Penny Moor 2024 vegetation survey

i

FOOTPRINT ECOLOGY, FOREST OFFICE, BERE ROAD, WAREHAM, DORSET BH20 7PA

WWW.FOOTPRINT-ECOLOGY.CO.UK

01929 552444

Footprint Contract Reference:

811

Date:

12/02/2025

Version:

Draft

Recommended Citation:

Lake, S., Wilson, P. & Caals, Z. (2025). New Forest Wetland Restoration Vegetation Monitoring: Penny Moor, 2024. Higher Level Stewardship Agreement. The Verderers of the New Forest AG00300016. Report by Footprint Ecology.

ii

Summary

Penny Moor is a small wetland site in the New Forest Site of Special Scientific Interest. It was subject to significant modifications in the 1960s that were designed to increase the drainage of the surrounding land. This resulted in straightened and deepened watercourses lacking geomorphological diversity and with only limited interaction with the floodplain, together with the loss and degradation of the associated freshwater and wetland habitats and the characteristic species assemblages dependent upon them.

The site was considered to be in unfavourable and declining condition due to the effects of the drainage works and therefore a first phase of restoration to return the watercourse to its old meanders was undertaken in 2013 by Forestry England. Part of the artificial drain supporting typical New Forest wetland flora was retained. Some repair work was carried out in 2020, together with the installation of a stock crossing to reduce erosion. Further works were planned for 2024 on part of the site to complete the restoration by removing remaining spoil embankments and raising the bed level of part of the drainage ditch to improve the interaction with the floodplain. Although the site remains compromised by the railway embankment and culvert, project partners hope that this restoration work will restore the natural hydrological functioning of the site as far as it is possible.

The New Forest Freshwater and Wetland Restoration Plan (FWRP) has been developed on behalf of the New Forest Freshwater and Wetland Restoration Forum to establish common ground and provide guidance on the overall restoration process, including establishing overall objectives, criteria for the selection of sites for restoration, likely measures of success, pre-restoration surveys, restoration protocols and appropriate monitoring. This plan is now available. Although most of the restoration pre-dates the plan, Forestry England commissioned habitat, vegetation and species surveys as recommended within the plan to inform subsequent evaluation of the latest phase of the restoration.

These surveys show that Penny Moor supports a range of wetland types that align well with those described within the FWRP, such as Wet Lawn, Ephemeral Pools and Channels, Poached and Disturbed Habitat, Wet Heath, and Valley Bog. The retained drains support a complex mosaic of Soakway vegetation, Ephemeral Pool vegetation and rush pasture and are of value in their own right. The restored watercourse now corresponds well to Slow-flowing Oligotrophic Stream and supports two rare species, Pillwort Pilularia globulifera and Hampshire-purslane Ludwigia palustris, which have colonised from the drains. However, at the time of the survey, the Wet Lawn remained locally compromised by spoil banks while the central drain probably constrains the Valley Bog. An area of excessively poached Wet Lawn is impacted by concentrated livestock movements around the bridge, where there is a degraded pool.

The results will provide a useful baseline against which to measure the success of the second phase of the restoration.

iii

Contents

• Summary.................................................................................................................... ii
• Contents.................................................................................................................... iii
• Acknowledgements................................................................................................... iii
• 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
• Background to freshwater and wetland restoration in the New Forest .............................. 1
• Penny Moor...................................................................................................................... 1
• Freshwater and wetland restoration monitoring ............................................................... 2
• 2. Methods............................................................................................................. 5
• Determining the site boundary ......................................................................................... 5
• Fixed point photography................................................................................................... 8
• Meso-habitat mapping and detailed vegetation survey ..................................................... 8
• Detailed vegetation monitoring of wetland habitats ........................................................10
• Rare plant survey.............................................................................................................13
• 3. Results.............................................................................................................. 14
• Meso-habitat mapping.....................................................................................................14
• Vegetation.......................................................................................................................16
• Wet Heath .........................................................................................................................16
• Wet Lawn ..........................................................................................................................17
• Ephemeral Pools and Channels/Poached and Disturbed Habitat..........................................18
• Drain and Soakway............................................................................................................19
• Rare plants......................................................................................................................25
• Fixed-point photographs..................................................................................................32
• 4. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 36
• References ............................................................................................................... 37
• Appendix 1: Species lists .......................................................................................... 39
• Appendix 2: Plants of conservation concern location records. ................................. 46
• Appendix 3: Records of plants of conservation concern from HBIC .......................... 52

Acknowledgements

This work was commissioned by Jackie Kelly at Forestry England. Our thanks to Suzi Egleston for her support throughout and for accompanying us on an initial site visit. Phil Wilson contributed to field work.

