Review of the Effectiveness of Natura 2000 Sites Compensation...

Review of the Effectiveness of Natura 2000 Sites Compensation Measures in England

Contract Reference: WC1076 Review of the Effectiveness of Natura 2000 Sites Compensation Measures in England

Report Number:

Annex 1: Site reports

2016

Project Title: Review of the Effectiveness of Natura 2000 Sites Compensation Measures in England.

Report No: Review of the Effectiveness of Natura 2000 Sites Compensation Measures in England. Annex 2

Project Code: WC1076

Defra Contract Manager: Andy Tully, Policy Advisor, International Protected Areas Team

Funded by:

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) & Natural England

Nobel House

17 Smith Square

London SW1P 3JR

Authors: Roger K.A. Morris, Mike Harley, Richard Cottle, Brian Banks, J. Pat Doody, Andrew E Brown, Abigail Weston, Richard Hart and Simon Prince

Disclaimer: The content of this report does not necessarily reflect the views of Defra, nor is Defra liable for the accuracy of information provided, or responsible for any use of the reports content.

Table of contents

Introduction i-ii

List of case studies i.

Map of locations of compensation sites ii.

Annexes

A2.1. Anglian Water Services: Wing Water Treatment Works 1-6

A2.2. Associated British Ports: Quay 2005, Green Port Hull and Immingham Outer Harbour

7-19

A2.3. Defra: Fagbury Flats and Lappel Bank 20-28

A2.4. Dubai Ports World: London Gateway Container Terminal 29-37

A2.5. Environment Agency Cley/Salthouse Flood Management Scheme

38-43

A2.6. Environment Agency: Hullbridge Tidal Flood Defence Scheme

44-49

A2.7. Environment Agency: Humber Estuary Flood Risk Management Strategy

50-56

A2.8. Environment Agency Pett Frontage Tidal Flood Defence Scheme

57-62

A2.9. Environment Agency Portchester Castle to Emsworth Flood Risk Management Strategy

63-70

A2.10. Harwich Haven Authority: approach channel deepening 71-77

A2.11. Highways Agency: A249 Iwade to Queensborough road improvement scheme

78-83

A2.12. Lancaster City Council: Morecambe Coastal Defence Works

84-91

A2.13. Tarmac Ltd: Arcow Quarry 92-94

i

Introduction

This Annex records the main information emerging from desk-based investigation into the outcomes of 15 compensation packages associated with a variety of commercial and flood risk management strategies. It is combined with the results of site visits made to evaluate the degree to which compensation has been implemented and how that habitat has performed to date. Each site is covered by a separate data sheet that has been designed to be used either in combination with others (i.e. the main report and this annex) or as a stand-alone document. The format for each site is broadly the same but in places they have been modified to reflect the levels of documentation available, or inter-relationships between projects. The reports are organised in alphabetic order of the development project as listed in below:

Developer Development project Compensation site(s)

Anglian Water Services

Wing Water Treatment Works Rutland Water

Associated British Ports

Hull Quay 2005 Container Terminal

Chowder Ness & Alkborough

Immingham Outer Harbour Welwick, Chowder Ness & Doig’s Creek

Green Port Hull Welwick, Chowder Ness & Alkborough

Defra Port of Sheerness -Lappel Bank Port of Felixstowe -Fagbury Flats

Allfleet's Marsh, Wallasea Island

Dubai Ports World London Gateway Container Terminal

Stanford Wharf & Cliffe Marshes

Environment Agency Cley/Salthouse Flood Management Scheme

Hilgay

Hullbridge Tidal Flood Defence Scheme

Brandy Hole

Humber Estuary Flood Risk Management Strategy

Paull-Holme Strays

Pett Frontage Tidal Flood Defence Scheme

Rye Harbour

Portchester Castle to Emsworth Flood Risk Management Strategy

Medmerry

Harwich Haven Authority

Approach channel deepening Trimley

Highways Agency A249 Iwade to Queensborough road improvement scheme

Chetney Marshes

Lancaster City Council

Morecambe Coastal Defence Works

Hesketh Outmarsh

Tarmac Ltd Arcow Quarry Moughton

ii

The geographical locations of the fifteen compensation sites are shown below.

1

A2.1. Anglian Water Services: Wing Water Treatment Works

Compensation site(s) Rutland Water

Designated Site (s) UK9008051 Rutland Water SPA

UK11062 Rutland Water Ramsar site

Article 6(4) rationale It cannot be ascertained that there would not be an adverse affect on integrity

Predicted key impacts Expansion of the Wing Water Treatment Works, which draws water from Rutland Water. The new pumping regime would result in greater drawdown and a reduction in water level (beyond previously licenced levels)in the reservoir under low flow/drought conditions.

Evidence from an earlier drought event suggested that gadwall and shoveler populations had reduced substantially as a consequence of the drought and did not recover immediately. It was therefore concluded that there was a potential risk of a reduction in the capacity of the reservoir to maintain waterbird populations in the event of extreme drawdown events resulting from upgrading Wing Water Treatment Works.

Agreed compensation measures

A combination of mitigation and compensation was undertaken. This involved:

Dams/causeways were built within the SPA to create bays where water levels could be maintained during periods of lower water level in the main reservoir (mitigation).

Two sets of lagoons (B, C1 - C4) were created as compensation habitat outside but immediately adjacent to the SPA, together with an area of adjacent wet grassland (C5) (compensation).

Functionality objectives for the compensation site

An incomplete archive of key documents was supplied. From this it is not possible to define clearly the functionality objectives set.

