Restoration and Creation of Saltmarshes and Other Intertidal Habitats
Alastair Grant
Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, University of East Anglia
Restoration and Creation of Saltmarshes and Other Intertidal HabitatsAlastair GrantCentre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, University of East Anglia |
|
In conjunction with Dr. Mark Rehfisch and Dr. Phil Atkinson of the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), Dr. Steve Crooks and myself have been involved in carrying out a review for English Nature of the success (or otherwise) of schemes to create or recreate intertidal habitats such as saltmarshes and mudflats. The final report of this project is available as an English Nature research report.
Atkinson, P.W., S. Crooks, A. Grant and M. Rehfisch, 2001. The success of creation and restoration schemes in producing intertidal habitat suitable for waterbirds. English Nature Research Report No. 425
This can be downloaded as a three part document: download part 1, download part 2, download part 3. Some discussion of the suitability of created intertidal habitat for birds has been published as a paper with the title Can we recreate or restore intertidal habitats for shorebirds and a more detailed study of colonisation of the Tollesbury and Orplands sites by birds will be published shortly in the journal Ibis. Please email me to request a reprint.
Whether or not it is feasible to create intertidal habitat is a particularly topical issue in the UK at present, as a result of four proposals to increase container port capacity in south-east England. The first of these was by Associated British Ports (ABP) whose plans to build a container port at Dibden Bay on Southampton Water, which were rejected by the UK government on 20th April 2004. A summary of the decision is available from BBC news, and the full decision letter from the Secretary of State is available from The UK Department of Transport. The planning inspector concluded that the proposals would damage the integrity of the Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar site and Special Protection Area (SPA). The need to satisfy the requirements of the EU Habitats and Birds directives meant that the proposals included the creation of new intertidal habitats, including a "Mile Long Creek" to substitute for existing habitats that would have been destroyed by the new port. The Inspector concluded that these proposals would reduce the environmental impacts of the development but they "would not be adequate to permit the Secretary of State to meet the requirements of regulation 53 of the Habitats Regulations".
The public enquiry on the proposed development opened on 27th November 2001 and closed on 12th December 2002 (see the following BBC News item and The planning inspectorate web site). This was seen by many as the first major test case for the mitigation/compensation requirements included in the EU Habitats and Birds directives. The conclusions of both the Planning Inspector and the Secretary of State centre on the application of these directives to Dibden. They agree that there is a need for additional container port facilities in the south east of England, but consider that forseeable national need could be satisfied without the Dibden Bay facility. So the proposals fail to demonstrate "imperative reasons of overriding public interest" and the planned compensatory measures would be inadequate. The proposals therefore fail both tests required by the EU Habitats Directive and its translation into the english Habitats Regulations.
When reporting the decision the Transport Minister, Tony McNulty, commented that "one important factor in the making of this decision was the environmental impact of the proposals on internationally protected sites". Further details on the proposals are available from the ABP website, the dedicated web site www.dibdenterminal.co.uk, New Forest District Council Hampshire County Counciland Southampton City Council. The proposal was opposed by Friends of the Earth, RSPB and English Nature (see background information from early 2001 and their 27th November 20001 press release) amongst others.
Many of the same issues arise with two other proposals to build large container ports in the South East of England. These are:
We also make available here our bibliography of published material on salt marsh restoration and creation, and will add links to other web resources on saltmarsh restoration as time permits. One of my current PhD students, Hannah Mossman is continuing this work, jointly supervised by Tony Davy in the School of Biological Sciences, and has carried out detailed ecological surveys of almost all the UK managed retreat sites to assess their success. For further details, email me at: A.Grant@uea.ac.uk. For other information on research opportunities and undergraduate study at the University of East Anglia, please see the Ecology at UEA and The School of Environmental Sciences web pages.
Professor Alastair Grant,
Director
Centre for Ecology, Evolution and
Conservation
School of Environmental
Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
UK
3rd November 2009
Saltmarsh Restoration bibliography
Information on the Tollesbury and Orplands managed retreat sites, Essex, UK
Other managed retreat/saltmarsh creation sites in Essex include:
Abbotts Hall Farm (owned by the Essex Wildlife Trust - see here for more details) and
Northey Island (owned by the National Trust).
Proposals were put out for consultation on the creation of two large managed retreat sites at Wallasea island on the Crouch Estuary and Weymarks, close to Bradwell on the Blackwater Estuary. These developments are in compensation for loss of intertidal habitat at Lappel Bank on the Medway Estuary and Fagbury Flats on the Stour/Orwell Estuary. After consultation it was decided to proceed with the Wallasea Island site, but not with the Weymarks site. The requirement to compensate for these developments results from a ruling from the European Court of Justice in a case brought against the UK government by the RSPB.
Realignment sites elsewhere in the UK include:
Freiston Shore, on the Lincolnshire coast of the Wash;
Chalkdock Marsh and Thornham Point on Chichester Harbour;
Seal Sands on the Tees estuary;
Thorngumbald, also known as Paul Holme Strays on the Humber Estuary (see also);
Brancaster West Marsh on the North Norfolk Coast (see also DEFRA News Release);
Havergate Island in Suffolk and
Nigg Bay on the Cromarty Firth.
A decision has been made to stop attempting to maintain the shingle ridge between Cley and Salthouse on the North Norfolk coast (see Environment Agency press releases from April 2003 and August 2003). In effect this represents a managed realignment of the existing coastline. Original proposals to allow flooding of only part of this area have been abandoned, largely driven by nature conservation considerations (see here for more details).
The full text of a US National Research Council report Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act (2001) is available online. This is presents the findings of a committee chaired by Professor Joy Zedler of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, which reviewed the extent to which the goal of No Net Loss of wetlands was being achieved.
The US National Oceans and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) maitain a web site on the State of the Coast. Of particular interest is their bulletin on restoring coastal habitats.