1. Introduction

Background to freshwater and wetland restoration in the New Forest

The freshwaters and wetlands of the New Forest are of exceptional importance at an international level for the habitats and species they support. However, the New Forest has a history of freshwater and wetland modifications that have impacted on the interest features of the New Forest protected sites (Site of Special Scientific Interest, Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area and Ramsar site). For over 20 years, work has been undertaken in the New Forest to remove modifications and reinstate natural processes as the driving force behind naturally functioning habitat mosaics that support characteristic assemblages of species.

Penny Moor

Penny Moor is a small site situated about 1.5km due south of Beaulieu Road station, between the south-west main line and Pig Bush Inclosure. It encompasses an area of wet lawn, wet heath and valley mire in the upper catchment of the Shepton Water (see Map 1).

Wetland restoration work was carried out at Penny Moor within the New Forest SSSI in 2013. The SSSI unit (428) within Penny Moor was considered to be in unfavourable and declining condition due to the effects of artificial drainage (carried out in the 1960s), which was causing increased erosion of the stream bed, constraining valley mire habitat and reducing the interaction between the watercourse and its floodplain. The restoration included the reconnection of meanders including the installation of a clay bund to help block off flow into the old drainage ditch and infilling of the northern arm of the ditch with heather bales. Additional work was carried out in 2020 to repair the clay bund and install a stock crossing.

Further works were planned in 2024 to:

• Remove remaining bankside spoil
• Raise the bed level of the drain upstream of the existing bridges
• Remove the bridges and retain gravel stock crossings
• Excavate a very shallow channel in the wet lawn and connect it to the old drain
• Level the bankside spoil and infill the old drain running south of the restored watercourse (see Map 1), replacing the surface vegetation.

Although the site remains compromised by the railway embankment and culvert, project partners hope that this restoration work will restore the natural hydrological functioning of the site as far as is possible.

Freshwater and wetland restoration monitoring

The New Forest Freshwater and Wetlands Restoration Strategy 2019 (Hill et al., 2019) was developed with a wide range of stakeholders. Among other aspects, this strategy highlighted the need for effective monitoring and in 2022 the New Forest Freshwater and Wetlands Evidence and Monitoring Plan was finalised (Lake, 2022) and now forms part of the New Forest Freshwater and Wetland Restoration Plan (FWRP). The plan sets out recommendations for both pre-restoration surveys and post-restoration monitoring, and includes a number of monitoring principles and recommended approaches. Following a trial in 2022 (Lake, Bishop, et al., 2023; Lake, Shellswell, et al., 2023), Forestry England has now adopted the approach and has commissioned surveys for subsequent restoration work.

The approach entails “meso-habitat” mapping in order to provide evidence of any change in extent of the specific meso-habitats that are an important feature of the New Forest wetlands and are described within the FWRP. While specific targets for increases in area are not appropriate, as changes will be driven by natural processes and the exact outcome cannot be predicted, an overall increase in the extent and diversity of wetland habitats is desirable. Meso-habitat mapping is recommended because UKHab1 does not adequately differentiate these habitats while National Vegetation Classification (Rodwell, 1991), although providing more detail about the vegetation communities, does not show the distribution and extent of the habitats without further interpretation. In addition, in many cases, small-scale features are often mapped as a mosaic rather than individually.

The monitoring also includes more detailed vegetation surveys to assess the quality of the restored habitat – for example, changes in the cover and diversity of Bog-mosses Sphagnum sp. in the mire, or presence of characteristic species such as Pillwort Pilularia globulifera in poached marginal habitat.

1 https://ukhab.org/

For sites where restoration work has already been undertaken, such as Penny Moor, direct comparison with previous data is not usually possible because, although vegetation may have been described prior to the restoration, generally only a small number of quadrats were undertaken to inform an NVC survey. However, in such cases, meso-habitat mapping and more detailed work can be undertaken in order to describe the vegetation at the interim point and provide a baseline for future surveys.

