sedge C. nigra, star sedge C. echinata, brown sedge C. disticha, marsh willowherb Epilobium palustre, marsh speedwell Veronica scutellata and bog pimpernel Anagallis tenella. There are also several species of bog-moss, with large patches of blunt-leaved bog-moss Sphagnum palustre and spiky bog-moss S. squarrosum in particular. Easily distinguished is the NVC type S4 Phragmites australis swamp, and at the other end of the trophic scale, the S27 Carex rostrata-Potentilla palustris tall-herb fen, as indicated primarily by the extent and cover of the marsh cinquefoil Potentilla palustris. Much of the ‘moat’ vegetation may be assigned to the S4b Phragmites australis swamp, Galium palustre sub-community. The composition of S27 is variable and the greatest difficulty in assigning the ‘castle’ to this community is the absence of the bogbean Menyanthes trifoliata. This plant is no longer present, though it was recorded from one of the pits before a peat fire in the 1970s. Even without bogbean, S27 provides a good fit for the nutrient-poor fen communities. There are other possible affinities indicated by the presence of particular species, but these are localised and poorly developed. For example, pointed spear-moss Calliergonella cuspidata with bottle sedge suggests the M9 Carex rostrata-Calliergon cuspidatum mire, and the mix of bottle sedge and spiky bog-moss suggests M5 Carex rostrata-Sphagnum squarrosum mire. Similarly, the stand of great fen-sedge Cladium mariscus in one of the pits is so small that it is difficult to give much weight to it as a separate NVC community S2 Cladium mariscus swamp. Nevertheless, the occurrence of great fen-sedge is of considerable significance within the Kent AOS. In summary, the basins contain a range of fen types from nutrient-rich to nutrient-poor fen, with some elements of rich fen, such as great fen-sedge. It is not easy to place the vegetation communities within definitive NVC types, but much falls within S4, particularly S4b, and within S27 for the nutrient-poor fen. The Guidelines (Chapter 7, section 3.1, p.137) state that: ‘Within each AOS the complement of fen sites should aim to include examples representing the full range of…topographical/hydrological fen types…’ The Open Pits support the only known examples of basin fen in the Kent AOS. The Guidelines (Chapter 7, section 3.3.1, p.137) state that: ‘Within each AOS, at least one (preferably the best) example of every plant community listed in Table 19 [of the Guidelines] that occurs in the AOS should be selected within each topographical/hydrological fen type in which it occurs.’ S4 Phragmites australis swamp and S27 Carex rostrata-Potentilla palustris tall-herb fen are both listed in Table 19 in Chapter 7 of the Guidelines. Although S4 is a widespread community, the Open Pits support the only examples within basin fens in the Kent AOS. There are no other known occurrences of S27 in the Kent AOS. The Guidelines (Chapter 7, section 3.3.2, p.137) state that: ‘Within each AOS, the best examples should be selected of clearly developed vegetation mosaics which represent hydroseral zonation or combinations of two or more fen types.’ Many of the Open Pits demonstrate a ‘castle and moat’ pattern, which is representative of a classic transition from the nutrient-rich groundwater-fed conditions dominated by the S4 swamp communities in the ‘moat’, to the nutrient-poor rainwater-fed (ombrotrophic)

Page 42 of 125 conditions dominated by the S27 tall-herb fens in the ‘castle’. There are no other known examples of this classic ‘transition mire’ in the Kent AOS.

2.6 Vascular plants The extensive shingle beaches, sand dunes, saltmarshes, grazing marshes and wetland habitats in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI support a large number of protected (listed in Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981), threatened (Red-listed) and restricted range (nationally rare or scarce) species of vascular plant. The Guidelines (Chapter 11, section 3, p.217) state that: ‘There should be a presumption for selecting vascular plant sites on the following grounds. 3.1 Schedule 8 species All sites with viable populations should be selected...’

2.6.1 Schedule 8 species Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI contains populations of four species listed in Schedule 8 (as amended) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (see table 8, below). A fifth species, stinking hawk’s-beard Crepis foetida, is classified as extinct in the wild (Cheffings & Farrell, 2005). It became extinct at Dungeness in 1980 and reintroductions, using seed collected at Dungeness, began there in 1992 (Wigginton, 1999). A number of seedlings were also planted at Rye Harbour in 2000. Neither Dungeness nor Rye Harbour LNR currently supports viable, self-sustaining populations, so this species does not currently meet the Guidelines (Chapter 11, section 3.1, p.217). However, if a viable population became established, the species would form a component of the ‘combination of species occurring in 1-100 10 km squares’ (see section 2.6.2, below).

Jersey cudweed Gnaphalium luteoalbum Until recently, the only extant colony of the critically endangered (Cheffings & Farrell, 2005) Jersey cudweed Gnaphalium luteoalbum considered to be native was at Holkham National Nature Reserve in Norfolk. In 1996, several hundred plants were discovered in the area of the New Excavations (TR065184) in Dungeness RSPB Reserve, growing on silt that had been pumped from the nearby New Diggings Pit (Gurney, 2004). By 2001/02 the species had spread to nearby areas adjacent to Burrowes Pit and ARC Pit and the total population numbered hundreds of thousands of plants (Gurney, 2004). This is the largest known UK population of the species. It is currently uncertain whether Jersey cudweed arrived at Dungeness naturally (seed from colonies in northern may have crossed the Channel by wind or on birds) or as an accidental introduction (perhaps travelling in mud attached to vehicles or as a contaminant in bird food or seed sown in nearby gardens) but, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the colonisation is treated as being natural (Gurney, 2004).

Least lettuce Lactuca saligna Rye Harbour LNR is one of only three locations (along with Fobbing in Essex and the Isle of Grain in north Kent) for the endangered (Cheffings & Farrell, 2005) least lettuce Lactuca saligna. This inconspicuous plant is largely restricted to patches of disturbed sandy shingle, either where sand has been added as a stabiliser, or in slight hollows where shingle has been removed for sea wall repairs, and along the margins of a metalled road (Wigginton, 1999).

Page 43 of 125 The population at Rye Harbour is scattered over a large area and consists predominantly of tiny plants, but the small number that survive the winter become taller and more bushy (Wigginton, 1999).

Early spider-orchid Ophrys sphegodes There is a small colony of the early spider-orchid Ophrys sphegodes growing on an area of disturbed shingle, where sand has been spread over the gravel, adjacent to the nuclear power stations at Dungeness. The colony has numbered up to 60 plants in the past but numbers have dwindled down to one or two plants in recent years due to rabbit grazing, which is being addressed by electric fencing and targeted control. Although described as being of least concern (Cheffings & Farrell, 2005), the early spider-orchid is largely restricted to Dorset, East Sussex and Kent (Foley & Clarke, 2005), and this is one of only two UK sites for the species on shingle.

Lizard orchid Himantoglossum hircinum Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI contains colonies of the near threatened (Cheffings & Farrell, 2005) lizard orchid Himantoglossum hircinum. Details about the locations of these colonies are confidential (although known to English Nature and the relevant landowners/managers) due to the continued threat to the species posed by illegal plant collectors. This continued threat is amply demonstrated by the fact that plants have been dug up in recent years from Kent and Cambridgeshire populations (Wigginton, 1999) and in 2003 plants were dug up at a roadside site in Dorset (Harrap, 2005).

2.6.2 Combination of species occurring in 1-100 10 km squares (assemblage of Schedule 8, nationally rare and nationally scarce vascular plants) The Guidelines (Chapter 11, section 3, p.217) state that: ‘There should be a presumption for selecting vascular plant sites on the following grounds. 3.3 Combination of species occurring in 1-100 10 km squares A simple scoring procedure is used to assess combinations of species within the two classes, nationally rare and nationally scarce… Schedule 8 species…rate 200. Species occurring in 1-15 10-km squares (other than Schedule 8 species) rate 100. Species occurring in 16-100 10-km squares rate 50. A total score of 200 or more qualifies a site for selection.’ Within Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI, four Schedule 8 species, one nationally rare species and 33 nationally scarce species have been reliably recorded since 1990 and are not known to have been introduced. These species are listed below (see table 8) with information on Red-list category, national status and broad habitat. The total score of this combination of species is 2,550 points, which clearly exceeds the figure of 200 points quoted in the Guidelines.

Page 44 of 125 Table 8 Schedule 8, nationally rare and nationally scarce plant species recorded in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI Scientific name Common name Main habitats Schedule 8 Nationally rare/ Red list category Score nationally scarce Althaea officinalis Marsh-mallow Grazing marsh - Nationally scarce Least concern 50 Bupleurum tenuissimum Slender hare’s-ear Dry grassland - Nationally scarce Vulnerable 50 Callitriche truncata Short-leaved water-starwort Gravel pits - Nationally scarce Least concern 50 Carex divisa Divided sedge Grazing marsh - Nationally scarce Vulnerable 50 Chenopodium chenopodioides Saltmarsh goosefoot Grazing marsh - Nationally scarce Least concern 50 Frankenia laevis Sea-heath Saltmarsh, shingle beaches - Nationally scarce Near threatened 50 Galeopsis angustifolia Red-hemp-nettle Shingle beaches - Nationally scarce Critically endangered 50 Gnaphalium luteoalbum Jersey cudweed Stabilised sand, gravel pit margins ✔ Nationally rare Parking list 200 Himantoglossum hircinum Lizard orchid - ✔ Nationally scarce Near threatened 200 Hippophae rhamnoides Sea-buckthorn Sand dunes - Nationally scarce Least concern 50 Hordeum marinum Sea barley Saltmarsh, gravel pit margins - Nationally scarce Vulnerable 50 Lactuca saligna Least lettuce Shingle beaches ✔ Nationally rare Endangered 200 Lathyrus aphaca Yellow vetchling Dry grassland - Nationally scarce Vulnerable 50 Lathyrus japonicus Sea pea Shingle beaches - Nationally scarce Least concern 50 Marrubium vulgare White horehound Dry grassland - Nationally scarce Least concern 50 Medicago minima Bur medick Stabilised sand - Nationally scarce Vulnerable 50 Medicago polymorpha Toothed medick Shingle beaches, dry grassland - Nationally scarce Least concern 50 Oenanthe silaifolia Narrow-leaved water-dropwort Grazing marsh - Nationally scarce Near threatened 50 Ophrys sphegodes Early spider-orchid Shingle beaches ✔ Nationally scarce Least concern 200 Parapholis incurva Curved hard-grass Saltmarsh - Nationally scarce Least concern 50 Poa bulbosa Bulbous meadow-grass Shingle beaches, stabilised sand - Nationally scarce Least concern 50 Polypogon monspeliensis Annual beard-grass Gravel pit margins - Nationally scarce Least concern 50 Potamogeton acutifolius Sharp-leaved pondweed Grazing marsh - Nationally rare Critically endangered 100 Puccinellia rupestris Stiff saltmarsh-grass Saltmarsh, grazing marsh - Nationally scarce Least concern 50 Puccinellia fasciculata Borrer’s saltmarsh-grass Saltmarsh, grazing marsh - Nationally scarce Vulnerable 50 Ruppia cirrhosa Spiral tasselweed Saline lagoons - Nationally scarce Near threatened 50 Salicornia pusilla One-flowered glasswort Saltmarsh - Nationally scarce Least concern 50 Sarcocornia perennis Perennial glasswort Saltmarsh - Nationally scarce Least concern 50 Silene conica Sand catchfly Sand dunes - Nationally scarce Vulnerable 50 Nottingham catchfly Shingle beaches - Nationally scarce Near threatened 50 Sium latifolium Greater water-parsnip Grazing marsh - Nationally scarce Endangered 50 Suaeda vera Shrubby sea-blite Shingle beaches, saltmarsh - Nationally scarce Least concern 50 Thelypteris palustris Marsh fern Fens - Nationally scarce Least concern 50

Page 45 of 125 Scientific name Common name Main habitats Schedule 8 Nationally rare/ Red list category Score nationally scarce Trifolium glomeratum Clustered clover Stabilised sand, dry grassland - Nationally scarce Least concern 50 Trifolium suffocatum Suffocated clover Stabilised sand - Nationally scarce Least concern 50 Vicia lutea Yellow-vetch Shingle beaches - Nationally scarce Near-threatened 50 Vulpia ciliata subsp. ambigua Bearded fescue Stabilised sand - Nationally scarce Least concern 50 Wolffia arrhiza Rootless duckweed Grazing marsh - Nationally scarce Vulnerable 50

Sources: see section 1 (above). Red list categories after Cheffings & Farrell (2005).

Page 46 of 125 The current Vascular Plant Red Data List (Cheffings & Farrell, 2005) differs from previous ‘Red Data Books’ (e.g. Wigginton, 1999) in that it examined the entire native and archaeophyte3 flora of Great Britain, not just rare species, and was based on objective measurements of decline and threat assessments using internationally recognised IUCN criteria. Previously a ‘Red Data Book’ species had to be nationally rare, i.e. occurring in 15 or fewer 10-km squares, whereas a threatened species in the new Red List can occur in any number of 10-km squares. Those Red-listed species occurring in >100 10-km squares are not allocated a score as part of a ‘scored combination’ of rare and scarce species but, given these species are threatened nationally, account ought to be taken of them, where possible, when framing conservation objectives and undertaking condition monitoring on SSSIs. Thus, on SSSIs having a ‘scoring combination’ interest feature, English Nature’s botanical specialists have recommended (Botanical Unit, English Nature, 2006) that Red-listed species be treated as ‘local distinctiveness attributes’ of the habitats in which they occur. Table 9 (below) lists eleven such species that occur in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI. Table 9 Red-listed plant species, which are not nationally rare, nationally scarce or listed in Schedule 8, recorded in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI Scientific name Common name Main habitats Red list category Baldellia ranunculoides Lesser water-plantain Gravel pits Near threatened Cuscuta epithymum Dodder Shingle beaches Vulnerable Filago vulgaris Common cudweed Dry grassland Near threatened Hydrocharis morsus-ranae Frogbit Grazing marsh Vulnerable Hypochaeris glabra Smooth cat’s-ear Sand dunes Vulnerable Myriophyllum verticillatum Whorled water-milfoil Grazing marsh Vulnerable Oenanthe fistulosa Tubular water-dropwort Grazing marsh Vulnerable Salsola kali subsp. kali Prickly saltwort Shingle beaches, sand dunes Vulnerable Spiranthes spiralis Autumn lady’s-tresses Shingle beaches Near threatened Stellaria palustris Marsh stitchwort Grazing marsh Vulnerable Teesdalia nudicaulis Shepherd’s cress Shingle beaches Near threatened

Sources: see section 1 (above). Red list categories after Cheffings & Farrell (2005).

