Plant surveys
a) HWT survey
Plant surveys were carried out by Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust (HWT) in 1991 and June 1998. The 1998 survey recorded 76 species and 3 indicator species including old meadow indicators and indicators of saline influenced communities such as the nationally scarce Divided Sedge. This survey plus maps are included in Appendix 3.
The HWT survey of 1998 describes Brook Meadow (or Lumley Meadow) as:
“a largely rank and ungrazed area of upper saltmarsh and neutral meadow with associated scrub and woodland communities. [….] The meadow is currently unmanaged but still retains a number of old meadow indicators and indicators of saline influenced communities, including the nationally scarce Divided Sedge”.
This survey did not include the wooded area of Palmers Road copse, the Willow scrub area of Lumley copse nor the area at the north entrance called the Seagull Lane patch.
The following plant communities based on the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) were identified as part of this survey:
MG1 (Arrhenatherum elatius (False Oatgrass, grassland),
MG12 (Festuca arundinacea (Tall Fescue, grassland) and
S6 (Carex riperia (Great Pond Sedge, fen).
MG1 is described as grasslands of high botanical nature conservation value, neutral grasslands, dry tall-herb grasslands and is characteristic of ungrazed grasslands and neglected meadows and pastures.
MG12 is described as grass dominated inundation communities and occurs on poorly structured and poorly drained soils.
S6 is typical of mineral soils alongside sluggish rivers or other open areas.
These communities are found on the site in the following areas:
MG1 Arrhenatherum elatius grassland
North and Central Meadow;
banks of Causeway
MG12 Festuca arundinacea grassland
south-east corner of the South Meadow;
south-eastern edge of Central Meadow adjacent to the Lumley Stream;
S6 Carex ripera fen
a small area in the south eastern part of the Central Meadow. 
b) Other plant surveys
Between 2000 and 2005, a total of 311 plant species (including Bryophytes but not Fungi which are listed separately) have been recorded by Brian Fellows (chairman of BMCG). The lists of plants and fungi can be found in Appendix 4.
In May 2003, a number of key plants were mapped by members of the group. This survey should be carried out at the same time each year to record any differences in the distribution of these key plants.
Martin Rand, Plant Recorder for South Hampshire, Botanical Society of the British Isles, carried out a plant survey of the site in July 2005. A report of this survey will be sent to the group as soon as it becomes available.
A number of other naturalists have also contributed to the plant list, notably Ralph Hollins, Gwynne Johnson and Pete Selby (Bryophytes).

Old meadow  indicators:
Seven old meadow indicators have been identified: Distant Sedge, Festulolium hybrids, Hoary Ragwort, Marsh Arrowgrass, Meadow Barley, Pepper Saxifrage and  Stone Parsley. These old meadow indicators are marked with an ** in the plant list in Appendix 4.
In addition to flowering plants, mosses and liverworts as well as fungi are recorded on the list. Rare plants are marked as LR (locally rare) or NR (nationally rare).
BMCG has carried out a survey of the trees and shrubs found in Brook Meadow. See Appendix 3, map 3.
Three distinct habitats
The site consists of three distinct habitats: 
I)    woodland and scrub; 
II)    grassland;
III)    2 watercourses.
Within these main areas there are smaller subareas.

I.    Woodland and scrub
Palmer’s Road copse: deciduous woodland located along the River Ems. This area was not surveyed by HWT in 1998.
Mainly dominated by mature Crack Willows with a single mature Lombardy Poplar, several Sycamore, 5 Western Balsam Poplars and Cherry Plum. The scrub mainly consists of Hazel, Blackthorn, Cherry Laurel, Dogwood, Hawthorn, Elder, Guelder Rose and Ivy. A Hawthorn hedge has been recently planted along the western riverbank in front of the new fence.
Flowering plants found in this area typical of a woodland habitat include: Black Nightshade, Enchanter’s Nightshade, Green Alkanet, Garlic Mustard, Lords-and-Ladies, Marsh Marigold and Wavy Bitter-Cress.