In addition, at Penny Moor, a rare plant survey was carried out (recommended as part of pre-surveys in the FWRP) to inform restoration work.

2. Methods

Determining the site boundary

A monitoring site boundary was identified in order to provide a definitive limit to the survey area to enable comparisons of the extent of different habitats present over time.

We used the Environment Agency 2019 Lidar Composite Digital Terrain Model (DTM) which is a raster elevation model. 'Watershed' and 'water outlet' tools were executed in QGIS to define a basin for the site. The elevation was then added to the basin layer so that an appropriate maximum height could be selected, as a basis for the site boundary (see Map 2). The 12m boundary was used.

On examination and consultation with Forestry England and Natural England staff, this boundary was felt to include a greater area of floodplain lawn than was likely to be impacted by the 2024 restoration work, which was relatively limited in extent. Therefore, the map was used to inform the choice of a 30m buffer from all watercourses (i.e. the restored watercourse and the drains) to create the final boundary. This is shown in Map 3. The western arm of the watercourse was originally intended to be included, but this area of wet valley mire was excluded due the presence of waders during the breeding season when the surveys were carried out.

Fixed point photography

Fixed points were established to enable a comparison of interim and post-restoration conditions. The points are shown in Map 4a and were selected to show key features and habitats, particularly where these are likely to change as a result of the restoration work carried out later in the summer of 2024 (see Map 1).

Meso-habitat mapping and detailed vegetation survey

Mapping was undertaken within the monitoring boundary using a combination of desk-based examination of aerial imagery combined with field work and were digitised using QGIS 3.34.13. Habitats were characterised by the typology presented in the FWRP. The central drain and southern drains support a complex mix of Soakway transitional to Ephemeral Pool vegetation with floating masses of very swampy rush pasture and marginal Poached and Disturbed Habitat later in the survey period, and were therefore mapped as discrete entities rather than the complex mosaic of habitats that they support.

Poached and Disturbed Habitat, which could be considered as a condition that applies to any meso-habitat, rather than a habitat in its own right, was found in Ephemeral Pools and Channels (which were generally quite trampled by livestock). The site dried out quite quickly during the survey period, and this habitat also started appearing along the edges of the drains as the water level dropped. These areas were too narrow to map separately and are therefore described as a component of the underlying habitat in this case.

Field work was undertaken between 3^rd and 24^th June 2024. It was constrained by the presence of waders in the western arm of the mire, therefore the area west of the track and north of the central drain was avoided.

Detailed vegetation monitoring of wetland habitats

Using the habitat maps, random points were generated within the wetland meso-habitats as follows:

1. Polygons of the same meso-habitat type were merged and non wetland habitat deleted (wet heath was included).
2. Polygons were buffered internally by 10m, to ensure that each quadrat would be at least 10m from the edge of the polygon (to allow for mapping inaccuracies).
3. 15 random points were created within each habitat, with a minimum distance of 10m between points.

More points were created than were required so that any points that were found to fall within a different habitat to the one allocated (e.g. due to complex habitat mosaics) could be replaced by another random point. However, if required, surveyors moved points onto the nearest example of the habitat. Table 1 shows the number of quadrats recorded within meso-habitats present within the study area at Penny Moor. A minimum of 10 quadrats were recorded from each habitat type. Drain quadrats were split equally between the shallow southern drain (which will be retained) and the central drain (which will be infilled).

The percentage cover of vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens were recorded from one 2m x 2m quadrat at each random point. Linear quadrats of 1m x 4m or 0.5 x 8m were used where necessary, for example, for marginal or in-channel vegetation. The percentage of bare ground, open water, litter and dung was also recorded and the bulk of the vegetation (using a drop disc of 15cm diameter, 200g weight). Photographs of each quadrat were also taken for reference. Quadrat locations are shown in Map 4b below.

Note that height measurements were not taken in the restored watercourse as the plants were insufficiently emergent for the drop disc technique to work (i.e. it tended to come to rest on the water surface).