2.7 Warne’s thread-moss Bryum warneum Warne’s thread-moss Bryum warneum is a colonist of unshaded or partly-shaded calcareous sand that must be persistently damp all year but not inundated by standing water, or only inundated in winter (Holyoak, 2002). The species is thought to become established initially from spores and the relatively large size of the spores (mainly >40 µm in diameter) suggests that dispersal distances may less than for most mosses, although strong coastal winds may still distribute them widely (Holyoak, 2002). The open habitats in which Warne’s thread- moss initially becomes established correspond closely to NVC type SD13 Sagina nodosa – Bryum pseudotriquetrum dune-slack community, although it is only able to occupy these habitats for a few years until vegetation succession and accumulation of leaf litter covers areas of unshaded, bare, damp sand. Warne’s thread-moss also occurs in man-made habitats that mimic the conditions in its natural habitats. This is one of a number of coastal Bryum species that have undergone catastrophic declines since the 19th century because of the loss or degradation of their habitats, and Warne’s thread- moss is accordingly listed as ‘vulnerable’ in the British Red Data Book for mosses and liverworts (Church et al., 2001). Factors contributing to this include reclamation for

3 A plant which was introduced by man (or arrived naturally from an area in which it was present as an introduction) and became naturalised before AD 1500 (Pearson et al., 2002).

Page 47 of 125 agriculture, urban and leisure development, and dune stabilisation, both by construction of sea defences and lack of grazing pressure, promoting the growth of coarse vegetation (Church et al., 2001). The Non-vascular Plant Guidelines (section 3.2, p6) of the state that: ‘One RDB [Red Data Book] species qualifies a site for selection if it has: … 3.2.5 the only occurrence of the species in the particular AOS.’ Dungeness contains the only known populations of Warne’s thread-moss in the Kent AOS. It is also one of only four sites with confirmed extant populations in England, the others being the Sefton Coast in Lancashire, Sandscale Haws in Cumbria (Holyoak, 2002) and the Lincolnshire coast (recently discovered, Plantlife report in prep.). Warne’s thread-moss has also recently been reintroduced to Braunton Burrows (Devon). At Dungeness, Warne’s thread-moss occurs as a colonist on wet sand beside the northern margin of a large freshwater gravel pit (the ARC Pit) at approximately TR066198 (Holyoak, 2002). There are no natural dune slacks in the region so Warne’s thread-moss is presumed to have colonised from some distance away, perhaps from the closest known colonies in north-west France (Holyoak, 2002). Several smaller satellite colonies have become established beside small pools on higher disturbed ground to the north of the main colony at approximately TR064199, providing evidence of rapid spread within the site (Holyoak, 2002). Both locations are within Dungeness RSPB Reserve.

2.8 Water vole Arvicola terrestris The SSSI contains the core of an extensive distribution of water voles Arvicola terrestris dependent on the network of ditches that drain the grazing marsh and arable habitats of the Romney Marsh and Rye Bay area. Walland Marsh has been subject to a programme of survey and monitoring, funded by the Environment Agency, since 1998, and a similar programme of work has recently started on Pett Level. Factors that favour water voles include the extensive network of ditches with sufficient vegetation cover along the ditch banks, and control of the introduced predatory mink by a network of farmers. Water vole populations fluctuate erratically, with numbers of animals being strongly influenced by the extent of flooded ditches in July. Accordingly, drought years are accompanied by a collapse in the size of the population and a corresponding range contraction, with arable ditches suffering most. However, this appears to be temporary and it is likely that water voles quickly re-colonise these ditches from areas (mostly in grazing marshes) that remain flooded. The site supports water vole populations predominantly associated with grazing marsh habitat and reedbeds. Although the populations extend into extensive areas of adjacent arable farmland, the SSSI boundary includes those areas which support the highest densities of water voles, and the more stable populations that persist in drought years. Data from the Environment Agency-funded monitoring programme on Walland Marsh (see table 10, below) indicate that the strongest population of water voles occurs in the SSSI between East Guldeford and Camber. Between 2000 and 2005 these areas had the highest level of ditch occupancy by the species, and the highest length of occupied ditch per 1-km grid square. This is probably related to the presence of an extensive network of ditches in pasture, where high water levels are required for stock control, and the fencing of ditch banks to reduce grazing pressure, providing vegetation cover for water voles. Elsewhere in East Sussex the best areas surveyed to date are on Pett Level and Rye Harbour LNR, both also within the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI.

Page 48 of 125 The Water Vole Guidelines state that: ‘Up to two sites per AOS should be considered for notification. Sites should be selected on the basis of the size of their water vole population and should have a minimum of 2 km of suitable bankside vegetation with widespread signs of water voles. For waterways more than 3 m wide each bank may be considered separately.’ Table 11 (below) shows the total ditch length regularly occupied since 1998 by each of the main water vole populations in the SSSI on Walland Marsh. Within the East Sussex AOS the sections of grazing marsh between East Guldeford and Jury’s Gap contain 24 km of ditches supporting the species, which is the greatest known length of bankside habitat at any site in the AOS showing signs of water voles. In addition, to this a total of 10.1 km of ditches support water voles within the SSSI in the section of Walland Marsh that is within the Kent AOS. Information is not available on the lengths of ditch with signs of water voles elsewhere in the SSSI but on Pett Level water voles have been recorded in over 50 locations and at Rye Harbour LNR they have been recorded in more than 25 locations. Other sites in the East Sussex AOS outside the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI include the Brede Valley (17 locations) and Lower Ouse Valley (five locations). Although the total ditch length is not known, it is certainly much less than the length recorded on Walland Marsh. Table 10 Results of ditch monitoring for water voles in 1-km grid squares in the Walland Marsh area (2000 – 2005) Site (County) Included Total ditch Mean % ditch Mean ditch length Comments in SSSI? length (km) occupancy occupied (km) Camber Yes 5.46 53.8 2.93 (East Sussex) Moneypenny Yes 7.38 34.5 2.54 (East Sussex) Coldharbour No 6.79 26.8 1.84 Numbers increasing (Kent) after mink control Little Cheyne Partially 5.14 32.1 1.66 Ditch water levels Court erratic and subject to (East Sussex) desiccation Snave (Kent) No 7.15 19.6 1.40 Arrowhead Yes 9.52 9.3 0.88 Numbers increasing Bridge (Kent) after mink control Jury’s Gap Yes 2.68 21.5 0.57 Numbers increasing (East Sussex) after mink control

Sources: McConnell (2001; 2002); Tate (2003; 2004); Tate (pers. comm.)

Table 11 Length of ditch on Walland Marsh in the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI within each AOS regularly occupied by water voles since 1998 Site Area of Search Ditch length Walland Marsh (East Guldeford – Jury’s Gap) East Sussex 24 km Walland Marsh (Woolpack, Fairfield and The Dowels) Kent 10.1 km

Sources: McConnell (2001; 2002); Tate (2003; 2004); Tate (pers. comm.)

2.9 Birds The site is of prime importance for its waterfowl populations during the winter and passage periods when the open waters, grazing marshes and intertidal habitats provide safe feeding

Page 49 of 125 and roosting sites for nationally and internationally important numbers of waterfowl. The reedbeds, damp grasslands, open waters, scrub, saltmarsh and shingle beaches also provide breeding habitats for nationally important numbers and assemblages of seabirds, waterbirds and passerines.

2.9.1 Breeding bird assemblage of shingle beaches and saltmarshes, lowland damp grasslands, lowland open waters and their margins, and scrub (excluding heath) Whilst many breeding birds use habitats throughout the SSSI, there are four areas within the site where available data demonstrate particular concentrations of breeding birds associated with different combinations of habitats:  Dungeness (particularly the RSPB Reserve but also the Bird Observatory recording area and Lydd Ranges) contains a complex mosaic of shingle beaches, lowland damp grasslands, lowland open waters and their margins, and scrub.  Rye Harbour LNR contains a complex mosaic of shingle beaches, saltmarshes, lowland damp grasslands, lowland open waters and their margins, and scrub.  Pett Level (particularly the Pannel Valley) contains lowland damp grasslands and lowland open waters and their margins.  Cheyne Court contains lowland damp grasslands and lowland open waters and their margins. The Guidelines (Chapter 14, section 3.5, p.245) state that: ‘Localities are eligible which support an especially good range of bird species characteristic of the habitat, as defined by a ‘BTO index’ equal to or exceeding the value for the appropriate habitat given in Appendix C and Table 28 [of the Guidelines].’ The Guidelines do not specify an assemblage of breeding birds associated with shingle beaches but the relevant species are listed under the assemblage for sand dunes and saltmarshes so this has been used to assess the importance of the SSSI for breeding birds associated with shingle beaches. The thresholds for the habitats used by breeding bird assemblages at Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI are:  shingle beaches and saltmarshes (sand dunes and saltmarshes) – 24  lowland damp grasslands – 16  lowland open waters and their margins – 31  scrub (excluding heath) – 15 The Guidelines (Chapter 14, Appendix C, p.258) state that: ‘If two habitats are included in one well-defined site, the indices for the species which are on both habitat lists and have been recorded for the site should be double-counted. Other species score in the usual way. For the site to qualify on this basis its total score should exceed the qualifying threshold value for the two habitats combined…’ The Guidelines do not describe combinations of more than two habitat types but, given the complex mosaics (especially at Dungeness and Rye Harbour) of habitat types used by breeding birds in the SSSI, the four main habitats have been considered to support a combined habitat breeding bird assemblage. The combined threshold for the four habitats used by breeding bird assemblages at Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay is 86. As shown in

Page 50 of 125 table 12 (below), Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI clearly exceeds the figures quoted in the Guidelines with a site-index value of 159. The SSSI is regularly used by at least 40 breeding bird species typical of shingle beaches and saltmarshes, lowland damp grasslands, lowland open waters and their margins, and scrub (excluding heath).

Page 51 of 125 Table 12 Breeding birds of shingle beaches and saltmarshes, lowland damp grasslands, lowland open waters and their margins, and scrub (excluding heath) in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI Species Habitat assemblage score Locations where species regularly breed Total Shingle beaches Lowland damp Lowland open waters Scrub Dungeness Rye Pett Cheyne score and saltmarshes grasslands and their margins Harbour Level Court Mute swan Cygnus olor 3 3 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 6 Shelduck Tadorna tadorna 2 2 2 ✔ ✔ ✔ 6 Gadwall Anas strepera 4 4 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 8 Teal Anas crecca 3 3 ✔ ✔ 6 Garganey Anas querquedula 5 5 ✔ ✔ 10 Shoveler Anas clypeata 4 4 ✔ ✔ ✔ 8 Pochard Aythya ferina 4 ✔ 4 Tufted duck Aythya fuligula 3 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 3 Little grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis 2.5 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 2.5 Great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus 3 ✔ ✔ ✔ 3 Bittern Botaurus stellaris 5 ✔ 5 Marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus 5 5 ✔ 10 Water rail Rallus aquaticus 3 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 3 Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus 2 ✔ ✔ 2 Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta 4 ✔ ✔ 4 Little ringed plover Charadrius dubius 4 ✔ ✔ 4 Ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula 3 3 ✔ ✔ ✔ 6 Lapwing Vanellus vanellus 1 1 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 2 Redshank Tringa totanus 2 2 2 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 6 Black-headed gull Larus ridibundus 1 ✔ ✔ ✔ 1 Sandwich tern Sterna sandvicensis 2 ✔ 2 Common tern Sterna hirundo 3 3 ✔ ✔ ✔ 6 Little tern Sterna minima 3 ✔ 3 Turtle dove Streptopelia turtur 1.5 ✔ ✔ 1.5 Cuckoo Cuculus canorus 2 2 2 2 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 8 Long-eared owl Asio otus 3 ✔ ✔ 3 Kingfisher Alcedo atthis 3 ✔ 3 Yellow wagtail Motacilla flava 1 1 ✔ ✔ ✔ 2

Page 52 of 125 Species Habitat assemblage score Locations where species regularly breed Total Shingle beaches Lowland damp Lowland open waters Scrub Dungeness Rye Pett Cheyne score and saltmarshes grasslands and their margins Harbour Level Court Stonechat Saxicola torquata 2 2 ✔ 4 Wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe 2 ✔ ✔ 2 Cetti’s warbler Cettia cetti 4 ✔ ✔ ✔ 4 Sedge warbler 1 1 1 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 3 Acrocephalus schoenobaenus Reed warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus 2 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 2 Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla 1 ✔ 1 Lesser whitethroat Sylvia curruca 2 ✔ ✔ 2 Whitethroat Sylvia communis 2 ✔ ✔ 2 Bearded tit Panurus biarmicus 4 ✔ ✔ ✔ 4 Linnet Carduelis cannabina 1 1 ✔ ✔ 2 Reed bunting Emberiza schoeniclus 1 1 1 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 3 Corn bunting Emberiza calandra 2 ✔ ✔ 2 Total score: 159

Sources: Dungeness Bird Observatory Annual Reports 2000-2004; Breeding Birds of Rye Harbour Recording Area 2000-2004; P. Jones pers. comm., McMinn (2003; 2004; 2006); Percival (2002).