Lumley Road copse: a small area of dense wet scrubby woodland of mainly willows. This area was not surveyed by HWT in 1998.

West Plantation: shrub layer of plantings consisting of Willow species and Alder which were 1-3m tall in 1998 and approx. 8m tall in 2005.

East Plantation: has a variety of tree species including a young Silver Birch, several Willow species, as well as Hawthorn, Alder, Hazel, Dogwood and Leyland Cypress.
This area was not surveyed by HWT in 1998.

II.    Grassland
South Meadow: Mainly ruderal herb fen becoming increasingly damp and rank consisting of tall herbs dominated by Common Nettle, Bindweed, Hogweed, Creeping Thistle, Spear Thistle, Michaelmas Daisy but also Cleavers, Cut-leaved Crane’s-bill, Comfrey, Watermint, Meadow Buttercup, Docks and several coarse grasses.
The western part of this area adjacent to the embankment of the River Ems has a large number of Butterbur plants.
Other flowering plants such as Cuckooflower, Perforate St John’s-wort and old meadow indicators such as Festulolium hybrids (south path) have also been identified in this area. Although rather a wild area, it is a rich source of nectar for insects.
There is a small wet area in the southeast corner which has indicators of saline influenced communities described in the 1998 HWT survey as Sea Club-rush dominated swamp with a small patch of Sea Club-rush and Tall Fescue, Silverweed, Sea Couch and Divided Sedge (nationally scarce). Other flowering plants recorded in this area since 1998 include Smooth Meadow Grass, Halberd-leaved Orache and Meadow Barley.

Trees and scrub
There are several isolated trees: Osier, Goat Willow, other Willow species, Silver Birch, Horse Chestnut, with mainly Crack Willow and occasional Ash and Alder along the eastern bank of the River Ems.
A large Bramble bank along the eastern boundary with Gooseberry Cottage and on the southern boundary with the footpath is important to wildlife.
Central Causeway
The South Meadow is separated from the main area of grassland by a central raised path called the Causeway.
The southern bank of the Causeway has been planted with Alder Buckthorn saplings. This area also has a sole Gorse plant. Other plants in this area include Common Mallow, White Dead-nettle and Marsh Woundwort with a large patch of Butterbur near the Lumley gate.
Several Ash saplings (self sown) and a Myrobalan Plum (planted) on the northern bank of the Causeway.

Central line of Crack Willows:
The main grassland area is divided into two by a line of Crack Willows (approx. 15 m tall in 2005) running east to west: Central Meadow and the North Meadow.