Rare plant survey

The rare plant survey included recording all rare plants encountered during the meso-habitat mapping and quadrat recording. This was informed by the rare plant survey carried out in 2012 prior to restoration (Sanderson, 2012). The inclusion criteria were based on those used by Sanderson:

• BAP Priority/NERC Section 41 species as listed in Biodiversity Reporting and Information Group (2007) and on the “Natural England” website for all groups studied.
• All Red Data Book species with a threat status of Near Threatened or higher as listed in Cheffings & Farrell (2005) for vascular plants, in Hodgetts (2011) for bryophytes and Woods & Coppins (2011) for lichens.
• All nationally Notable species; these are defined as all Nationally Rare or Nationally Scarce species not included in the above categories. Nationally Rare and Scarce are as defined by the distributions of vascular plants in Preston et al. (2002) the bryophytes listed in Preston (2006) and lichens listed in Woods & Coppins (2011).
• County rare species as listed by Rand & Mundell (2011).
• Localised species of ecological significance within the New Forest, for instance rare relic trees such as Wych Elm or Small-leaved Lime and species such as Climbing Corydalis or Royal Fern which are not actually rare or particularly significant but have been regarded as of interest at some point and are therefore listed on the New Forest rare plant database.

Rare plant locations were provided to Forestry England staff prior to the restoration work being carried out.

3. Results

Meso-habitat mapping

Map 5 shows the results of the meso-habitat mapping at Penny Moor. The shaded rows indicate the habitats that were taken forward for more detailed vegetation surveys. Other habitats were excluded (after discussion with Forestry England) either because they were too small (e.g. Soakway), or were not considered immediately relevant to the 2024 restoration work.

Vegetation

Figures 1-12 and Table 3 provide summary data about the vegetation surveyed in 2024 (i.e. sward bulk, species-richness and percentage cover of bare ground, plant litter and key plant groups). The raw data are provided in an Excel spreadsheet accompanying this report – species lists for each habitat type can be found in Appendix 1. The graphs are box plots in which the solid box shows the interquartile range, with the median value represented by X. Whiskers indicate the minimum and maximum values.

Wet Heath

Figure 1: Wet Heath north of the restored meanders.

Lowland wet heath (see Figure 1) forms a narrow zone between the Wet Lawn and Dry Heath in the north of the site, where the land begins to rise. It was quite wet at the time of the survey. It is characterised by large tussocks of Purple Moor-grass Molinia caerulea plus Cross-leaved Heath Erica tetralix, Bog Myrtle Myrica gale and some Heather Calluna vulgaris. This taller vegetation is interspersed with mini-lawns of up to 7 species of bog moss (typically Sphagnum denticulatum and Sphagnum tenellum), small sedges (e.g. Carnation Sedge Carex panicea, Common Sedge Carex nigra, Star Sedge Carex echinata and Yellow Sedge Carex demissa), rushes (e.g. Jointed Rush Juncus articulatus and Bulbous Rush Juncus bulbosa) and Common Cottongrass Eriophorum angustifolium. More occasional herbs include Oblong-leaved and Round-leaved Sundew Drosera intermedia and D. rotundifolia, Tormentil Potentilla erecta and Heath Milkwort Polygala serpyllifolia. West of the track, the Wet Heath is more transitional to Wet Lawn, with tussocks of ericoids interspersed with grassy lawn vegetation (see Wet Lawn). The area surveyed is representative of the Wet Heath described in the New Forest FWRP.

Note that several planned quadrats west of the track were omitted due to the presence of waders.

Wet Lawn

Figure 2: Wet Lawn in the southern half of the site (LEFT) and the backswamp north of the drain (RIGHT).

Wet Lawn is the most extensive habitat mapped within the study boundary and predominates south of the valley mire and drain. It is close-grazed and dominated by fine grasses, typically Velvet Bent Agrostis canina, and short sedges with a range of typical Wet Lawn herbs including Meadow Thistle Cirsium dissectum, Marsh Pennywort Hydrocotyle vulgaris, Cuckoo Flower Cardamine pratensis, Greater Bird’s-foot-trefoil Lotus pedunculatus, Lesser Skullcap Scutellaria minor and Marsh Bedstraw Galium palustre. There are some very closely-grazed Heather bushes. Mosses include Calliergonella cuspidatum and Sphagnum denticulatum. In some areas a fine-grained mosaic is present, with wetter areas supporting Soakway species such as Bog St. John’s-wort Hypericum elodes, Many-stemmed Spike-rush Eleocharis multicaulis, Water Mint Mentha aquatica, Lesser Skullcap and Lesser Spearwort Ranunculus flammula, while hummocks support Self-heal Prunella vulgaris, Bog Pimpernel Lysimachia tenella, Marsh Pennywort, Common Sedge and bog-mosses. Bare ground is frequent – poached areas are described under Poached and Disturbed habitat. This habitat conforms well to the rush form of Wet Lawn as described in the FWRP.