Page 53 of 125 2.9.2 Nationally important aggregations of breeding bird species In addition to the nationally important assemblage of breeding birds described in section 2.9.1 (above), the SSSI is also used by nationally important breeding numbers of 16 individual species of bird. The Guidelines (Chapter 14, section 3.1, p. 244) state that: ‘Localities which normally contain 1% or more of the total British breeding population of any native species…are eligible for selection.’ Table 13 (below) lists those species that regularly breed in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI in nationally important numbers (five year mean of at least 1% of the Great Britain breeding population). Table 13 Nationally important aggregations of breeding bird species in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI (five year means 2001 – 2005) Species Count % of GB population Gadwall Anas strepera 44 pairs 5.7% Garganey Anas querquedula 4 pairs 17.4%% Shoveler Anas clypeata 18 pairs 1.4% Pochard Aythya ferina 21 pairs 4.6% Tufted duck Aythya fuligula 152 pairs 2.0% Little grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis 94 pairs 1.3% Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 208 pairs 2.5% Water rail Rallus aquaticus 16 pairs 2.4% Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta 10 pairs 1.1% Mediterranean gull Larus melanocephalus 21 pairs 19.4% Black-headed gull Larus ridibundus 1,354 pairs 1.1% Sandwich tern Sterna sandvicensis 185 pairs 1.8% Common tern Sterna hirundo 245 pairs 2.4% Little tern Sterna minima 21 pairs 1.1% Cetti’s warbler Cettia cetti 12 pairs 1.9% Bearded tit Panurus biarmicus 19 pairs 3.6%

Sources: Dungeness Bird Observatory Annual Reports 2001-2004; Breeding Birds of Rye Harbour Recording Area 2001-2005; D. Walker pers. comm.; P. Jones pers. comm.; McMinn (2003; 2004; 2006). GB population estimates from Baker et al. (2006).

As is the case with the species that make up the breeding bird assemblage, some of these species are distributed widely in the SSSI but the majority are concentrated in the four main areas listed in section 2.9.1 (above), as shown by table 14 (below).

Page 54 of 125 Table 14 Distribution of breeding species that occur in nationally important numbers in the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI (five year means 2001 – 2005, except Cheyne Court for which data were only available for 2003-2004) Species Rye Harbour Pannel Valley Dungeness (mainly Cheyne LNR RSPB Reserve) Court Gadwall Anas strepera 1 16 25 2 Garganey Anas querquedula 0 2 2 0 Shoveler Anas clypeata 0 12 5 2 Pochard Aythya ferina 0 0 20 1 Tufted duck Aythya fuligula 13 31 109 1 Little grebe 8 8 77 2 Tachybaptus ruficollis Cormorant 1244 0 85 0 Phalacrocorax carbo Water rail Rallus aquaticus 1 5+ 11 4 Avocet 1 5 5 0 Recurvirostra avosetta Mediterranean gull 20 1 0 0 Larus melanocephalus Black-headed gull 870 428 56 0 Larus ridibundus Sandwich tern 185 0 0 0 Sterna sandvicensis Common tern 84 124 37 0 Sterna hirundo Little tern Sterna minima 21 0 0 0 Cetti’s warbler Cettia cetti 5 4 3 0 Bearded tit 0 6 3 10 Panurus biarmicus

Sources: Dungeness Bird Observatory Annual Reports 2001-2004; Breeding Birds of Rye Harbour Recording Area 2001-2005; D. Walker pers. comm., P. Jones pers. comm., McMinn (2003; 2004; 2006).

2.9.3 Assemblage of over 20,000 waterfowl in the non-breeding season The Guidelines (Chapter 14, section 2.2, p.243) state that: ‘Any site that meets the ornithological criteria of the ‘Ramsar’ Convention, notably the quantitative criteria for waterfowl, will also fall within these guidelines for SSSIs…’ Appendix A of Chapter 14 on pp.247-8 of the Guidelines outlines the quantitative criteria referred to for identifying wetlands of international importance as required by the UK Government under the Ramsar Convention. It states that: ‘A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 20,000 waterfowl’ (criterion 3a [now criterion 5]). Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI is regularly used by over 37,000 waterfowl (five year peak mean 1999/2000 – 2003/04) of more than 60 species during the non-breeding

4 Recent habitat management works at Rye Harbour LNR have significantly reduced the habitat available to nesting cormorants. The number of pairs breeding at Dungeness RSPB Reserve is in excess of 1% of the GB breeding population so the species is still of special interest irrespective of changes at Rye Harbour.

Page 55 of 125 season. This clearly demonstrates that the open waters, grazing marsh, reedbeds and intertidal habitats in the SSSI consistently support numbers of waterfowl in the non-breeding season that exceed the Ramsar site selection threshold, thus meeting the requirements of the Guidelines.

2.9.4 Passage and wintering species The Guidelines (Chapter 14, section 3.3, p.244) state that: ‘Localities which regularly contain 1% or more of the total British non-breeding population of any species at any season are also eligible. The main use of this guideline will be for wintering populations, but, where data are available, it can be applied also at other seasons (e.g. …passage concentrations)’. Numbers of wintering and passage birds are based on the five year peak means for 1999/2000 – 2003/4 unless otherwise stated. Definitions of the winter and passage periods follow those used by the Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS). For waders these are November to March inclusive for winter, April to June inclusive for spring passage, and July to October inclusive for autumn passage. For wildfowl, passage periods are not defined and winter is defined by WeBS as November to March inclusive. The Guidelines (Chapter 14, section 3.3, p.244) state that: ‘The best available current estimates for wintering populations are included in Appendix B and Table 27 [of the Guidelines].’ The Guidelines also make reference to the publication of updated figures for 1% levels in winter, and in a few cases, during passage, in the annual WeBS reports. In this case the most recently published (Baker et al., 2006) national wintering and passage population estimates have been used instead. Seventeen species of wintering birds regularly occur in nationally important numbers (exceeding 1% of the Great Britain wintering population) within Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI (see table 15, below). The two main locations for bitterns Botaurus stellaris in winter are Rye Harbour LNR and Dungeness RSPB Reserve, although the species is regularly reported at Pett Level and Cheyne Court, and there are occasional records from many wetland areas throughout the SSSI. Hen harriers Circus cyaneus disperse widely (including areas beyond the boundaries of the SSSI) to feed during the day. They are recorded as they arrive at communal evening roosts in regularly used traditional sites, typically reed beds. The most regularly used sites in the SSSI are the Midrips and the Wicks (in Lydd Ranges), Scotney Court, Cheyne Court and the Woolpack/Beaconsfield Fleet. Small numbers have also been recorded using occasional roost sites at South Brooks (Lydd Ranges), Oakhill Fleet, Lydd Airport, Fairfield and Pett Level. Mute swans Cygnus olor are not recorded in nationally important numbers by WeBS in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay. This is because the birds tend to arrive at their roost sites (mainly Rye Harbour LNR, Cheyne Court, Dungeness RSPB Reserve and the High Knock Sewer/Royal Military Canal near Stone Bridge) late in the day, at dusk, whilst WeBS counts typically take place in the morning. Mute swan counts have therefore been taken from surveys associated with the wind farm development at Cheyne Court during 2001/2 – 2003/4 (Innogy, 2004) and the personal observations of Brian Banks, English Nature (2004/5). These records are likely to represent an underestimate of the actual numbers using the SSSI because

Page 56 of 125 several feeding flocks have been excluded from the total as it was uncertain (although highly likely) that they were roosting within the SSSI. Wintering ruff Philomachus pugnax are also not recorded in nationally important numbers by WeBS. Additional data from the Kent and Sussex county bird reports, and the Dungeness Bird Observatory Annual Reports, show that the site is regularly used by nationally important numbers of wintering ruff. The species is widespread in the SSSI in winter but particularly high counts have been recorded from Dungeness RSPB Reserve, Cheyne Court, Rye Harbour LNR and Pett Level. The other 13 species that winter in nationally important numbers are waterfowl recorded by WeBS. Their distribution in the SSSI (amongst the WeBS count sectors) is shown in table 16 (below). The sectors supporting the largest numbers are Dungeness RSPB Reserve, with its extensive network of open waters and damp grasslands; the damp grassland habitats of Cheyne Court (within the Walland Marsh sector); Scotney Court Pit; the open waters, damp grasslands and intertidal habitats of Rye Harbour and Pett Level; and the extensive intertidal mud and sandflats of Lade Sands. The remaining sectors are smaller and support lower numbers of waterfowl. However, the boundaries between count sectors are often relatively arbitrary (from an ecological perspective) and the various wetland habitats across all the count sectors form a network of areas used by the nationally important numbers of waterfowl. Even individual sectors that support relatively low numbers make an important contribution to the total. Table 15 Five year peak means (1999/2000 – 2003/04, unless stated otherwise) for nationally important wintering species in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI Species Count % GB population Mute swan Cygnus olor 396 individuals 1.1% (2001/2 – 2004/5) Bewick’s swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii 127 individuals 1.6% European white-fronted goose 395 individuals 6.8% Anser albifrons albifrons Wigeon Anas penelope 4,433 individuals 1.1% Gadwall Anas strepera 278 individuals 1.6% Teal Anas crecca 1,946 individuals 1.0% Shoveler Anas clypeata 617 individuals 4.2% Pochard Aythya ferina 837 individuals 1.4% Little grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis 90 individuals 1.2% Great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus 955 individuals 6.0% Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 337 individuals 1.5% Bittern Botaurus stellaris 6 individuals 6.0% Hen harrier Circus cyaneus 12 individuals 1.6% (2001/2 – 2005/6) Coot Fulica atra 2,180 individuals 1.3% Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria 3,977 individuals 1.6% Ruff Philomachus pugnax 50 individuals 7.1% Sanderling Calidris alba 294 individuals 1.4%

Sources: WeBS; B. Yates in litt.; R. Norman in litt.; B. Banks pers. comm.; Innogy (2004); Kent Bird Report 2000; Dungeness Bird Observatory Report 2003; Sussex Bird Report 2004.

Page 57 of 125 Bewick’s swans Cygnus columbianus bewickii also use a small reservoir near Wheelsgate as a roost site in the late autumn and early winter (October to December) when water levels are often low at Cheyne Court, which is their favoured roost site later in the winter. The reservoir at Wheelsgate is not covered by WeBS but other counts (S. McMinn, unpublished data) show that it has supported a peak mean of 76 individuals during the period 2003 – 2005, representing 60% of the Bewick’s swans that winter in the SSSI.

Page 58 of 125 Table 16 Five year peak means5 for individual WeBS count sectors for each nationally important wintering waterbird species and total waterfowl (five year peak means 1999/2000 – 2003/04) in the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI Species Bretts Dungeness Fairfield Lade Lade Long Lydd West Rye Harbour Scotney Walland Whitehalls Pits6 RSPB Reserve Pit Sands Pits Gravel Pits & Pett Level Pit Marsh Gravel Pits Mute swan Cygnus olor 0 56 11 3 0 1 32 52 33 136 50 Bewick’s swan 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 124 0 Cygnus columbianus bewickii European white-fronted goose 0 60 0 0 0 0 2 0 227 229 0 Anser albifrons albifrons Wigeon Anas penelope 0 1,605 299 3 0 0 316 699 794 2110 143 Gadwall Anas strepera 1 121 25 13 0 1 2 95 14 83 0 Teal Anas crecca 0 841 182 11 4 1 7 379 19 870 4 Shoveler Anas clypeata 4 355 13 26 0 1 8 175 41 250 0 Pochard Aythya ferina 14 301 0 125 0 0 24 212 310 29 23 Little grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis 1 25 4 4 0 1 9 49 8 11 2 Great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus 4 30 0 12 8247 0 2 188 13 2 1 Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 17 209 2 7 0 0 1 114 38 9 1 Bittern Botaurus stellaris 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 Coot Fulica atra 55 667 11 170 0 40 83 754 544 185 57 Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria 0 520 456 0 0 0 0 928 700 2060 140 Ruff Philomachus pugnax 0 22 9 0 0 0 0 3 4 13 0 Sanderling Calidris alba 0 0 0 0 221 0 0 122 0 0 0 Total waterfowl 134 8,794 2,359 964 3,151 73 649 12,189 5,188 14,194 863 Sources: WeBS, B. Yates in litt.

5 The five year peak means for Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI are based on peak monthly counts for each species across the whole SSSI each winter. The peak monthly counts for the SSSI do not necessarily coincide with the peak monthly counts for each of the individual WeBS count sectors. Therefore, the sum of the five year peak means from each sector will often exceed the five year peak mean for the SSSI.

6 Discussions with the WeBS counter who covers the Bretts Pits sector have revealed that the totals include some species counted on farmland outside the official boundary of the count sector. The species in question are swans, geese, golden plover, lapwing, dunlin and ruff. These birds have not been subtracted from the totals recorded as using the SSSI as they are considered to form part of the assemblage that uses Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay and they are known to use roost sites within the SSSI, mainly in Dungeness RSPB Reserve. However, they have been removed from counts presented here to demonstrate the importance of the water bodies in the Bretts Pits sector.

7 The great crested grebes recorded off Lade Sands in winter will be mostly outside the SSSI boundary (offshore) at low tide. However, discussions with the WeBS counter have confirmed that they regularly occur close inshore over the intertidal area (within the SSSI) at high tide. This is not true of red-throated divers Gavia stellata which are usually further offshore and therefore not included as part of the special interest of the SSSI.

Page 59 of 125 Three species of bird occur on passage in nationally important numbers within Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI (see table 17, below). Common sandpipers Actitis hypoleucos occur widely in wetland habitats throughout the SSSI. Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus are counted at the Rye Harbour LNR roost site, although they use a range of wetland, grassland, intertidal and agricultural habitats (including some outside the SSSI boundary) for feeding during the day. Aquatic warblers Acrocephalus paludicola occur in the Pannel Valley on Pett Level, where they are recorded by bird ringers. Owing to its secretive nature it is likely that the species goes undetected in suitable habitat (reedbeds) elsewhere in the SSSI. Table 17 Nationally important passage species in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI Species Count and period % GB population Whimbrel 305 individuals – spring passage 8.6% Numenius phaeopus (five year peak mean 2001 – 2005) Common sandpiper 66 individuals – autumn passage 2.5% Actitis hypoleucos (five year peak mean 1999 – 2003) Aquatic warbler 3 individuals – autumn passage 9.0% Acrocephalus paludicola (five year mean 2001 – 2005)

Sources: WeBS; P. Jones in litt; B. Yates in litt.