Central Meadow
In 1998, this area consisted of rank grassland and ruderal herb fen dominated by coarse grasses and rank vegetation such as Great Willowherb, Hogweed and Common Nettle. In 2005, there is considerably less Great Willow Herb and Common Nettle,  now more or less confined to the margins.
However, much of this area is now dominated by several species of coarse grasses such as False-Oat grass, Yorkshire Fog and Cocksfoot. In addition, Hemlock Water Dropwort and Hogweed dominate in places. Other plants found in this area include Lesser Celandine, Creeping Buttercup and Red Clover.
Three small subareas in the wetter south-eastern and southern parts of this area were identified in the HWT survey in 1998 (areas (vi), (vii) and (viii) on the HWT survey map). These areas are of more interest botanically since they include several old meadow indicators such as Distant Sedge and indicators of saline influence communities such as the nationally scarce Divided Sedge.
Area (viii) which is just north of the Causeway is classified in the HWT survey as Upper Saltmarsh. It is described as follows: “Mainly short sward, very quickly grading into a dense, Tall Fescue dominated community.
Several other old meadow indicators have also been recorded in this area, such as Pepper Saxifrage, Hoary Ragwort, Stone Parsley, Meadow Barley and Marsh Arrowgrass. Other valuable meadow plants found in this area are Ragged Robin, Fleabane, Yellow Flag, Watermint and Wild Angelica.
Scrub layer: scattered to locally moderate Willow regeneration, mainly Crack Willow and Goat Willow.
Trees: Three native Black Poplar trees have been recently planted on the western bank of the Lumley Stream. One of which has been more recently replanted away from the river further towards the middle of the meadow.
North Meadow is similar to the Central Meadow but the northern part is more dominated by Common Nettle and coarse grasses while the eastern part is dominated by Great Willowherb. There are several large Bramble patches to the east of the raised paths, especially on the northern path.
The central area is more interesting botanically. Flowering plants in this area include: Pepper Saxifrage, Stone Parsley, Meadow Barley and Marsh Arrowgrass (old meadow indicators) as well as Meadowsweet, Horsetail, Fleabane, Red Deadnettle, Creeping Buttercup, Cuckooflower, Black Knapweed, numerous sedges and rushes, and several coarse grasses.
Trees and scrub: several Willow species in main part of meadow, two young Oak trees (eastern margin), small Sumac tree (eastern margin), two plantations (west and east) consisting of Alder and Willow species and Silver Birch and Willow sp., respectively. The line of Crack Willows runs into the Lumley copse, an area of dense Willow scrub.
Two small Oaks and a Yew were planted further north on the eastern margin in 2004. Hawthorns have also been planted on the western margin and Rowans planted just north of the line of Willows on the eastern margin.
Seagull Lane patch: a small area of shorter ruderal herbs, grasses and bushes. This area was not surveyed by HWT in 1998.
The Seagull Lane patch contains a wide variety of flowering plants, such as Black Horehound, Broadleaved Everlasting Pea, Goat’s Beard, Ground Ivy, Lesser Burdock, Mugwort, Great Scented Mayweed, Spotted Medick, White Campion, Wild Carrot and Wood Dock. The only old meadow indicator recorded in this area is Stone Parsley. There is a large patch of Common Nettle and large Bramble patches along the western and northern boundaries. A large patch of Ivy grows on the southern side of the entrance.
Trees and scrub in this area consist of mature Crack Willows along the riverbank as well as a small Hawthorn bush which was cut down recently when the kissing gate was put in.
Fungi
A nationally rare fungus Agrocybe cylindracea is found on rotting Willow trunks in this area.

III Watercourses

Lumley Stream and Lumley wet area
The Lumley Stream is tidal up to the Lumley Cottages half way up Lumley Road. Most of the riverbank is shaded by the riverine woodland.
Trees and scrub: A variety of trees, some of which are large, line the banks, such as Alder, Ash, Crack Willow, Elder, English Oak, Field Maple, Goat Willow, Grey Willow, Common Yew, Hawthorn, Sycamore and Horse Chestnut. The English Elms are infected with Dutch Elm disease.
Three Black Poplar trees were planted on the western bank in November 2004, but one had to be moved away from the river because it was being affected by the slightly saline water which overflows from Lumley Stream into this area. Hedges along Lumley Path and Lumley Road consist mainly of Bramble, Common Gorse, Japanese Honeysuckle, Ivy, Lonicera and Wild Privet with garden escapes such as Escallonia and Garden Privet.

Herbs
This rather shady wet area supports a large variety of plants including Amphibious Bistort, Annual Mercury, Bittersweet, Black Medick, Brooklime, Crow Garlic, Garlic Mustard, Germander Speedwell, Great Pond Sedge, Great Willowherb, Hemlock Water Dropwort, Hogweed, Lesser Celandine, Lords and Ladies, Lungwort,  Pepper-saxifrage, Perforate St John's-wort, Ribwort Plantain, Silverweed, Spanish Bluebell, Spotted Medick, Square-stalked St John's-wort, Stinking Iris, Strawberry Clover, Water Dock, Water Forget-me-not, Water Mint, Wild Angelica and Yarrow.
River Ems:
A chalk river with approx. 60 mature Crack Willows (pole stage 15-20 metres) line the banks of the Ems, especially the western and northern banks and part of the eastern banks (in the south). With occasional Ash, Elder, Alder and Sycamore.
The following flowering plants typical of chalk rivers have been recorded: Blue Water Speedwell (hybrid), Branched Bur-reed, Brooklime, Bullrush, Butterbur, Comfrey, Common Starwort, Fool’s Watercress, Hemlock Water Dropwort, Hemp Agrimony, Lesser Pond Sedge, Meadowsweet, Reed Canary-grass, Stream Water Crowfoot, Water Cress, Water Figwort, Water Forget-me-not, Water Mint, Winter Heliotrope, Yellow Iris.
The area of the invasive Japanese Knotweed on the western riverbank near the gasholder is increasing.