The spoil bank along the north side of the drain (see Figure 2) supports species typical of drier conditions including Tormentil, Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens and Common Bent Agrostis capillaris and Field Wood-rush Luzula campestris, although some typical Wet Lawn species persist, including e.g. Common Lousewort Pedicularis vulgaris, Jointed Rush, Marsh Pennywort, and this area was mapped as Wet Lawn.

The spoil bank prevents water from flowing directly into the drain, creating a 10m wide “backswamp” with Soakway species such as Bog St. John’s-wort and Bog Pondweed while drier tussocks support Meadow Thistle and Purple Moor-grass and there is a canopy of Bog Myrtle (note that Soakway vegetation is typical of seasonally wet depressions within Wet Lawn). At the eastern end of the site, there is a significant area of pooled water held back by the spoil banks. Closer to the restored channel, the vegetation is dominated by Jointed Rush with few species and less Bog Myrtle. This apparently more acidic area corresponds well with the less fertile Purple Moor-grass form of Wet Lawn of backswamps and headwaters described in the FWRP, although with significant cover of Bog Myrtle, which, together with the Soakway species, indicates that there is some water flow.

Ephemeral Pools and Channels/Poached and Disturbed Habitat

At Penny Moor, seasonal pools and channels are found in the Wet Lawn (see Map 5). In general, this vegetation is quite poached with a high cover of bare ground - around 60% (see Table 3) and corresponds well to slow flowing channels/wet lawn pans, which is very similar to Poached and Disturbed Habitat of low-nutrient headwater floodplains. Poached and Disturbed Habitat was also found along the margins of the watercourses as the water level dropped during the survey period. However, these areas were too small to map and these two types of habitat were sampled together.

Ephemeral Pools and Channels and marginal Poached and Disturbed Habitat supports a range of species. In some places this includes the rare/vulnerable species Hampshire-purslane Ludwigia palustris, Pillwort Pilularia globulifera, Lesser Water-plantain Baldellia ranunculoides and New Forest Water-crowfoot Ranunculus x novae-forestae as well as Water-pepper Lythrum portula, Jointed Rush, Bulbous Rush, Lesser Spearwort, Small Sweet-grass Glyceria declinate, Floating Club-rush Eleogiton fluitans, Water Starwort Callitriche etc.

Figure 3: Poached and Disturbed Habitat in an old channel, supporting New Forest Water-crowfoot (LEFT) and on the margins of the southern drain (RIGHT) supporting Pillwort, and Lesser Water-plantain.

On the southern side of the drain at the bridge, there is a significant area of heavily poached mud (see Figure 3). This is unvegetated, and does not fall within the description of Poached and Disturbed Habitat. It was excluded from the mapped area of Wet Lawn.

Figure 4: Poached area south of the bridge.

Drain and Soakway

The straight central drain (see Figure 5Figure 3) has become partially infilled and the banks are now broken down. It now supports transitional vegetation somewhere between Soakway vegetation typical of the margins of Slow-flowing Oligotrophic Streams (Soakway) and that of Ephemeral Pools, while there is a central mass of floating rush pasture vegetation which, due to its precarious location, is only lightly grazed. The channel is species-rich, with on average 15 species per quadrat and 38 recorded overall from the quadrats. Hampshire-purslane and Pillwort are frequent and abundant along the shallow margins, while the central floating mats of vegetation support the rare species Tubular Water-dropwort and Lesser Marshwort among rushes, Common Cottongrass, Branched Bur-reed Sparganium erectum, Bogbean Menyanthes trifoliata, Lesser Water-plantain, Lesser Spearwort, Greater Bird’s-foot-trefoil, Water-purslane, Water Mint with Bog Pondweed and Water-crowfoots. Unfortunately, New Zealand Pigmyweed Crassula helmsii was present in one quadrat.

The overall cover of vegetation is higher than in the Southern Drain (see below and Figure 10) and there is a higher cover of herbs in particular (see Figure 11). The sward bulk is a little greater.

Figure 5: The central drain with its spoil embankment on the left and Wet Lawn on the right.