2.10 Great crested newts Triturus cristatus The Guidelines (Chapter 15, section 3.1, p.265) state that: ‘…the natterjack toad and warty (great crested) newt are regarded as endangered and vulnerable respectively and have been given full protection through Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Site selection should take particular account of both species. Any breeding site of these species adjacent to an existing SSSI should be considered for inclusion in the SSSI…At a site where several breeding pools are utilised by amphibians, numbers of individuals should be summed to derive a total for the site…The site boundary should include suitable semi-natural terrestrial habitat where this occurs contiguous to or near the breeding site. Natterjacks require open terrestrial habitat, but the other species prefer structurally diverse mixtures of open, scrub and woodland habitats.’ The Guidelines (Chapter 15, section 3.2.2, p.266) further state that: ‘For the warty newt Triturus cristatus, all exceptional sites (those where a night count in the breeding season exceeds 100 individuals) are eligible. In order to confirm population stability and/or to overcome problems associated with variability between counts (due to changes in vegetation cover etc.), collection of data for three years is recommended for sites which are candidates for selection.’ Although the Guidelines recommend summing counts for individual ponds to reach a total count for a site, there is clearly a limit to how far apart ponds can be while still comprising a single site. Here the concept of metapopulations is more relevant, a concept that has been developed since the Guidelines were produced. A metapopulation is a group of associated populations. Great crested newt populations are centred on breeding ponds and can be considered to form a metapopulation when there is some interchange of newts between ponds, even though the ponds may be some distance apart. Dispersal and re-colonisation within a metapopulation gives great crested newts the

Page 60 of 125 ability to cope with changes in the quality of breeding habitat. If a pond deteriorates and becomes unsuitable for breeding due to siltation, colonisation by fish, shading from scrub, or drought, then dispersal from other breeding ponds can re-establish breeding if conditions again become suitable. The particular combination and distribution of aquatic and terrestrial habitats in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI provide exceptional breeding, foraging and hibernation conditions for great crested newts. The SSSI contains three metapopulations of great crested newts of which two are in the Dungeness area and one is at Romney Warren. The only direct evidence of movements of newts between the individual ponds at Dungeness that are considered to be used by each metapopulation concerns two instances where newly created ponds, 330m and 170m respectively from the nearest ponds supporting the species, were colonised by great crested newts. Furthermore, published capture/recapture studies have demonstrated movements of up to 1.3 km by individual great crested newts (Duff, 1989; Franklin, 1993; Kupfer & Kneitz, 2000; Langton et al., 2001). Movements of several hundred metres are regularly recorded for newts moving to high quality terrestrial habitats or dispersing to alternative breeding ponds. The distances between the ponds in each metapopulation are well within the above dispersal distances of individual newts. There are no particular barriers to the movements of great crested newts between the ponds that make up each cluster. The counts undertaken for individual ponds in the breeding season have therefore been combined to derive an overall total for each metapopulation in each year (see table 18, below). This figure exceeds the number of individuals stated in section 3.2.2 of Chapter 15 of the Guidelines in at least one season for all three of the metapopulations. A number of studies (Duff, 1989; Franklin, 1993; Kupfer & Kneitz, 2000; Langton et al., 2001) on the utilisation of terrestrial habitat by great crested newts have shown that the majority of adults usually stay within approximately 250 m of breeding ponds (although they may move much greater distances), dispersing through suitable habitat to forage and hibernate. A further conclusion from these studies is that great crested newts do not use all types of land in the vicinity of ponds equally but prefer grassland, scrub, woodland and hedgerows rather than land used for intensive agriculture. The ponds used by the two metapopulations in the Dungeness area sit within extensive areas of vegetated shingle, grassland, scrub and woodland that have been selected for their habitat and geomorphological interests. The ponds at Romney Warren are adjacent to areas of scrub, grassland and sand dune vegetation which have also been selected for their habitat and geomorphological interests. These areas incorporate sufficient suitable terrestrial habitat for foraging and hibernation by the great crested newts from each pond cluster. The two metapopulations of great crested newts in the Dungeness area are as follows:  West Ripe, Lydd Ranges. Although there is potentially suitable habitat between the RSPB Reserve and Lydd Ranges, the shortest distance between ponds known to be used by newts in each area is approximately 2 km. As this exceeds the highest recorded movements by adult great crested newts, the ponds on Lydd Ranges are best considered a separate metapopulation.  Dungeness RSPB Reserve and Lydd Airport. These two areas are separated by only approximately 800m at the closest point and the intervening habitat (mostly vegetated shingle) is suitable for adult great crested newts. The first thorough surveys of great crested newts at Dungeness were undertaken in 1995, following the discovery of large numbers of newts at Lydd Airport in 1994. To date, 117 ponds and ditches have been surveyed for the species and this large number of sites,

Page 61 of 125 combined with the difficulty of access by vehicle, has meant that only a sample of ponds have been surveyed in any one year. In 1995, 1999, 2002 and 2005 extensive surveys were undertaken at sites known to support large numbers of newts, and the results of these are shown in table 18 (below). In the intervening years, surveys have concentrated on other less well-known ponds to fill gaps in the known distribution of great crested newts at Dungeness. These counts should be treated as under estimates. In particular:  On the RSPB reserve eggs and adults have been found in the Open Pits, but no thorough surveys have been undertaken. The pit margins are thickly vegetated and the bases of the ponds consist of deep, unconsolidated peat that cannot be surveyed safely. Numbers here are likely to be large.  Several of the breeding sites were not known about in 1995 and only a limited range of the ponds were surveyed in 2005. The numbers have fluctuated quite widely, which is not unusual for this species. Reasons for these fluctuations are likely to include the following factors:  Increased numbers of ponds on Lydd Ranges since 1995, with infilling by bulrushes Typha sp. (now rectified) of the main pond making counts difficult in 2005.  Invasion of small ponds on the RSPB Reserve by common reed Phragmites australis, making night-time counts difficult.  Creation of new ponds in the north of the RSPB Reserve, resulting in a genuine increase in numbers by 2005.  Loss of open water due to reed invasion at Lydd Airport combined with an as yet unexplained reduction in numbers of adults in the main pond.  Invasion of some ponds by sticklebacks in 2001, a year in which there were unusually high water levels. Sticklebacks are known to have a drastic impact on great crested newt populations in many circumstances, and evidence suggests that adults breed preferentially in fish-free ponds. The flooded sand and gravel pits at Romney Warren support the third metapopulation and are an ideal great crested newt habitat, similar to those at Dungeness. Romney Warren has only been thoroughly surveyed for great crested newts twice, in 1999 and 2000, by the Romney Marsh Countryside Project. Romney Warren is separated from the Lydd Airport ponds by unsuitable (predominantly arable) habitat. In addition to the nationally important metapopulations of great crested newts at Dungeness and Romney Warren, there are also scattered populations within the SSSI across Walland Marsh and at Rye Harbour. No counts from these areas have exceeded 100 individuals. Table 18 Total numbers of great crested newts counted in each of three metapopulations in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI, 1994 – 2005 Metapopulation 1994 1995 1998/99 2000 2002 2005 Dungeness 1: Lydd Ranges NS 74 110 NS 285 99 Dungeness 2: RSPB Reserve & Lydd Airport 118 197 524 NS 388 343 Number of ponds surveyed at Dungeness 4 9 34 0 57 17 Romney Warren pits and golf course NS NS 103 280 NS NS

Sources: B. Banks unpublished. surveys; Nixon, 1999.

Page 62 of 125 The Guidelines (Chapter 15, section 3.2.4, p.266) state that: ‘If survey of an AOS reveals a large number of sites which qualify on grounds of warty newt counts…the [English Nature] specialist should be consulted for advice about which are to be selected.’ All of the metapopulations listed above that satisfy the Guidelines are within the Kent AOS. Apart from Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI, Peter’s Pit SSSI is currently the only other site in Kent that has been notified because it supports nationally important numbers of great crested newt. Counts from a total of 12 ponds at Peters Pit SSSI recorded 358 great crested newts in 2002, 401 in 2003 and 237 in 2004.

2.11 Invertebrates Invertebrates associated with coastal and wetland habitats are well represented across Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI. There are a number of substantial and important assemblages, which include a suite of nationally scarce and threatened (Red Data Book) invertebrate species. These include assemblages of thermophilic (warmth-loving) species linked to ‘dry’ coastal habitats, including shingle beaches, sand dunes and stabilised sand, and assemblages associated with wetland habitats, including saltmarsh, ditches, gravel pits, ponds and fens, reflecting the range of coastal and wetland habitats within Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI. In total, at least 271 nationally scarce, 75 Red Data Book (RDB) and 17 provisional Red Data Book (pRDB) species have been recorded from the SSSI since 1980 (see table 19, below).

2.11.1 Endemic species and subspecies With respect to the international aspects of conserving invertebrates in Great Britain, the Guidelines (Chapter 17, section 2.2, p.275) state that: ‘Currently…regarded as being of international importance…is the exceptional assemblage of invertebrates on coastal shingle at Dungeness (which includes some unique and distinctive subspecies).’ The Dungeness area supports an ‘endemic pool’ of species and subspecies that are not known from any other sites in the world. This includes the following endemic species and subspecies:  a leafhopper Aphrodes duffieldi – This leafhopper is provisionally listed as ‘insufficiently known’ (pRDBK) and is found on grasses. It is currently only recorded from Dungeness and is apparently endemic.  a grass-fly Polyodaspis sulcicollis – The biology of this small fly is currently imprecisely known but other members of the same family feed on a variety of grasses as stem borers. It is provisionally listed as endangered (pRDB1) and is only known from Dungeness, where it has been recorded on vegetated shingle.  pygmy footman moth Eilema pygmaeola – This rare (RDB3) moth has two subspecies in Britain. Subspecies pygmaeola is found on coastal sandhills in Kent and Norfolk, whilst subspecies pallifrons is only found on shingle at Dungeness. The larva is thought to feed on lichens.  grass eggar moth Lasiocampa trifolii – This nationally scarce species is provisionally listed as endangered (pRDB1). It occurs locally on coastal sand hills in the north-west and south-west of Britain, and flies at night in August and September, when it is

Page 63 of 125 attracted to light. The subspecies Lasiocampa trifolii flava (known as pale grass eggar) is only found at Dungeness.

2.11.2 Schedule 5 species The Guidelines (Chapter 17, section 3.4.4, p.277) state that: ‘All sites with populations of species listed in Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 qualify for consideration. The schedule is reviewed at five- yearly intervals in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and account should be taken of any additions or deletions.’ Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI supports nationally important populations of two species listed in Schedule 5 (as amended):

Medicinal leech Hirudo medicinalis The rare (RDB3) medicinal leech Hirudo medicinalis is Britain’s largest species of leech and was once very common within the British Isles and the rest of Europe. In the early part of the 19th century many millions were taken from the wild for use in phlebotomy (blood-letting) and this, combined with habitat loss due to changes in farm practices and draining of marshland, led to a rapid decline in Britain. At the start of the 20th century the medicinal leech was considered extinct in the British Isles. Since 1970 scattered populations have been found across Great Britain, with concentrations in Cumbria, Anglesey and the New Forest. The species was first confirmed at Dungeness in 1978, when it was recorded in Lade Pit, and it has subsequently been found at a wide range of localities between Dungeness and Rye. Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI is a stronghold for the medicinal leech in Great Britain. Medicinal leeches tend to occur in nutrient-rich waters with abundant water plants, and a high proportion of shallow water is also important. This is because shallows warm more rapidly, particularly if water plants are present to reduce circulation and mixing with deeper, colder water. Warm water is important for initiating leech activity, particularly breeding (Nixon, 1998). Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay includes a range of shallow, well-vegetated waterbodies that provide ideal conditions for medicinal leeches, including ponds, ditches and shallow areas in flooded gravel pits. The Romney Marsh Countryside Project (RMCP) surveyed medicinal leeches in the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay area in 1998 (Nixon, 1998), 1999 (Nixon, 1999), 2000 (McConnell, 2000) and 2001/02 (McConnell, 2002). The initial 1998/99 surveys found medicinal leeches in 81 of the 153 waterbodies surveyed, including 53 ditches (mostly in grazing marsh areas) and 23 gravel pits. The 2000-2002 surveys concentrated on monitoring a sample of 6-10 of the sites identified in the earlier surveys but also found leeches in an additional 11 sites. A subsequent RMCP survey (Leyshon & Tate, 2004) also recorded medicinal leeches in two waterbodies at Lydd Watersports. In 2005 medicinal leeches were found at Fairfield (Drake, 2005). In total, medicinal leeches have been recorded in around 100 waterbodies across the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay area. Key areas with the largest number of individuals recorded and the most waterbodies with records in apparently suitable habitat include Lade Pit, Lydd Airport, Dungeness RSPB Reserve, Rye Harbour LNR and East Guldeford Levels.

Page 64 of 125 Sussex emerald moth Thalera fimbrialis The endangered (RDB1) Sussex emerald moth Thalera fimbrialis is restricted as a British resident to Dungeness, where it was first noted in 1950. The main larval food plant is wild carrot Daucus carota, although the larvae use alternatives if this plant is unavailable. Larvae have been found feeding on common ragwort Senecio jacobaea and hoary ragwort Senecio crucifolius and all the early records (though none recently) were from yarrow Achillea millefolium. Surveys of the Sussex emerald have been carried out in 1991-93 (Kirby & Parsons, 1991 & 1992; Kirby et al., 1993), 1995 (Kirby, 1996), 2000-01 (Clancy, 2000 & 2001), and 2003-05 (Clancy, 2003, 2004 & 2005) and these showed that larval populations of the species occur mostly within and around the perimeter fence encircling Dungeness Nuclear Power Stations. Small numbers of larvae are also found north to Lydd-on-Sea, although the adult moths disperse further. The species typically occurs in areas of disturbed sandy shingle that provide ideal conditions for the larval food plants. There has been an increase in areas used outside the power stations’ perimeter but also abandonment of areas immediately west of Dungeness ‘B’ Nuclear Power Station, probably as a result of increased rabbit grazing of wild carrot in this area (Clancy, 2005).