3.2.2.2    Fauna

Mammals
The banks of the River Ems are home to a healthy population of Water Voles, the most highly endangered mammal in Britain. Water Vole have also been seen in the Lumley Stream area. There are no Rabbits on the site. Red Foxes breed locally and Roe Deer are often seen passing through especially in Lumley copse and Lumley Stream. Moles are very common all over the site. Several species of Bats, including Common Pipistrelle, Soprano Pipistrelle, Daubenton's and Serotine, feed over both tree-lined waterways. Grey Squirrel are also seen in the wooded areas.

Birds
A total of 67 species of birds have been recorded on, around or flying over the Brook Meadow site between 2000 and 2005.  Resident breeding birds include Moorhen, Woodpigeon, Collared Dove, Wren, Dunnock, Robin, Blackbird, Song Thrush, Mistle Thrush, Long-tailed Tit, Blue Tit, Great Tit, Magpie, Carrion Crow, Chaffinch, Greenfinch and Goldfinch. Most of these nest in the wooded areas around the meadow.
There are also several summer visitors which are seen on Brook Meadow, notably Chiffchaff, Blackcap and Whitethroat which regularly breed here. Less common summer visitors which have been seen or heard on, around or flying over Brook Meadow include Swift, Swallow, House Martin, Sedge Warbler, Reed Warbler, Willow Warbler, Cuckoo, Spotted Flycatcher, Lesser Whitethroat and Nightingale.
Other occasional visitors to the Brook Meadow site which have been recorded over the past 5 years include Cormorant, Pied Wagtail, Stock Dove, Jay, Treecreeper, Pheasant, Green Woodpecker, Water Rail, Bullfinch, Coal Tit, Fieldfare, Cetti's Warbler, Jackdaw, Redwing, White-faced Whistling Duck (escape).  Many others, including a never ending stream of Gulls, are regularly seen flying over the site.

Fish
Brown Trout and Eels are regularly seen in both watercourses. Impressive shoals of Grey Mullet come up the Lumley Stream from the harbour at high tide. Sea Trout and Flounder have also been recorded.

Insects
A total of 24 different butterflies have been recorded including Red Admiral, Gatekeeper, Brimstone, Large White, Small White, Green-veined White, Holly Blue, Small Tortoiseshell, Painted Lady, Comma, Peacock, Speckled Wood, Meadow Brown, Essex Skipper and Ringlet. The site is the most southerly location where Ringlet butterflies have been recorded. The two waterways attract a range of damselflies, including Azure Damselfly, Large Red Damselfly, Banded Demoiselle, as well as dragonflies such as Southern Hawker, Common Darter, Emperor Dragonfly, Broad-bodied Chaser and Migrant Hawker.

Amphibians
Slow Worm, Common Frog, Common Toad and Common Lizard are found in the wetter areas.

Other invertebrates
Data on invertebrates on the site has been collected in several wildlife surveys see below under Wildlife Surveys.
The following lists are included in Appendix 4:
1)    list of the 65 birds recorded between 2000 and 2005.
2)    list of the 24 butterflies recorded between 2000 and 2005
3)    other insects recorded between 2000 and 2005
4)    list of mammals and other animals. Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species are marked with an *. Information on BAP species and habitats can be found under 4.3.1.5 and in Appendix 7.