A significant eroded pool is located by the bridge (removed as part of the restoration). This is a modified feature, rather than a typical floodplain of stream pool and is largely unvegetated (see point 4 in Table 5 below).

The stabilised southern drain (see Figure 6) is also straight but up to 9m wide, although this varies, and with very extensive marginal vegetation (there are no spoil heaps). This includes more Bog St. John’s-wort than the central drain, suggesting more water movement, also more Many-stemmed Spike-rush. Pillwort is again present wherever the margins are shallow, and both Tubular Water-dropwort and Lesser Marshwort are again present in the central floating mass of vegetation in the northern section together with Marsh Speedwell and Common Spike-rush Eleocharis palustris. This channel is also very species-rich, with on average around 12 species per quadrat (see Table 3).

New Zealand Pigmyweed Crassula helmsii was present in 7 quadrats.

Figure 6: The southern drain. The broad shallow margins support abundant Floating Club-rush and Hampshire-purslane with Pillwort, while the floating mat of taller vegetation (to the right of the photo) supports Tubular Water-dropwort and Lesser Marshwort.

The more natural form of the restored channel (see Figure 7) makes it visually distinctive compared to the two drains, as it is very shallow and is sinuous in form. It is fairly well-vegetated and there is an uninterrupted gradation from open water through poached margins to rush dominated Wet Lawn, with no vertical bank. The vegetation is characterised by typical Slow-flowing Oligotrophic Stream species, including Floating Club-rush, Common Cottongrass, Jointed Rush, Round-leaved Water Crowfoot, Cuckoo Flower, and Narrow-fruited Watercress. The rare species Hampshire-purslane and Pillwort have also colonised, although are less widely distributed than the drains. Bog Pondweed and Bog St. John’s-wort are also less frequent. Spiked Water-milfoil Myriophyllum spicatum was locally frequent (although not recorded within quadrats).

Species-richness within the restored channel is currently less than the well-established drains (19 species in 10 quadrats – see also Figure 9) and the cover of vegetation lower (see Figure 10), particularly for herbs (see Figure 8). The vegetation is also currently more homogenous than that of the drains (e.g. as seen in the smaller range bars in Figure 7).

Figure 7: The restored channel, looking upstream towards the mire.

Figure 8: Box plots indicating the cover of different plant groups according to habitat type at Penny Moor.

Figure 9: Average species richness within different meso-habitat and areas at Penny Moor in 2024.

Figure 10: Average total vegetation cover (i.e. all plant groups summed) within different meso-habitats and areas at Penny Moor in 2024. Totals over 100% indicate a more complex sward structure in which different species overlap.

Figure 11: Average sward height measured by drop disk within different meso-habitat and areas at Penny Moor in 2024 (sward height was not measured for the Restored watercourse).

Figure 12: Average cover of bare ground within different meso-habitat and areas at Penny Moor in 2024.

Rare plants

Nine rare plant species were recorded during the survey in 2024. These are listed in Table 4 and locations shown in Maps 6-9. Grid references of these records are listed in Appendix 2. Rare species data obtained from the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC) are shown in Appendix 3 for completeness, but are generally mapped at a lower resolution, making them more difficult to interpret. Only one species noted in 2014 within the study area was not relocated in 2024. This was Lesser Butterfly-orchid Platanthera bifolia, for which there was a record near the bank in the south-west of the study area (an area unlikely to be affected by the restoration).

Fixed-point photographs

Fixed-point photographs taken in 2024 are show in Table 5. They are intended to provide a visual overview of the meso-habitats within the area and will enable and post-restoration comparison in the future.

Table 5: Fixed point photos

Fixed Point	Grid Reference	Record Note	Photo
1	SU3547404576	W along restored channel
2a	SU3548904584	N from small hummock with young birch by bog stream
2b	SU3548904584	E along new meander from S end of current bridge (to be removed)
3a	SU3548504525	W along drain to be infilled from stream conjunction
3b	SU3548504525	NW showing bog stream from N and winter wet area (behind birch)
3c	SU3548504525	E showing conjunction of bog stream and central drain, looking downstream
4a	SU3530804520	E along central drain from S end of board walk
4b	SU3530804520	SW over winter poached area
4c	SU3530704530	W from bridge (to be removed) overlooking pool
4d	SU3530804520	SE over winter poached area
5	SU3512204432	NW up southern drain at dried southern end (with back to willow tree)
6a	SU3523804533	S along southern drain, from exclosure
6b	SU3523704527	NE along southern channel to bridge (to be removed)
7a	SU3519004462	N in southern lawn, level with gravel crossing at area where new shallow channel will be created
7b	SU3519004462	S in southern lawn, level with gravel crossing, in area where new shallow channel will be created

4. Discussion

Despite modifications, the New Forest wetlands are generally of very high nature value. The restoration of natural processes as a driving force shaping habitats and species assemblages is not necessarily expected to change overall diversity of habitats but to change the extent, distribution and quality of such habitats and their component species.