2.11.3 Red Data Book species The Guidelines (Chapter 17, section 3.4.5, p.277) state that: ‘…any locality supporting the strongest population in Great Britain of a Red Data Book species should be regarded as a candidate site, together with localities within each AOS supporting strong populations of Red Data Book species…’ Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI supports ten Red Data Book species that are either the strongest population in Great Britain or for which the Kent AOS or East Sussex AOS support strong populations:  A spider Apostenus fuscus – Listed as endangered (RDB1), this 3mm long spider is known in Britain so far only from coastal shingle at Dungeness and Rye Harbour, despite the fact it is a woodland spider on the continent.  A jumping spider Pellenes tripunctatus – This species of jumping spider is listed as endangered (RDB1). It is found on sparsely vegetated shingle and the only recent records in Great Britain are from Dungeness and Chesil Beach (Dorset).  A jumping spider Euophrys browningi – This rare (RDB3) jumping spider is found in tide litter and in empty whelk shells on shingle banks. It occurs at Dungeness and Rye Harbour, and has also been found in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and north Kent.  A flea beetle cynoglossi – Listed as endangered (RDB1), this small (2-3mm) flea beetle is associated with red hemp-nettle Galeopsis angustifolia (which is itself listed as critically endangered). The species is recorded from vegetated shingle and dry grassland at Dungeness and Rye Harbour, which are its only recent locations in Great Britain.  A ground beetle Omophron limbatum – This endangered (RDB1) ground beetle lives in burrows in sand at the margins of freshwater, where it is active at dusk and at night. The species has been recorded from the margins of waterbodies at Dungeness and Rye Harbour. Except for recent records in Suffolk, it is not known from any other sites in Great Britain.

Page 65 of 125  A click beetle Melanotus punctolineatus – In Britain the rare (RDB3) click beetle Melanotus punctolineatus breeds in areas of sparsely vegetated coastal dune. The larvae feed on the roots of grasses, such as marram Ammophila arenaria, and are likely to be opportunistic predators on other invertebrates. This species has been recorded from Romney Warren, Greatstone Dunes and Camber Dunes. Over the 20th century all of the records for this species in Britain have been from the south coast of Kent between Littlestone-on-Sea and Sandwich.  Marsh mallow moth Hydroecia osseola hucherardi – This endangered (RDB1) species is restricted to two main population centres: one on the River Medway south of Rochester, Kent, where it is recorded from a 3 km stretch of the river; the other at Walland Marsh on the Kent/East Sussex Border (Clancy, 2003). The Walland Marsh population centre comprises three discrete colonies at Moneypenny Farm near Rye, Old Cheyne Court near Brookland, and Woodruff’s Farm, Fairfield. As its name suggests, the marsh mallow moth is associated with the nationally scarce marsh- mallow Althaea officinalis, which is the larval food plant. Marsh-mallow grows along ditches at Old Cheyne Court, Woodruff’s Farm and Moneypenny Farm, and also occurs in damp areas away from standing water at the last-named site (Clancy, 2003).  White-spot moth Hadena albimacula – The vulnerable (RDB2) white-spot is a moth of shingle beaches and chalk or limestone cliffs, the larvae feeding on the seed capsules of Nottingham catchfly Silene nutans. Single populations are known at Dungeness, near Gosport (Hampshire) and on the south coast of Devon.  A micro-moth Coleophora galbulipennella – Provisionally listed as endangered (pRDB1), this case-bearing micro-moth is associated with Nottingham catchfly. In Great Britain this species is only known from Dungeness, Rye Harbour and Hythe Ranges (East Kent), where it occurs in areas of vegetated shingle.  A micro-moth Ethmia terminella – This small black and white moth is provisionally listed as vulnerable (pRDB2). The larvae feed on the flowers and unripe seeds of viper’s-bugloss Echium vulgare. This species has only been reliably recorded from Kent and East Sussex, where it occurs on areas of vegetated shingle and stabilised sand at Dungeness and Rye Harbour.

2.11.4 Assemblages of Red Data Book and nationally scarce species The Guidelines (Chapter 17, section 3.4.1, p.276) state that: ‘The rarer and more threatened invertebrates, which typically have narrow and unusual habitat requirements, deserve special attention to ensure that their strongest populations are conserved. Highest priority should be given to species included in the Red Data Book categories ‘endangered’, ‘vulnerable’, ‘rare’ and ‘endemic’…’ The Guidelines (Chapter 17, section 3.4.2, p.276) also sate that: ‘Nationally scarce species, known or estimated to occur in 16-100 10 km grid squares in Britain…, should also be represented, where possible, in the SSSI series within each AOS where they occur. In practice, assemblages of nationally scarce species may be identified as of significance…’ With reference to both Red Data Book and nationally scarce species, the Guidelines (Chapter 17, sections 3.4.5 and 3.4.6, p.277) also state that these: ‘…should generally be conserved as part of rich invertebrate faunal assemblages’.

Page 66 of 125 The invertebrate fauna of the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay is extremely unusual in a UK context, comprising a range of assemblages of thermophilic (warmth-loving) and wetland species. Assemblages of invertebrates of ‘dry’ coastal habitats The ‘dry’ coastal habitats include the shingle beaches (bare shingle, disturbed areas and the full successional series of shingle vegetation through to woodland on shingle), sand dunes, stabilised sand and silt deposits arising from the gravel extraction industry, and dry grasslands. These habitats within the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI support a number of assemblages of Red Data Book and nationally scarce invertebrates (see table 19, below), and are especially important for thermophilic (warmth-loving species). Important areas for these assemblages include the extensive shingle beaches of Dungeness and Rye Harbour, sand dunes at Camber Sands, Romney Warren and Greatstone, and stabilised sands and silts around the gravel workings at Dungeness and Rye Harbour. Foremost amongst these assemblages is that associated with vegetated shingle, which includes a variety of species that are known largely or entirely from this locality. Some of this assemblage is thought to be endemic to Dungeness (see section 2.11.1, above). Sand dunes and dune grasslands are noteworthy for a range of bees, wasps and ants (Hymenoptera). The sand dunes share many features in common with some of the gravel workings in which fine sands and silts have been deposited to form banks and shallow edges. In drier areas of these stabilised sands, assemblages of solitary bees and wasps can be substantial, and in places are accompanied by nest parasites and typical sand dune species. In other areas, where fine open sandy material interfaces with open water, assemblages similar to those typical of dune slacks can be found. Assemblages associated with particular plants are also noteworthy, foremost of which are the moths and beetles whose larval stages feed on vipers’ bugloss Echium vulgare. Other noteworthy assemblages of this nature include those associated with yellow horned-poppy Glaucium flavum, the extensive population of dodder Cuscuta epithymum, and prostrate broom Cytisus scoparius ssp. maritimus, which has a distinctive fauna both as live plants and dead stems. The prototype Invertebrate Species-habitat Information System (ISIS)8 was used to examine the full lists of nationally scarce and RDB invertebrates recorded in ‘dry’ coastal habitats in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI. This analysis revealed that these habitats support a number of assemblages of invertebrates. These dry habitats are characterised in the main by an early successional coastal shingle and dune assemblage, although herb-rich neutral grassland and early successional calcareous are also represented. It must be noted that, as yet, shingle species have been difficult to separate from the coastal dune assemblage (many species seem to ‘share’ both biotopes) in ISIS and are currently included within it. Although ISIS is a prototype and the results must therefore be treated with caution, the analysis closely matches the outcomes that would be expected based on published information and specialist interpretation (as described in the preceding two paragraphs). The large total extent and complex juxtaposition of the shingle, sand dune, stabilised sand and silt deposits, and dry grasslands in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay means that these

8 English Nature plans to develop a habitat-based invertebrate assemblage classification system (the prototype is currently labelled as ISIS: Invertebrate Species-habitat Information System) for English terrestrial and freshwater invertebrate assemblages in order to provide a context for assessing the quality and condition of sites for nature conservation purposes (see Webb & Lott, 2006). As the system is a prototype under development, it has only been used here to assist in describing the assemblages and not specifically to assess their importance against the Guidelines.

Page 67 of 125 assemblages (occurring together in close proximity) are unique, not just in the Kent AOS and East Sussex AOS, but nationally. There are no other large vegetated shingle structures in the Kent AOS or East Sussex AOS, and no other dune systems in the East Sussex AOS.

Assemblages of wetland invertebrates Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI is permeated by a complex network of wetland habitats including saltmarsh, natural freshwater pits, fens, ponds, gravel pits, and grazing marsh and ditches. They support a number of assemblages of Red Data Book and nationally scarce invertebrates (see table 19, below). Important areas for these assemblages include the gravel pits, ditches and shingle wetlands at Dungeness and Rye Harbour, the grazing marsh and ditches of Walland Marsh, Dengemarsh and Pett Level, ponds throughout the site, and the saltmarshes of the River Rother. The freshwater wetlands (with the exception of the deep, cold and largely sterile open waters of the main gravel pits) exhibit a number of similar characteristics. Shallow open water and emergent vegetation, largely comprising common reed Phragmites australis and bulrush , supports a rich water beetle assemblage. Other noteworthy aspects of the invertebrate assemblage include a suite of reed beetles Donacia, snail-killing flies (Sciomyzidae) and soldier-flies (Stratiomyidae) that are typical of coastal marshes. Much of this assemblage is to be found within the ditch systems. The saline and brackish conditions of the saltmarsh, saline lagoons, brackish ditches and damp brackish hollows in the shingle beaches also share many characteristics in terms of the habitats they provide for invertebrates. The prototype ISIS (see above) was used to examine the full lists of nationally scarce and RDB wetland invertebrates recorded in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay. This analysis revealed that, when taken together, the wetland habitats support a number of assemblages of invertebrates, particularly assemblages of species chiefly associated with the following five types: rich fen, vegetated water margins, open water on disturbed mineral sediments, upper saltmarsh (including species associated with transitional saltmarsh, freshwater seepages over saltmarsh, brackish lagoons and brackish ditches) and, to a lesser extent, tussock fen with moss edges – an assemblage more normally associated with pingo systems. Taken individually, the ISIS Prototype shows that each of the broad wetland types supports invertebrate assemblages chiefly associated with the following specific wetland habitats:  Grazing marsh and ditches – includes all five high scoring assemblage types revealed by the analysis of all wetlands combined (see above).  Ponds score highly for vegetated water margins, rich fen and open water on disturbed mineral sediments.  Gravel pits score highly for vegetated water margins, rich fen and open water on disturbed mineral sediments but also include species representative of water’s edge habitats, such as riparian sand and damp silt. Although there is no riparian sand in the SSSI, it appears that situations where sand deposits arising from the gravel extraction industry occur at the margins of water bodies provide suitable habitat for species that are typically associated with riparian sand.  Fen and marsh scores highly for the rich fen assemblage only. In summary, the wetland areas of Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay provide suitable habitat for a number of important invertebrate assemblages. However, few of these assemblages are exclusive to any one wetland feature, which demonstrates the importance of

Page 68 of 125 the wide range and large extent of wetlands in the SSSI. The grazing marsh and ditches, ponds, and gravel pits provide suitable habitat for assemblages chiefly associated with rich fen, vegetated water margins and open water on disturbed mineral sediments, whereas the grazing marsh and ditches and saltmarsh are both very important for upper saltmarsh assemblages. The exceptions are:  The gravel pits have a number of assemblages normally associated with sediments disturbed by flowing water, such as riparian sand species and soft rock seepages (as described above, these two habitats do not occur in the SSSI but it appears that some of the water margins in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI provide suitable conditions for species typically associated with sediments disturbed by flowing water).  The grazing marsh and ditches includes an assemblage of species normally associated with tussock fen with moss edges. There are other areas with grazing marsh and ditches, ponds, gravel pits, fen and marsh, and saltmarsh within both the Kent AOS and East Sussex AOS. However, the large extent of these habitats and their particular combination and juxtaposition within the site is unique within both AOS. The exceptional richness of the wetland invertebrate assemblages in the SSSI is indicated in the conclusions of Drake (2004), who ranked grazing marshes on the basis of representation of nationally rare and nationally scarce species, the quality of the water beetle fauna, and fidelity scores (indicating closeness of association with grazing marsh) for uncommon species. Drake (2004) included three areas of grazing marsh in his analyses that fall within Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI. Walland Marsh and Rye Harbour were both given an overall ranking of national significance, placing them in the top 16 grazing marsh sites in Great Britain for grazing marsh invertebrates, whilst Pett Level was regionally significant and one of the top 45 sites. In 2005 (Drake, 2005), invertebrate surveys were carried in four areas of Walland Marsh (Snargate, Fairfield, Cheyne Court and Broomhill Level. These confirmed the earlier conclusions of Drake (2004) as the water beetle fauna of Cheyne Court was found to be outstanding, whilst the area as a whole was considered exceptionally species-rich for water beetles.

Page 69 of 125 Table 19 Red Data Book and nationally scarce invertebrates and the broad habitat types where they have been recorded in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI Species Status Shingle Dry Woodland Sand Stabilised Margins Shallow Fens Grazing Salt- grass- on shingle dunes sand of water- water- marsh/ marsh land deposits bodies bodies9 ditches Annelida Hirudo medicinalis RDB3 ✓ ✓ Aranae Apostenus fuscus RDB1 ✓ Pellenes tripunctatus RDB1 ✓ Trichoncus affinis RDB2 ✓ Trichopterna cito RDB2 ✓ Euophrys browningi RDB3 ✓ Lathys stigmatisata RDB3 ✓ ✓ Phlegra fasciata RDB3 ✓ Synageles venator NA ✓ Aelurillus v-insignitus NB ✓ Agrenna patula NB ✓ Attulus saltator NB ✓ Ceratinopsis romana NB ✓ Crustulina stricta NB ✓ Dactylochelifer latreillei NB ✓ Micrargus laudatus NB ✓ Pardosa arenicola NB ✓ Philodromus fallax NB ✓ Chilopoda Lithobius calcaratus N ✓ Coleoptera Dibolia cynoglossi RDB1 ✓ ✓ Omophron limbatum RDB1 ✓

9 Shallow waterbodies include ponds and the shallower areas of flooded gravel pits. They show similarities with ditches in the opportunities they provide for invertebrates.