Wildlife surveys

Water Vole surveys were carried out in August 2002 and June/July 2004. A summary of the results are given under 4.5.8.

A micromoth survey was carried out during the daytime in May 2004 and a night moth survey was carried out in July 2005. The list of moths found is included in Appendix 4.

An invertebrate survey was carried out in July 2004 by HWT  and a river survey by Portsmouth University in June 2005.   A botanical survey of the site was carried out in July 2005 by the Southern Hampshire plant recorder for the Botanical Society of the British Isles.

See 4.5.8 for more information on these surveys.

3.2.3    Cultural

3.2.3.1 Archaeology

There is no information available to suppose that any archaeological digs have been carried out on the site. However, the structure of the two waterways is of great significance as industrial archaeology. The history of Brook Meadow is closely connected to the milling industry because the watermill at the bottom of Queen Street was powered by the River Ems until well into the 20th century. Historical records show that there has been a watermill on this site for centuries and the Doomsday Book (1086) shows that one existed here at the time of William the Conqueror.
There is still evidence of a linear millpond which must have been created by constructing embankments in the lower reaches of the River Ems well before the 1700s since the Queen Street mill was well established by that time.
Another watermill further north was built between 1640 and 1778. The Lumley Stream is also part of the River Ems and the northern man-made section served as an overflow. This sluice now acts to regulate the flow of water between the two watercourses.
The course of the River Ems was diverted south west of Lumley Mill in about 1846 to accommodate the construction of the railway.
A more recent historical event is that a Mosquito aeroplane crashed in Brook Meadow in 1944 after colliding with a Wellington during exercises in the Second World War. This has had the result that people with metal detectors have been digging in parts of the north meadow presumably searching for parts of the crashed planes.

3.2.3.2    Past Land Use

The northern part of Brook Meadow used to be what was called a ‘water meadow’ (1838 Tithe Map and Schedule), which means it was regularly flooded by the river. Up to the middle of the 1950’s, the meadows were used as grazing land for horses and cattle as well as for holding fairs and as a football pitch. The site has been largely under used since then with only occasional grazing by cattle and horses between 1960 and 1990. Between 1990 and 2000, the site became neglected and was in danger of turning into wasteland.
The present owners, HBC, have designated the site as an urban green space in the Havant Local Plan.

3.2.3.3    Present Land Use

The site is managed by BMCG together with HBC as a nature conservation area for the benefit of wildlife and people.

3.2.3.4    Past management (in nature conservation)

Before 1990: the site was grazed by horses and cattle albeit irregularly.
Between 1990 and 2000, the main part of the grassland area was neglected and left unmanaged apart from the construction of an embankment to prevent the River Ems from flooding the adjoining grassland.
Since September 2000, the Brook Meadow Conservation Group (BMCG) has made a concerted effort to manage the meadow.
An outline management plan for the whole of the site was drafted by Debbie Miller, Habitat Management Advisory Project Officer at HWT, in 2001 (a copy of this plan is included in Appendix 5).
Excerpts from the first plan are given below and includes the main management suggestion for the grassland.
“Brook Meadow has retained aspects of its original meadow flora, despite being ungrazed for many years. At the time of the survey in 1998, a total of 76 plant species were recorded of which 3 were noted as ‘old meadow indicators’. These indicator species seldom occur outside unimproved grasslands.
Much of the vegetation within the meadow is largely rank due to the absence of grazing management. False-oat Grass, Great Willowherb, Nettle, Hemlock Water-dropwort, Hogweed and Hard Rush dominate the sward, suppressing the more delicate wildflower growth.”
“The key objective of managing unimproved grassland for nature conservation is to remove the annual year’s growth, to prevent coarse vegetation dominating the sward, and thus allow the more delicate flowers to develop. The aim is for low soil fertility, preferred by most unimproved grassland plants. The removal of cuttings either as an annual hay cut or by grazing is crucial.
At present, it unlikely that grazing alone would have much of a positive impact in restoring the meadow. Much of the vegetation is unpalatable and the effects of trampling would further compact the existing thatch of dead plant material. There is currently a high proportion of the poisonous Hemlock Water-dropwort and the location of the meadow may also pose problems in terms of stock welfare and hence finding a local grazier willing to graze the site.
I would suggest that during the first few years of restoration, the grassland is cut by a contractor during the late summer, ensuring that the cuttings are removed with the existing layer of dead plant material. This should ideally be followed by the introduction of a few cattle to graze off the flush of new autumn growth during September and October (although not crucial).”