The drains at Penny Moor support a complex variety of typical New Forest vegetation, which includes some rare species. Therefore, the decision was taken when planning the original restoration to restore the old meanders before carrying out any significant works to the existing drains. This survey shows that Slow-flowing Oligotrophic Stream has successfully been restored and now contains some of these rare species, specifically Pillwort and Hampshire-purslane. It is likely to develop further complexity and diversity over time.

It is not clear whether the other species found in the floating mats of vegetation in the drains (including Tubular Water-dropwort and Lesser Marshwort) will colonise the restored stream, as they are not species typical of Slow-flowing Oligotrophic Stream, and appear to be flourishing in the drains due to their complex hydrology. However, sensitive reinstatement of the vegetation after the works on the central drain may allow these species to continue persist at this location.

The surveys reported here provide a baseline that will enable future monitoring to record if and how the wetland habitats change in extent and character as a consequence of the restoration work carried out in 2024. Of particular interest will be the further development of the watercourse, changes to the Wet Lawn, including the Bog Myrtle-dominated area of backswamp where water is currently held back by the spoil banks and the damaged area by the bridge, and any changes to the central drain, particularly with regard to the eroded pool and the species of particular interest.

References

Cheffings, C. M., & Farrell, L. (2005). The vascular plant red data list for Great Britain. Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Hill, C. T., Sear, D. A., Wardlaw, N., & Cox, J. (2019). New Forest Freshwater and Wetland Habitats Restoration: Strategy 2019. Forestry England, Natural England, Environment Agency.

Hodgetts, N. (2011). Conservation News. A revised Red List of bryophytes in Britain. Field Bryology, 103, 40–49.

Lake, S. (2022). New Forest Freshwater and Wetland Restoration Strategy: Evidence and monitoring plan. Natural England on behalf of the New Forest Freshwater and Wetland Restoration Forum (FWRF).

Lake, S., Bishop, E., & Caals, Z. (2023). New Forest Wetland Restoration Wetland Monitoring: Picket Mire, 2022. Footprint Ecology.

Lake, S., Shellswell, C., Wilson, P., & Caals, Z. (2023). New Forest Wetland Restoration Vegetation Monitoring Harvestslade and Slufters 2022 (702). Footprint Ecology / Forestry England.

Leach, S. J. (2021). Vascular plant Red Data List for Great Britain: A summary of amendments in years 14 and 15 (2019-2020) of the annual amendments process. BSBI News, 147.

Preston, C. D. (2006). A revised list of nationally scarce bryophytes. Field Bryology, 90, 22–29.

Preston, C. D., Pearman, D. A., & Dines, T. D. (2002). New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora. Oxford University Press.

Rand, M., & Mundell, A. R. G. (2011). Hampshire Rare Plant Register. Trollius Publications.

Rodwell, J. S. (1991). British Plant Communities, Volume 2: Mires and heath. Cambridge University Press.

Sanderson, N. (2012). Rare plant survey of Penny Moor, New Forest. Forestry Commission.

Stroh, P. A., Leach, S. J., August, T. A., Walker, K. J., Pearman, D. A., Rumsey, F. J., Harrower, C. A., Fay, M. F., Martin, J. P., Pankhurst, T., Preston, C. J., & Taylor, I. (2014). A vascular plant red list for England. BSBI.

Woods, R. G., & Coppins, B. J. (2011). Species Status No. 13 A Conservation Evaluation of British Lichens and Lichenicolous Fungi. JNCC.

Appendix 1: Species lists

Appendix 2: Plants of conservation concern location records.

Table 10: Location records for plants of conservation concern. A number of records outside of the study area that were made on return to the car park have been included (e.g. Wild Gladiolus and Slender Marsh-bedstraw).

Appendix 3: Records of plants of conservation concern from HBIC