Page 70 of 125 Species Status Shingle Dry Woodland Sand Stabilised Margins Shallow Fens Grazing Salt- grass- on shingle dunes sand of water- water- marsh/ marsh land deposits bodies bodies9 ditches Bagous cylindrus RDB2 ✓ ✓ Dyschirius obscurus RDB2 ✓ Xyletinus longitarsis RDB2 ✓ Bledius occidentalis RDB3 ✓ Dromius vectensis RDB3 ✓ Dryophilus anobioides RDB3 ✓ Dyschirius angustatus RDB3 ✓ Dytiscus dimidiatus RDB3 ✓ ✓ Enochrus isotae RDB3 ✓ Graptodytes bilineatus RDB3 ✓ Haliplus variegatus RDB3 ✓ Heterocerus hispidulus RDB3 ✓ carinatus RDB3 ✓ Hydrochus elongatus RDB3 ✓ Hydrochus ignicollis RDB3 ✓ Hydrophilus piceus RDB3 ✓ ✓ Hypocaccus metallicus RDB3 ✓ Melanotus punctolineatus RDB3 ✓ Ptinus lichenum RDB3 ✓ Scirtes orbicularis RDB3 ✓ Smicronyx coecus RDB3 ✓ Telmatophilus brevicollis RDB3 ✓ ✓ Badister meridionalis RDBI ✓ Lathrobium rufonitidum RDBI ✓ Hister quadrimaculatus RDBK ✓ ✓ Isochnus populicola RDBK ✓ Nebrioporus canaliculatus RDBK ✓ ✓ Neobisnius procerulus RDBK ✓ Ocyusa nigrata RDBK ✓ ✓ Telmatophilus schoenherri RDBK ✓

Page 71 of 125 Species Status Shingle Dry Woodland Sand Stabilised Margins Shallow Fens Grazing Salt- grass- on shingle dunes sand of water- water- marsh/ marsh land deposits bodies bodies9 ditches Badister collaris pRDB1 ✓ Cantharis fusca pRDB3 ✓ Ethelcus verrucatus pRDB3 ✓ Acupalpus maculatus pRDBK ✓ ✓ Hydrovatus cuspidatus pRDBK ✓ Apion affine NA ✓ Aspidapion soror NA ✓ Badister peltatus NA ✓ Bagous subcarinatus NA ✓ ✓ Bembidion ephippium NA ✓ ✓ Bembidion semipunctatum NA ✓ Bradycellus distinctus NA ✓ Cassida hemisphaerica NA ✓ Ceutorhynchus euphorbiae NA ✓ Ceutorhynchus pumilio NA ✓ Ceutorhyncus verrucatus NA ✓ Coelambus novemlineatus NA ✓ Cryptolestes spartii NA ✓ Enochrus halophilus NA ✓ Gyrinus paykulli NA ✓ ✓ alternans NA ✓ ✓ Hydrovatus clypealis NA ✓ Hygrotus nigrolineatus NA ✓ Licinus punctatulus NA ✓ Longitarsus ganglbaueri NA ✓ Masoreus vetterhalli NA ✓ Ocypus nero NA ✓ Perapion affine NA ✓ Platynaspis luteorubra NA ✓ Protapion schoenherri NA ✓

Page 72 of 125 Species Status Shingle Dry Woodland Sand Stabilised Margins Shallow Fens Grazing Salt- grass- on shingle dunes sand of water- water- marsh/ marsh land deposits bodies bodies9 ditches Pterostichus longicollis NA ✓ Stenolophus skrimshiranus NA ✓ ✓ Tachys micros NA ✓ Tachys scutellaris NA ✓ Tychius parallelus NA ✓ Tychius tibialis NA ✓ ✓ Agabus conspersus NB ✓ ✓ Agabus labiatus NB ✓ Amara lucida NB ✓ Anacaena bipustulata NB ✓ ✓ Apion urticarium NB ✓ Badister dilatatus NB ✓ Badister unipustulatus NB ✓ Bagous limosus NB ✓ ✓ Bembidion fumigatum NB ✓ Bembidion pallidipenne NB ✓ ✓ ✓ Bembidion quadripustulatum NB ✓ Bembidion stephensi NB ✓ ✓ ✓ Berosus affinis NB ✓ ✓ Berosus luridus NB ✓ Berosus signaticollis NB ✓ Brachinus crepitans NB ✓ Cassida nobilis NB ✓ ✓ ✓ Catapion pubescens NB ✓ Cercyon bifenestratus NB ✓ Cercyon sternalis NB ✓ ✓ Cercyon tristis NB ✓ Cercyon ustulatus NB ✓ Ceutorhynchus geographicus NB ✓ Chaetarthria seminulum NB ✓

Page 73 of 125 Species Status Shingle Dry Woodland Sand Stabilised Margins Shallow Fens Grazing Salt- grass- on shingle dunes sand of water- water- marsh/ marsh land deposits bodies bodies9 ditches Chlaenius nigricornis NB ✓ Coccidula scutellata NB ✓ ✓ Crypticus quisquilius NB ✓ Cypha pulicaria NB Demetrias imperialis NB ✓ ✓ ✓ Dicheirotrichus obsoletus NB ✓ Donacia cinerea NB ✓ Donacia thalassina NB ✓ Dytiscus circumflexus NB ✓ ✓ Enochrus bicolor NB ✓ Enochrus coarctatus NB ✓ ✓ Enochrus melanocephalus NB ✓ ✓ Eubrychius velutus NB ✓ Gabrius keysianus NB ✓ Gronops lunatus NB ✓ ✓ Gyrinus paykulli NB ✓ ✓ Haliplus apicalis NB ✓ ✓ Helochares lividus NB ✓ ✓ Helophorus fulgidicollis NB ✓ Hydaticus seminiger NB ✓ Hydraena testacea NB ✓ ✓ Hydroglyphus pusillus NB ✓ Hydronomus alismatis NB ✓ ✓ Hygrotus decoratus NB ✓ Hygrotus parallelogrammus NB ✓ ✓ Ilybius fenestratus NB ✓ ✓ Ilyobates subopacus NB ✓ Limnebius nitidus NB ✓ ✓ Limnoxenus niger NB ✓ ✓ Litodactylus leucogaster NB ✓

Page 74 of 125 Species Status Shingle Dry Woodland Sand Stabilised Margins Shallow Fens Grazing Salt- grass- on shingle dunes sand of water- water- marsh/ marsh land deposits bodies bodies9 ditches Malachius marginellus NB ✓ Mantura rustica NB ✓ Mycetoporus baudueri NB ✓ Mycetoporus longicornis NB ✓ Nebrioporus depressus NB ✓ ✓ ✓ Noterus crassicornis NB ✓ ✓ Ochthebius bicolon NB ✓ Ochthebius marinus NB ✓ ✓ ✓ Ochthebius nanus NB ✓ Ochthebius punctatus NB ✓ Ochthebius viridis NB ✓ Odacantha melanura NB ✓ ✓ ✓ Olibrus affinis NB ✓ ✓ Opatrum sabulosum NB ✓ Orthocerus clavicornis NB ✓ Orthochaetes setiger NB ✓ Oxypoda exoleta NB ✓ Paederus fuscipes NB ✓ Panagaeus bipustulatus NB ✓ Pelenomus canaliculatus NB ✓ ✓ Peltodytes caesus NB ✓ Philonthus fumarius NB ✓ Phytobius leucogaster NB ✓ ✓ Pogonus littoralis NB ✓ Porhydrus lineatus NB ✓ Protapion difforme NB ✓ Protapion dissimile NB ✓ Pselactus spadix NB ✓ Pterostichus anthracinus NB ✓ Pterostichus macer NB ✓

Page 75 of 125 Species Status Shingle Dry Woodland Sand Stabilised Margins Shallow Fens Grazing Salt- grass- on shingle dunes sand of water- water- marsh/ marsh land deposits bodies bodies9 ditches Quedius pallipes NB ✓ Rhantus frontalis NB ✓ Rhantus grapii NB ✓ ✓ Rhantus suturalis NB ✓ ✓ Silpha tristis NB ✓ Sitona cambricus NB ✓ ✓ Smicronyx jungermanniae NB ✓ Staphylinus dimidiaticornis NB ✓ Stenolophus teutonus NB ✓ Stenus butrintensis NB ✓ Tachys bistriatus NB ✓ Trechus fulvus NB ✓ Trichosirocalus barnevillei NB ✓ Tychius pusillus NB ✓ ✓ Diptera Metopomyza ornata RDB1 ✓ Paroxyna lhommei RDB1 ✓ Anagnota collini RDB2 ✓ ✓ Erioptera bivittata RDB2 ✓ Lejops vitattus RDB2 ✓ ✓ Nephrotoma aculeata RDB2 ✓ Odontomyia ornata RDB2 ✓ ✓ Minettia flaviventris RDB3 ✓ ✓ Myopites eximius RDB3 ✓ Myopites inulaedyssentericae RDB3 ✓ Pherbellia grisescens RDB3 ✓ Poecilobothrus ducalis RDB3 ✓ Stratiomys longicornis RDB3 ✓ Terellia winthemi RDB3 ✓ Polyodaspis sulcicollis pRDB1 ✓

Page 76 of 125 Species Status Shingle Dry Woodland Sand Stabilised Margins Shallow Fens Grazing Salt- grass- on shingle dunes sand of water- water- marsh/ marsh land deposits bodies bodies9 ditches Tachydromia terricola pRDBK ✓ Thereva cinifera pRDBK ✓ ✓ Anagnota bicolor NB ✓ ✓ Anasimyia contracta NB ✓ Anthomyza bifasciata NB ✓ Colobaea punctata NB ✓ Dolichopus arbustorum NB ✓ Dolichopus signifer NB ✓ Eribolus slesvicensis NB ✓ Homoneura patelliformis NB ✓ Homoneura tesquae NB ✓ Lejogaster splendida NB ✓ Lispe loewi NB ✓ Neoascia interrupta NB ✓ ✓ Paroxyna absinthii NB ✓ Phthiria pulicaria NB ✓ ✓ Pipizella virens NB ✓ ✓ ✓ Platypalpus articulatus NB ✓ ✓ ✓ Rhamphomyia caliginosa NB ✓ Bombylius discolor N ✓ Chersodromia alata N ✓ Colobaea bifasciella N ✓ ✓ Lejogaster tarsata N ✓ Merzomyia westermanni N ✓ Nemotelus nigrinus N ✓ Odontomyia tigrina N ✓ ✓ Oplodontha viridula N ✓ Pherbellia dorsata N ✓ ✓ Stratiomys singularior N ✓ Thereva plebeia N ✓

Page 77 of 125 Species Status Shingle Dry Woodland Sand Stabilised Margins Shallow Fens Grazing Salt- grass- on shingle dunes sand of water- water- marsh/ marsh land deposits bodies bodies9 ditches Tropidia scita N ✓ Vanoyia tenuicornis N ✓ Hemiptera Pilophorus confusus RDB1 ✓ Monosynamma maritima RDB3 ✓ Monosynamma bohemanni RDB3 ✓ Aphrodes duffieldi RDBK ✓ Aphanus rolandri NA ✓ Saldula arenicola NA ✓ Aphrodes aestuarinus NB ✓ Berytinus hirticornis NB ✓ Cixius remotus NB ✓ Dictyonota fuliginosa NB ✓ Hebrus pusillus NB ✓ Megalonotus praetextatus NB ✓ Megalonotus sabulicola NB ✓ Monosynamma sabulicola NB ✓ Odontoscelis lineola NB ✓ Pilophorus clavatus NB ✓ Ribautodelphax angulosus NB ✓ Saldula opacula NB ✓ Sigara striata NB ✓ ✓ Stenodema trispinosum NB ✓ Trigonotylus psammaecolor NB ✓ ✓ Tropistethus holosericeus NB ✓ Ulopa trivia NB ✓ Hymenoptera Evagetes pectinipes RDB1 ✓ Passaloecus clypealis RDB2 ✓ ✓ Philanthus triangulum RDB2 ✓

Page 78 of 125 Species Status Shingle Dry Woodland Sand Stabilised Margins Shallow Fens Grazing Salt- grass- on shingle dunes sand of water- water- marsh/ marsh land deposits bodies bodies9 ditches Diodontus insidiosus RDB3 ✓ Hylaeus euryscapus RDB3 ✓ ✓ Myrmica specioides RDB3 ✓ ✓ ✓ Temnothorax interruptus RDB3 ✓ ✓ ✓ Anergates atratulus RDBK ✓ Metallus pumilus pRDB3 ✓ Andrena fulvago NA ✓ Andrena tibialis NA ✓ Colletes halophilus NA ✓ Colletes marginatus NA ✓ ✓ Nomada fucata NA ✓ Temnothorax albipennis NA ✓ ✓ ✓ Bombus ruderatus NB ✓ ✓ Bombus rupestris NB ✓ ✓ ✓ Dasypoda altercator NB ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Dryudella pinguis NB ✓ Hylaeus pictipes NB ✓ ✓ Lasioglossum malachurum NB ✓ Lasioglossum puncticolle NB ✓ Megachile leachella NB ✓ Microdynerus exilis NB ✓ Myrmica schencki NB ✓ ✓ Nomada flavopicta NB ✓ Osmia aurulenta NB ✓ ✓ ✓ Ponera coarctata NB ✓ Smicromyrme rufipes NB ✓ Tapinoma erraticum NB ✓ Anthophora bimaculata NB ✓ Isopoda NB Miktoniscus patiencei NB ✓

Page 79 of 125 Species Status Shingle Dry Woodland Sand Stabilised Margins Shallow Fens Grazing Salt- grass- on shingle dunes sand of water- water- marsh/ marsh land deposits bodies bodies9 ditches Trichoniscoides albidus NB ✓ Eilema pygmaeola pallifrons RDB1 ✓ ✓ Hydraecia osseola hucherardi RDB1 ✓ Thalera fimbrialis RDB1 ✓ balteolella RDB1 ✓ ✓ Hadena albimacula RDB2 ✓ Calophasia lunula RDB3 ✓ Nytegretis lineana RDB3 ✓ singula RDBK ✓ permutana pRDB3 ✓ zelleri pRDB3 ✓ ✓ Coleophora galbulipennella pRDB1 ✓ ✓ Cynaeda dentalis pRDB3 ✓ Ethmia bipunctella pRDB2 ✓ ✓ Ethmia terminella pRDB2 ✓ ✓ Neofriseria peliella pRDBI ✓ Platytes alpinella pRDB3 ✓ ✓ ✓ Lasiocampa trifolii flava NA ✓ Pempelia genistella NA ✓ Phibalapteryx virgata NA ✓ Senta flammea NA ✓ Setina irrorella NA Aethes margartana NB ✓ nanatella NB ✓ ✓ Agriphila latistria NB ✓ Agrotis cinerea NB ✓ Agrotis ripae NB ✓ Anania verbascalis NB ✓ Apamea oblonga NB ✓ ✓ australis NB ✓ ✓

Page 80 of 125 Species Status Shingle Dry Woodland Sand Stabilised Margins Shallow Fens Grazing Salt- grass- on shingle dunes sand of water- water- marsh/ marsh land deposits bodies bodies9 ditches Archanara sparganii NB ✓ Archiearis notha NB ✓ Bactra robustana NB ✓ Calamotropha paludella NB ✓ ✓ Capperia britanniodactyla NB ✓ vicinella NB ✓ Chilodes maritimus NB ✓ ✓ Chortodes fluxa NB ✓ ✓ Cochylimorpha alternana NB ✓ Cossus cossus NB ✓ Crombrugghia distans NB ✓ ✓ Cucullia asteris NB ✓ Dahlica lichenella NB ✓ Daschira fascelina NB10 ✓ Dolicharthria punctalis NB ✓ ✓ Earias clorana NB ✓ Enicostoma lobella NB ✓ Ennomos autumnaria NB ✓ Eudonia lineola NB ✓ Eulamprotes wilkella NB ✓ Eupithecia insigniata NB ✓ Eupithecia millefoliata NB ✓ ✓ Machrochilo cribrumalis NB ✓ Meganola albula NB ✓ ✓ Monochroa palustrella NB ✓ Mythimna favicolor NB ✓ Mythimna l-album NB ✓ ✓ Mythimna litoralis NB ✓

10 Now considered to be ‘local’ (too widespread to be classified as nationally scarce) but Dungeness supports a different form to elsewhere.