Grassland Management
2001 and 2002
As a result of this plan, a contractor cut, shredded and piled up the arisings around the edges of the meadowland at the end of August 2001 and 2002. On both occasions, nearly the entire North and Central Meadows were cut over a period of 3-4 days and the arisings were dumped on the eastern edges of the North Meadow. The only area not cut by the contractor in August was the sedgy area just north of the Causeway marked SA on map 2 Appendix 1. This area contains a significant number of late flowering plants and was cut by BMCG with a power scythe in February of the following year.
However, in September 2002 the arisings which had been piled up on the eastern edge of the North Meadow near the central line of Willows spontaneously combusted and the fire brigade had to be called out to put out the fire.
2003
The group decided to find a better solution for the 2003 annual cut. A contractor was found who would not only cut and bale the arisings but would also remove them to be recycled into compost.
The group again sought the advice of HWT and Clare Bishop made more detailed management suggestions in June 2003 included in Appendix 5, most of which have been incorporated into this management plan.
Her assessment of the site after 2 years of management is summarised as follows:
“Two years further on, with regular management, the site has improved dramatically and is now into a second phase of restoration. This document aims to compliment the first report, and outlines the next stage of restoration management required for Brook Meadow.”
“Having been neglected and left unmanaged for many years, the meadow had become dominated by coarse grasses and rank vegetation such as Great Willowherb, Hogweed and Common Nettle. For the past 2 years it has received an annual hay cut at the end of the summer, in late August/September. Each time the arisings were collected and deposited around the edge of the site, sacrificing an area of old nettles. This has been the first phase of restoration.
This management has resulted in a significant change from a largely nettle, and willowherb dominated sward, to a more open grass dominated sward with the diversity of wild flowers gradually increasing alongside.
The previous habitat restoration report explains the importance of grazing on wet grassland, and how this would benefit the sward structure and biodiversity. This is still the most sustainable long-term option for Brook Meadow, and should be considered in the future of the site. In the meantime cutting is an alternative for the first and second restoration phases.
With the late summer cut, over the past 2 years, some of the nutrients have been depleted from the soil, and the thatch of dead vegetation has largely been removed. However, different species are adapted to this late summer management regime, and much of the meadow is still dominated by one or two species of coarse grass, such as False Oat-grass, False Oat-grass Yorkshire Fog and Cocksfoot. In places, Common Nettle, Great Willowherb, Hemlock Water-dropwort and Hogweed (negative indicators) still dominate, and in order to reduce the vigour of all these species, it is necessary to reduce the soil fertility further, by removing the annual year’s growth earlier.”
In order to reduce the dominance of the coarser plant species, Clare suggested that the areas dominated by these plants were cut earlier than the usual late August cut, probably in early to mid July. The idea is to cut 50% of these areas earlier than in previous years to see what effect this has on these dominant plants. This cut would hit these species in the prime of their growth.

Implications of these management suggestions:
In July 2003, an early cut was carried out in the South Meadow which mainly consisted of Common Nettle, Bindweed and Hemlock Water-dropwort. This area had never been cut before. Unfortunately the rank vegetation could not be removed by the contractor because of problems with access so it was burnt. This proved a very onerous and potentially hazardous task and the group decided not to do this again.
The main areas of grassland were cut by the same contractor. Most of the Central Meadow was cut in late July and the North Meadow was cut in late September. The contractor then baled and removed the arisings from the site for composting at his unit on Hayling Island. 
Areas cut by BMCG with the power scythe in 2003 were:
a) Sedgy area in the Central Meadow just north of the Causeway was cut in the late autumn-winter. The arisings were removed to the sacrificial area in the NE corner of the South Meadow. 
b) SE corner of the South Meadow was cut in August 2003. The arisings were removed to the sacrificial area in the NE corner of the South Meadow
c) Seagull Lane patch at end of November 2003. The arisings were removed to the NE corner of the North Meadow.

2004
It was hoped that this early cutting and removal regime would be continued in the next few years but the group had trouble getting a contractor because of bad weather conditions in the summer. It was not until late October/November 2004 that the North Meadow was eventually cut by a contractor and the arisings dumped on the western and eastern edges. Other areas in the Central Meadow were cut in stages by members of BMCG using the power scythe from late September through to December 2004. The arisings from the Central Meadow were piled up on both the eastern and western edges of the Central Meadow. Creating sacrificial areas on the edges of the grassland, especially the eastern edge next to the Lumley Stream is not good conservation practice since the fertility of the site needs to be reduced not increased and only serves to encourage the growth of coarser, invasive herbs such as Bindweed and Common Nettle.

2005
In order to avoid a repetition of 2004, a combined effort was made between BMCG and HBC’s Open Spaces Development (OSD) team to reinstate the cutting programme started in 2003. In July and September, the main areas of grassland were cut in stages by HBC’s OSD team, and the arisings dumped on the southeastern and eastern side of the North Meadow. The site was subdivided into smaller sections to make phased cutting easier to record as well as to carry out.
Each of the three grassland areas has been divided into 4 subsections
North Meadow: NM1-NM4;
Central Meadow: CM1-CM4;
South Meadow: SM1-SM4.
The Seagull Lane patch is denoted by SLP.
These subdivisions are shown on map 1 Appendix 6.
The areas cut by the contractor are shaded green (July cut) and yellow (September cut) and the sacrificial areas marked with a red D.
The second lot of arisings dumped in September started to steam in late September because the meadow was cut when still wet and the arisings piled up too high which caused spontaneous combustion as also happened in 2002. A few members of the group managed to avert the problem by spreading out the arisings to distribute the heat.
Smaller areas in the Central Meadow were cut by members of BMCG in May and September (pink hatching on the map) and the SE corner of the South Meadow was cut in October (shaded blue on the map).
Part of the Central Meadow north of the Causeway as well as the Seagull Lane patch were due to be cut by members of BMCG in December 2005. This did not happen because of problems with the group’s power scythe.
Waterways management:
September 2000, August 2001, early October 2002, July 2003, September 2004 and 2005: The Environment Agency (EA) carried out a ‘green’ cut of the riverbank and in-stream vegetation of the River Ems. This has progressed from both banks being more or less cleared of all vegetation in 2000 to alternate banks being cut in 2002 and 2003 and only the eastern bank cut in 2004 and 2005.
It is essential to liase closely with the EA to ensure that enough in-stream vegetation is removed (approx. 60%) and that a metre of vegetation is left along the water’s edge to provide protection for the Water Voles.
The Environment Agency also removes large branches which fall into the river. Members of the group regularly clear the River Ems of litter and other items.
Volunteers keep the River Ems clear of litter and other obstacles. Other volunteers regularly clear the Lumley Stream of litter and fallen branches and monitor any illegal fishing.
Woodland management:
Tree pollarding/pruning
2001-2005: HBC has cut and removed several fallen willows from the northern part of the site after gales. HBC have also cut and removed large branches overhanging the raised path as well as several trees along the eastern bank of the Lumley Stream. In 2004, HBC contractors pollarded two Crack Willows which were becoming a hazard on the Northern riverbank path. In 2004 and 2005, HBC also pollarded several mature Crack Willows in Palmers Road copse.
BMCG has cut and removed smaller branches mainly from Willows overhanging the main paths and riverbanks of the River Ems.
Tree planting
2002: BMCG planted 30 Alder Buckthorn saplings on the southern bank of the causeway. These saplings were planted because they provide food for the caterpillars of Brimstone butterflies.
2004: 2 Oaks, 1 Yew, 1 Weeping Willow, 50 Hawthorns were planted on the margins of the meadow
2005: 3 Native Black Poplars, 35 Hawthorns, 20 Rowans, 15 Alder Buckthorns and 1 Aspen were planted at various places on the edges of the site.
The newly planted trees are mulched to retain moisture and keep competing weeds down between November and February and the surrounding areas of vegetation are kept short between April and October.