Page 81 of 125 Species Status Shingle Dry Woodland Sand Stabilised Margins Shallow Fens Grazing Salt- grass- on shingle dunes sand of water- water- marsh/ marsh land deposits bodies bodies9 ditches Mythimna obsoleta NB ✓ Ochropleura praecox NB ✓ Oncocera semirubella NB ✓ ✓ Oxyptilus distans NB ✓ ✓ Parascotia fuliginaria NB ✓ Pediasia aridella NB ✓ Pediasia contaminella NB ✓ Phalonidia permixtana NB ✓ Schoenobius gigantella NB ✓ ✓ Scopula emutaria NB ✓ Sideridis albicolon NB ✓ ✓ albovenosa NB ✓ ✓ ✓ Spilosoma urticae NB ✓ ✓ Synaphe punctalis NB ✓ ✓ ✓ Whittleia retiella NB ✓ Ancylosis oblitella N ✓ Caryocolum alsinella N ✓ Scrobipalpa ocellatella N ✓ Scrobipalpa suaedella N ✓ Sitochroa palealis N ✓ Mollusca Pisidium pseudosphaerium RDB3 ✓ Odonata Brachytron pratense NB ✓ ✓ Coenagrion pulchellum NB ✓ ✓ Sympetrum sanguineum NB ✓ ✓ Orthoptera & allies Conocephalus discolor NA ✓ ✓ Tetrix ceperoi NA ✓ ✓ Platycleis albopunctata NB ✓

Page 82 of 125 Species Status Shingle Dry Woodland Sand Stabilised Margins Shallow Fens Grazing Salt- grass- on shingle dunes sand of water- water- marsh/ marsh land deposits bodies bodies9 ditches Ectobius panzeri NB ✓ Platycleis albopunctata NB ✓

Sources: See section 1 (above) Definitions of species status:  RDB1 – Red Data Book Category 1 – Endangered – Taxa in danger of extinction in Great Britain and whose survival is unlikely if the causal factors continue operating.  RDB2 – Red Data Book Category 2 – Vulnerable – Taxa believed likely to move into the endangered category in the near future if the causal factors continue operating.  RDB3 – Red Data Book Category 3 – Rare – Taxa with small populations in Great Britain that are not at present endangered or vulnerable, but are at risk.  RDBI – Red Data Book Category I – Indeterminate – Taxa considered to be endangered, vulnerable or rare, but where there is not enough information to say which of the three categories is appropriate.  RDBK – Red Data Book Category K – Insufficiently known – Taxa that are suspected, but not definitely known, to belong to any of the above categories, because of lack of information.  pRDB(x) – Provisional Red Data Book – The prefix ‘p’ before any Red Data Book category implies that the grading is provisional. In the majority of cases this means that the species’ status has been reconsidered and changed in a Species Group Review produced subsequent to the publication of the relevant Red Data Book. The statuses so given are described as provisional, pending the publication of a future edition of that Red Data Book.  NA – Nationally Scarce (Notable) Category A – Taxa which do not fall within RDB categories but which are nonetheless uncommon in Great Britain and thought to occur in 30 or fewer 10 km squares of the National Grid or, for less well recorded groups, within seven or fewer Vice Counties.  NB – Nationally Scarce (Notable) Category B – Taxa which do not fall within RDB categories but which are nonetheless uncommon in Great Britain and thought to occur in between 31 and 100 10 km squares of the National Grid or, for less well recorded groups, within between eight and 20 Vice Counties.  N – Nationally Scarce (Notable) – Species which are estimated to occur in 16 to 100 10 km squares in Great Britain. The subdividing of this category into Nationally Scarce A and Nationally Scarce B has not been attempted for some species because of either the degree of recording that has been carried out in the group to which the species belongs, or because there is some other reason why it is not sensible to be so exact.

Page 83 of 125 3. Explanation of why parts of the previously notified SSSIs are not considered to be of special interest This section explains why English Nature is of the opinion that parts of the previously notified SSSIs are not of special interest, according to the Guidelines for the denotification of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (English Nature, 2005), hereafter referred to as the ‘Denotification Guidelines’. The Denotification Guidelines (section 3.1, p.5) state that: ‘English Nature will adopt a precautionary approach to the question of the existence of special interest in cases where denotification is under consideration and in doing so will apply a set of guiding principles to assess whether a site (or part of a site) is any longer of special interest; these are: i. Whether the interest meets the requirements of the Guidelines for selection of biological SSSIs and or the Geological Conservation Review. ii. If restoration of the special interest is possible or practicable. iii. Where the special interest has moved entirely outside the site, but remains adjacent or in close proximity, the site will not be denotified until the land now containing the special interest is notified. iv Where there is some prospect that natural processes may return the special interest within a reasonable time, the site is unlikely to be denotified. v. Where cartographical errors were included within the site. vi. A change of special interest from that for which it was originally notified, or a change that will lead to a new special interest, will not usually be a reason for denotification.’ Small areas of land that are not considered to be of special interest have been included in the previously notified SSSIs as a result of historic cartographical errors in 36 locations. Five of these are in Dungeness SSSI (as last notified in 1992), seven are in Rye Harbour SSSI (as last notified in 1988) and 24 are in Walland Marsh SSSI (as last notified in 1986). The precise locations and descriptions of each area are provided in table 20 below. Table 20 Historic cartographical errors in the previously notified SSSIs Previously National grid Description notified SSSI reference Dungeness TR08242195 Metalled car park opposite the public house at 140 The Parade, Greatstone. Dungeness TR08042142 Numbers 24 and 26 Channon Road, Greatstone, and their gardens. Dungeness TR08711867 The extreme north-west corner of the plot of ‘Pebbles’, Dungeness Road, Lydd-on-Sea. Dungeness TR08741850 The western end of the gardens of Coastguard Cottages, south- west of the Old Battery, Lydd-on-Sea. Dungeness TR08761846 The extreme south-west corner of the plot of ‘West View’, immediately south-west of Coastguard Cottages, Lydd-on-Sea. Rye Harbour TQ91991985- The track that runs east from Rye Harbour Road, Rye, towards TQ92711955 Rye Industrial Park. Rye Harbour TQ93201933 The car park and storage area south of the depot. Rye Harbour TQ93501897 The south-east corner of the plot around the buildings at Davis Land, and the building immediately to the south.

Page 84 of 125 Previously National grid Description notified SSSI reference Rye Harbour TQ93581891 The southern end of the bare concrete hardstand area immediately south-east of Davis land. Rye Harbour TQ93881893 The track and the land between the track and number 32 Lucas Shadwell Way, Rye Harbour. Rye Harbour TQ93131785 The track adjacent to the farm buildings east of the northern end of Nook Beach gravel pit. Rye Harbour TQ91781777 The extreme northern end of the plot around River Brede Farm. Walland Marsh TQ98543166- The track-bed of the railway where it crosses the grazing marsh in TQ98813204 the northern end of the Dowels. Walland Marsh TQ98013125- The metalled surface of the road that crosses the grazing marsh in TQ97883137 the Dowels between Horse Bridge and the Royal Military Canal. Walland Marsh TQ97602982- The track-bed of the railway where it crosses the grazing marsh in TQ98123084 the Dowels between Appledore Station and Speringbrook Sewer. Walland Marsh TQ98282960 The northern end of the plot at ‘Mock Mill’ in the grazing marsh of the Dowels, including tracks buildings and storage areas. Walland Marsh TQ98102951 The buildings, tracks and storage areas adjacent to ‘Hill View’ at the northern end of the grazing marsh in Snargate. Walland Marsh TQ97462951- The track-bed of the railway where it crosses the grazing marsh in TQ97992844 Snargate, from the junction south of Appledore to Five Watering Sewer. Walland Marsh TQ97232907- The track-bed of the railway where it crosses the grazing marsh in TQ96952853 Snargate, between Appledore Sewer and the drain that forms the southern boundary of the Snargate ‘block’ of the SSSI. Walland Marsh TQ96802896- West of the railway at the south-west corner of the Snargate TQ97092909 ‘block’, Walland Marsh SSSI includes a strip of land north of the Appledore Sewer. Between the railway and the third drain that runs north from Appledore Sewer, this strip is not marked at its northern edge, and it does not follow any mapped feature. A small sliver is proposed for denotification, so that the northern boundary will follow straight lines drawn between points 25 metres north along each drain from the centre of the Appledore Sewer. At its narrowest point, the resulting strip provides a 15 metre ‘buffer’ to the Appledore Sewer. Walland Marsh TQ94622649- The eastern verge of Military Road (adjacent to the Royal TQ93872497 Military Canal), from Stone Bridge in the north to near where the Newknock Channel meets Military Road in the south. Walland Marsh TQ93642446 ‘Lock Cottage’ at Iden Lock, and its garden. Walland Marsh TQ93682447- The track on the eastern bank of the Royal Military Canal at Iden TQ93662435 Lock. Walland Marsh TQ94442329 The southern end of an arable field, which contains no known special interest. Walland Marsh TQ94532344- The track-bed of the railway adjacent to the arable field TQ94132266 (described above) and south to Star Crossing on the A259. Walland Marsh TQ94232276 The gardens, tracks and buildings at, and immediately to the north of, ‘Kates Cottage’ and ‘Shepherds’. Walland Marsh TQ93892228- The track-bed of the railway where it crosses East Guldeford TQ92572097 Level, from south of Brook’s Bridge to the eastern outskirts of Rye. Walland Marsh TQ93522176 The buildings, tracks and storage areas around Sheep Farm, East Guldeford. Walland Marsh TQ93422153 Church Farm Cottage, East Guldeford, and its garden. Walland Marsh TQ93682156 St Mary’s Church and churchyard, East Guldeford.

Page 85 of 125 Previously National grid Description notified SSSI reference Walland Marsh TQ93832116 Hoppets Farm, East Guldeford, and its garden. Walland Marsh TQ94012103 ‘Folly Wall’, East Guldeford, and its garden. Walland Marsh TQ94342107 The buildings and farmyard at Moneypenny Farm, East Guldeford. Walland Marsh TQ94852079 The buildings at Black House Farm, East Guldeford Walland Marsh TQ94822085 Black House Farm Cottages, East Guldeford. Walland Marsh TQ96682146 The buildings and plot at the south-east corner of Barn farm, adjacent to the Kent Ditch, East Guldeford Level.

The Denotification Guidelines (section 3.3, p.6) state that: ‘…developments or other activities, which may damage features of interest of SSSIs, may after careful consideration be justified and can be legally permitted. This may result in permanently covering over, removing or otherwise destroying the site or part of the site. Activities which result in permanent loss or damage of the features of special interest may be authorised under legislation such as the Town and Country Planning Act 1990… Denotification of the site will not, however, be considered in this context until after the interest of the site has been irreversibly lost, through the implementation of the permission in full.’ Two areas previously notified as parts of Dungeness SSSI (as notified in 1992), and one area previously notified as part of Rye Harbour SSSI (as notified in 1988), are not considered to be of special interest following the full implementation of legally permitted developments:  Lydd Ranges, Dungeness SSSI – On 16 January 1989, the Army gave notice of their proposal to construct an extension to the Rype Village Urban Dry Training Area on land at grid reference TR03872006. Consent was given by the Nature Conservancy Council on 17 February 1989 for the work to be completed by the end of April 1990. The land occupied by this development is not considered to be of special interest.  Lydd Ranges, Dungeness SSSI – A small car park, and an adjacent electricity substation and storage tank were constructed at grid reference TR03612010 as part of a pump house development to serve a new barrack blocks. The entire works were completed by 1993 following permissions granted prior to 1990. The area occupied by the car park, substation and storage tank is not considered to be of special interest.  Rye Harbour Industrial Estate, Rye Harbour SSSI – In 1999 a planning application (RR/1999/2029/P) was submitted, proposing to extend a building and construct a car park on land at grid reference TQ93141938, to the south of an industrial property. English Nature did not object to the planning application because the land was not considered to contain any of the features of special interest of Rye Harbour SSSI (as notified in 1988). It is considered that the land in question was included in the SSSI to allow the site boundary to follow a readily identifiable feature on maps and on the ground. The land is now occupied by a building and car park, and is not considered to be of special interest.