Other conservation work
Cutting paths and community area
BMCG cuts a community area near the seat in the southwest corner of the Central Meadow as the occasion arises. The group also cuts the occasional paths between May and November and keeps the areas around the sign cases and bins cut short.

Litter picking
Volunteers keep the whole site including the River Ems clear of litter.

Path laying
Volunteers have laid all the main paths with path gravel, as well as constructed 3 sets of steps and a ramp (2003-2005).
Dead hedges
In addition, dead hedges have been created in several places to restrict access to vulnerable habitats.
Edges of main paths
HBC strims the edges of the main paths on a regular basis from May to October.

Ecological relationships and implications for management

Succession from grassland to scrub and then finally to woodland will develop in the grassland area unless the scrub areas and self-seeded saplings are controlled.
The implications for management are that areas of scrub need to be restricted to certain areas and the number of self-sown saplings growing outside of the wooded area must be restricted and young trees coppiced and/or selectively removed. 
Shading due to many mature Crack Willows occurs along more or less the whole length of the riverbank. This has consequences for the Water Vole population since they do not like too much shade. The shade created by these trees also reduces the vegetation underneath them which in some places is very sparse. Several large branches have already broken off or the trees have fallen over or are likely to do so in the near future.
This is a management task for the landowner (HBC) who is responsible for ensuring the safety of the footpaths along the riverbank. Any dangerous trees must be removed or pollarded. Only the trees on HBC land can be pollarded. The mature trees on the area of riverbank not owned by HBC will not be pollarded.
Flooding of the south meadow especially in the winter months is carried out on purpose to prevent the River Ems from causing flooding further south in the built-up area of Queen Street. This south meadow acts as a balancing pond according to the Environment Agency’s programme of flood prevention. The flooding increases the already high fertility of this part of the site and as a consequence Common Nettle, Bindweed, Hemlock Water-dropwort are the dominant species. In addition to flooding, this area is difficult to cut with large machinery because of access problems.
An implication for management is that only small areas can be cut, and so most of this area is being left as a wild uncut area. The area is, however, proving to be a valuable nectar source for a wide variety of insects.
Flooding also occurs naturally in the SE corner of the South Meadow especially when there is a high tide and high rainfall.
An implication for management is that this area must be cut no later than September before the soil gets waterlogged.
This natural flooding also happens regularly along the western banks of the Lumley Stream, the extent of which depends on a combination of strong winds, high tide and high rainfall.
An implication for management is that no trees or other plants should be planted in this ‘flood plain’ which have high saline intolerance and do not like being regularly waterlogged in the winter.
Fluctuating water levels in River Ems and Lumley Stream
The level of water in the river varies throughout the year due to the amount of rainfall, the level of abstraction by Portsmouth Water Company at Walderton pumping station 3-4 miles in the north and ineffective control of water levels at a sluice to the north. This sluice is in a poor state of repair which is having a detrimental effect on water levels in the lower reaches of the River Ems.
The implications for management are limited to putting pressure on the Environment Agency to check that water abstraction levels are not too high and to ensure that the Lumely sluice is replaced and maintained and that the new sluice is controlled in such a way that neither wildlife nor people suffer from lack of water or too much water.