4. Assessment of the current condition of Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI This section contains information on the current condition of the SSSI, the distribution of the interest features within the site and the remedial action that needs to be carried out to achieve

Page 86 of 125 +favourable or recovering condition in those areas of the site where the interest features are currently assessed as being in an adverse condition. Table 21 Distribution of interest features in Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI Interest features Site unit numbers* Active coastal 1-3, 42, 54, 56, 57, 74, 155, 159, 183, 184 geomorphology Static/buried 4, 5, 7-41, 43-53, 55, 56, 58-61, 63-65, 68-72, 75-77, 79, 82, 87, 88, geomorphological 90-95, 97, 101, 102, 125, 139, 141, 156-158, 163, 165, 166, 168, features 169, 176-179, 185, 186, 191 Saltmarsh 162, 190 Sand dunes 53, 73, 76, 161 Vegetated shingle 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 27-29, 31-36, 40, 42, 43, 47-49, 52, 55, 56, 60, 63, 67, 157, 163, 176, 180 Saline lagoons 4 Standing waters and 25, 26 basin fens Lowland ditch systems 6, 9, 11, 14, 18, 44, 51, 59, 61, 77-86, 89-127, 130-133, 136-142, 144-146, 167, 171, 179, 192, 193 Vascular plants 4-15, 18-36, 38-41, 43-49, 51-53, 55, 56, 58-61, 63, 67-69, 72, 73, 75-154, 156-158, 161-163, 167, 170, 171, 176-182, 187, 189, 190- 195 Warne’s thread-moss 21 Water voles 68, 69, 71, 77-82, 90-94, 96-98, 100-102, 104-109, 112, 119-122, 125, 138-143,147, 148, 152, 153, 156, 158, 165, 168, 171, 175, 179 Breeding birds 1-16, 18-28, 30, 36, 41-46, 51, 58-61, 67-69, 87, 88, 90-92, 147, 149-158,162, 174, 178, 182, 185, 187, 194 Wintering and passage 6-8, 11, 17-26, 28, 33, 37, 44, 46, 51, 53-55, 57, 67-69, 74, 87, 88, birds 90-92, 106-109, 147, 150-153, 155-160, 162, 164, 165, 174, 182, 187, 190-192, 194, 195 Great crested newts 12, 18-21, 25, 27, 37, 38, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 58, 60, 64, 72, 73, 139, 188, 194 Invertebrates 4-15, 17-41, 43-49, 51-53, 55, 56, 58-61, 63, 67-69, 72, 73, 75-154, 156-158, 161-163, 167, 170, 171, 174, 176-182, 187, 189, 190-195

*Site Units are divisions used by English Nature for administrative purposes only.

Page 87 of 125 Table 22 Current condition of Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SSSI Site unit number Reported condition** Date of last assessment 1 Unfavourable no change 31 August 1999 2 Unfavourable no change 5 October 1999 3 Unfavourable no change 5 October 1999 4 Favourable 5 October 1999 5 Unfavourable recovering 21 December 2004 6 Unfavourable recovering 19 November 2004 7 Unfavourable recovering 31 August 1999 8 Unfavourable recovering 27 August 2000 9 Unfavourable declining 7 November 2003 10 Unfavourable no change 21 December 2004 11 Unfavourable no change 12 June 2001 12 Favourable 8 August 2000 13 Unfavourable recovering 8 October 2003 14 Unfavourable recovering 24 December 2004 15 Unfavourable recovering 10 October 2000 16 Favourable 24 December 2004 17 Favourable 27 November 2003 18 Favourable 20 May 2002 19 Favourable 20 May 2002 20 Favourable 16 April 2002 21 Favourable 24 April 2002 22 Favourable 24 April 2002 23 Unfavourable recovering 15 April 2003 24 Favourable 24 April 2002 25 Unfavourable recovering 8 October 2003 26 Unfavourable recovering 22 March 2002 27 Unfavourable recovering 24 April 2002 28 Favourable 26 March 2002 29 Unfavourable recovering 10 October 2000 30 Unfavourable declining 1 July 2002 31 Unfavourable declining 17 December 2002 32 Favourable 20 May 2002 33 Unfavourable no change 26 April 2004 34 Unfavourable recovering 8 November 2000 35 Favourable 9 May 2002 36 Favourable 12 March 2002 37 Favourable 22 April 1999

Page 88 of 125 Site unit number Reported condition** Date of last assessment 38 Unfavourable declining 15 May 2001 39 Favourable 22 September 2000 40 Favourable 9 April 2002 41 Favourable 24 April 2002 42 Unfavourable no change 9 April 2002 43 Unfavourable recovering 7 November 2003 44 Unfavourable recovering 28 August 2002 45 Favourable 12 June 2001 46 Favourable 20 May 2002 47 Favourable 18 May 2006 48 Favourable 15 May 2001 49 Unfavourable declining 24 December 2004 50 Favourable 8 September 2000 51 Favourable 20 April 2002 52 Favourable 5 May 1999 53 Favourable 16 July 1999 54 Favourable 11 November 1998 55 Favourable 22 April 1999 56 Unfavourable no change 20 May 2002 57 Favourable 2 November 1999 58 Favourable 26 February 2003 59 Favourable 24 December 2004 60 Unfavourable recovering 24 December 2004 61 Unfavourable no change 24 December 2004 62 Favourable 21 September 2000 63 Favourable 21 September 2000 64 Favourable 21 September 2000 65 Favourable 21 September 2000 66 Favourable 10 December 2002 67 Favourable 5 May 1999 68 Favourable 1 July 2002 69 Favourable 1 July 2002 70 Favourable 17 December 2002 71 Favourable 5 November 1998 72 Unfavourable recovering 12 June 2001 73 Unfavourable recovering 10 June 2003 74 Favourable 25 November 1999 75 Favourable 2 November 1999

Page 89 of 125 Site unit number Reported condition** Date of last assessment 76 Unfavourable recovering 12 June 2001 77 Favourable 3 October 2001 78 Favourable 22 December 2004 79 Unfavourable recovering 27 July 1999 80 Favourable 24 January 2001 81 Unfavourable recovering 22 December 2004 82 Favourable 3 June 1999 83 Favourable 21 December 2004 84 Favourable 12 March 2002 85 Favourable 12 March 2002 86 Favourable 19 October 2001 87 Favourable 1 May 2002 88 Favourable 1 May 2002 89 Unfavourable no change 12 September 2001 90 Favourable 10 May 1999 91 Unfavourable no change 1 May 2002 92 Unfavourable no change 22 June 1998 93 Unfavourable no change 3 October 2001 94 Unfavourable recovering 21 December 2004 95 Favourable 22 December 2004 96 Favourable 17 October 2001 97 Favourable 21 December 2004 98 Favourable 24 January 2001 99 Favourable 4 November 1999 100 Favourable 14 November 2001 101 Unfavourable recovering 7 January 2004 102 Favourable 30 October 2001 103 Favourable 17 October 2001 104 Unfavourable recovering 22 December 2004 105 Favourable 22 December 2004 106 Favourable 8 February 2005 107 Favourable 23 October 2004 108 Favourable 23 October 2004 109 Unfavourable no change 12 November 2001 110 Favourable 8 March 2002 111 Unfavourable recovering 6 August 2001 112 Unfavourable no change 30 December 1999 113 Unfavourable recovering 7 September 2001

Page 90 of 125 Site unit number Reported condition** Date of last assessment 114 Unfavourable recovering 5 May 1999 115 Unfavourable recovering 8 February 2005 116 Unfavourable no change 24 April 2002 117 Unfavourable no change 18 May 2000 118 Unfavourable no change 5 November 1998 119 Unfavourable recovering 19 May 2006 120 Favourable 16 November 2001 121 Unfavourable no change 9 November 2001 122 Favourable 16 November 2001 123 Favourable 12 September 2001 124 Favourable 14 April 2000 125 Favourable 3 October 2003 126 Favourable 22 November 2001 127 Unfavourable declining 22 November 2001 128 Unfavourable no change 22 November 2001 129 Unfavourable declining 15 August 2002 130 Favourable 12 September 2001 131 Favourable 24 April 2002 132 Unfavourable no change 12 September 2001 133 Unfavourable no change 12 September 2001 134 Unfavourable no change 14 April 2000 135 Favourable 27 November 2001 136 Unfavourable no change 14 August 2002 137 Unfavourable recovering 12 March 2002 138 Favourable 14 November 2001 139 Favourable 21 December 2004 140 Unfavourable recovering 7 January 2004 141 Favourable 23 August 1999 142 Unfavourable no change 14 November 2001 143 Unfavourable declining 14 September 2000 144 Unfavourable no change 22 November 2001 145 Favourable 20 July 2000 146 Unfavourable no change 30 July 2002 147 Favourable 10 May 1999 148 Favourable 10 May 1999 149 Unfavourable no change 20 October 2005 150 Favourable 29 July 1999 151 Favourable 15 February 2005

Page 91 of 125 Site unit number Reported condition** Date of last assessment 152 Favourable 15 February 2005 153 Unfavourable recovering 30 March 2006 154 Favourable 28 August 2001 155 Favourable 15 May 2006 156 Favourable 4 February 2005 157 Unfavourable recovering 21 March 2005 158 Favourable 23 February 2005 159 Unfavourable no change 15 May 2006 160 Favourable 17 July 2001 161 Unfavourable recovering 17 October 2003 162 Unfavourable no change 20 October 2005 163 Unfavourable no change 15 May 2006 164 Favourable 20 October 2005 165 Favourable 15 May 2006 166 Favourable 15 May 2006 167 Favourable 20 October 2005 168 Favourable 15 May 2006 169 Unfavourable declining 20 October 2005 170 Favourable 15 May 2006 171 Favourable 15 May 2006 172 Favourable 15 May 2006 173 Favourable 15 May 2006 174 Favourable 15 May 2006 175 Favourable 15 May 2006 176 Favourable 15 May 2006 177 Favourable 15 May 2006 178 Favourable 15 May 2006 179 Favourable 15 May 2006 180 Favourable 15 May 2006 181 Favourable 15 May 2006 182 Favourable 15 May 2006 183 Unfavourable no change 15 May 2006 184 Favourable 15 May 2006 185 Favourable 15 May 2006 186 Favourable 15 May 2006 187 Favourable 15 May 2006 188 Favourable 15 May 2006 189 Favourable 15 May 2006

Page 92 of 125 Site unit number Reported condition** Date of last assessment 190 Favourable 15 May 2006 191 Favourable 15 May 2006 192 Favourable 15 May 2006 193 Favourable 15 May 2006 194 Favourable 15 May 2006 195 Favourable 17 May 2006

**Reported condition SSSIs are notified because of special biological or geological features. When these features are being managed so that their special nature conservation interest is being maintained they are said to be in favourable condition. This is a United Kingdom standard and the terminology and definitions are more fully described in A Statement on Common Standards Monitoring, produced by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in 1998.

Table 23 Reasons for adverse condition in those site units assessed as being ‘unfavourable declining’ or ‘unfavourable no change’ with information on actions required to achieve favourable or recovering condition Reason for adverse Remedy mechanism Remedy Site unit condition status*** numbers Agriculture - other Environmental Stewardship - Entry Agreed 146 Level Scheme Agriculture - other Environmental Stewardship - Higher Agreed 89, 127, Level Scheme 133, 142 Agriculture - other New/ renew Management Agreed 49, 132 Agreement Drainage Environmental Stewardship - Higher Agreed 112 Level Scheme Drainage New/ renew Management Agreed 91, 92, Agreement 116 Drainage Water level management plan Agreed 109, 112 Fertiliser use Environmental Stewardship - Entry Agreed 136 Level Scheme Fire - other Undertake specific management Agreed 11 works Inappropriate coastal Direct management Agreed 162 management Inappropriate coastal Flood Risk Management - capital/ Agreed 1, 2, 3, management improvement schemes 33, 42, 56 Inappropriate coastal Implementation of appropriate Identified 183 management coastal management Inappropriate cutting/mowing Investigation Agreed 163 Inappropriate ditch Environmental Stewardship - Higher Agreed 127 management Level Scheme Inappropriate ditch New/ renew Management Agreed 118, 143 management Agreement Inappropriate scrub control Direct management Agreed 149

Page 93 of 125 Reason for adverse Remedy mechanism Remedy Site unit condition status*** numbers Inappropriate scrub control New/ renew Management Agreed 31, 38, Agreement 116 Inappropriate scrub control SMS production Agreed 129 Inappropriate water levels Water level management plan Agreed/ 93 Identified Military Undertake specific management Agreed 1, 61 works Other – beach cleaning Direct management Identified 159 Other - rabbit grazing Undertake specific management Agreed 10 works Overgrazing Environmental Stewardship - Higher Agreed 93, 109, Level Scheme 121, 162 Overgrazing New/ renew Management Agreed 116 Agreement Pesticide/herbicide use Environmental Stewardship - Entry Agreed 136 Level Scheme Planning permission - general Investigation Agreed 162 Planning permission - other Investigation Agreed 169 mineral and waste Undergrazing Environmental Stewardship - Higher Agreed 144 Level Scheme Undergrazing New/ renew Management Agreed 30, 38 Agreement Undergrazing Undertake specific management Agreed 9, 11, 61 works Vehicles - other Other e.g. Change of range use Agreed 3 Water abstraction New/ renew Management Agreed 117 Agreement Water pollution - National Defra DWPA strategy Identified 128, 134 agriculture/run off Water pollution - discharge Discharge/ PPC consent - Agreed 128, 149 revoke/amend AMP 3/4 Water pollution - discharge Discharge/ PPC consent - Identified 134 revoke/amend AMP 3/4 Water pollution - discharge Implement AMP scheme Agreed 149 Water pollution - discharge Implement AMP scheme Identified 128, 134 Water pollution - discharge Investigation Agreed 162

***Remedy status ‘Agreed’ means the remedy has been identified by English Nature and agreed with the party responsible for implementing the required action. ‘Identified’ means the remedy has been identified by English Nature but has not yet been agreed with the party responsible for implementing the required action.

Page 94 of 125 [insert site unit map – 24 pages]

Page 95 of 125 [insert photographs – 4 pages]

Page 96 of 125