In the final monitoring report (Mott McDonald, 20141) it is reported that the 'objective for the new lagoons was to achieve biological productivity similar to that of the existing lagoons (Lagoons 1-3) in Rutland Water'.

The overall objective of the project was to offset the possible effects of greatly reduced water levels within the reservoir. In the absence of obvious targets, it is assumed that waterbird abundance is

1 Rutland Water Habitats Creation Scheme Monitoring Programme for the New Lagoons - Final Report 2013.

2

taken as an indicator of overall habitat functionality.

Timing between habitat loss and re-creation

Consent for Wing Water Treatment Works was granted in 2007. It is not clear when the upgrading of Wing Water Treatment Works was completed.

The construction of lagoon B was completed in 2007, with full inundation in 2008. The construction of lagoons C1-C4 and creation of the wet grassland (C5) was completed in 2008, with full inundation in 2009.

In the period since Wing Water Treatment Works were expanded it has not proved necessary to reduce water levels to the degree that was anticipated in the pre-consent analysis. Consequently, the compensation package is fully functional and available should the need arise.

Is there a regulators group?

There does not appear to be group made up of the relevant regulators, although there is ongoing management of the site by Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust.

Description of compensation site at time of visit on 25 June 2014 - photographs 1-5:

The habitat creation work is complete.

The lagoons within the compensation areas are embankment lagoons, which provide roosting and feeding areas for moulting and wintering waterfowl - particularly gadwall (Anas strepera) and shoveler (Anas clypeata). These lagoons were created by excavating and embanking fields next to the reservoir.

The lagoons are fully inundated and have been since completion of the habitat creation works. The compensation habitats are now established and are supporting designated waterfowl. Robust monitoring has determined the functionality of the compensation areas but it has not been possible to test the effectiveness of the compensation during an extreme drawdown event.

The compensation site is owned by Anglian Water Services Ltd. and managed by Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust.

Key outcomes

96 ha of shallow water and wetland habitats have been created at the western end of Rutland Water.

The new lagoons have been colonised by aquatic macrophytes and invertebrates required to support target bird usage but are still in early stages of colonisation and can be expected to mature.

Use of the new lagoons by waterfowl is good, although numbers using some lagoons are often below predicted levels.

3

Summary of the key lessons learned

Freshwater wetland lagoons can be readily created and will support large numbers of migratory waterfowl, including target species gadwall and shoveler.

Should similar situations occur elsewhere and a need be identified for similar compensation measures, the Rutland Water site provides a useful model.

1. Northern compensation lagoon (B). (25/06/2014)

4

2. Southern compensation lagoon (C3). (25/06/2014)

3. Southern compensation lagoon (C1). (25/06/2014)

5

4. Wet grassland in southern compensation area (C5, above set of four lagoons highlighted on the map). (25/06/2014)

6

Rutland Water

7

A2.2. Associated British Ports: Quay 2005, Green Port Hull and Immingham Outer Harbour

Note: The case histories of these three developments are closely inter-linked, with the compensation packages initially depending upon two sites at Chowderness and Welwick. Additional compensation at Alkborough was included in the re-design of Quay 2005 which became 'Green Port Hull'. For this reason details are listed as a single sheet in order to minimise overlap and confusion.

Compensation site(s) Alkborough

Chowder Ness

Welwick

(Doigs Creek = mitigation)

Designated Site (s) UK0030170 Humber Estuary SAC

UK9006111 Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast SPA

UK9006111 Humber Estuary SPA

UK9006111 Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast Ramsar site

UK11031 Humber Estuary Ramsar site

Article 6(4) rationale

Quay 2005 It could not be ascertained that the revised scheme would not have an adverse effect

Green Port Hull Adverse affect on integrity

Immingham Outer Harbour

Adverse affect on integrity

Predicted key impacts

Quay 2005 Permanent loss of 4ha of intertidal mudflat

Loss of roosting structure used by wintering waterfowl

Green Port Hull Loss of 3ha of subtidal habitat within the footprint of the development.

Loss of 4.5ha of mudflat.

Longer term loss of 0.6ha of intertidal area due to indirect changes to estuary hydrodynamics and morphological processes.

Loss of roosting structure used by wintering waterfowl.


Loss of 22ha (down to LAT) of intertidal mudflat.

Possible loss of 5ha of mudflat through morphological response of the estuary to the development.

8


Quay 2005 6 ha of inter-tidal habitat at Chowder Ness

The provision of permanent roost structures (mitigation)

A noise barrier along the western edge of Quay 2005, that will also act as a visual screen (mitigation)

Green Port Hull 6 ha of inter-tidal habitat at Chowder Ness

5 ha of inter-tidal habitat at the existing Alkborough managed realignment site

The provision of permanent roost structures (mitigation).


45ha of intertidal habitat creation at Welwick.

11ha of intertidal habitat creation Chowder Ness; five hectares of which provides compensation (in part) for Immingham outer Harbour.

Doig’s Creek – Blocking the creek outfall to generate around 3ha of intertidal mudflat. (mitigation)


'The targets against which the success of the compensation scheme will be assessed are that the site should be capable of supporting the following:

• An assemblage of roosting waterfowl, comprising, on a 5-year mean peak basis, at least 3600 waterfowl in similar proportions to those historically supported by Fagbury Flats, in particular ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola), dunlin (Calidris alpina) and turnstone (Arenaria interpres); and

• An assemblage of feeding waterfowl, comprising, on a 5-year mean peak basis, at least 2800 waterfowl in similar proportions to those historically supported by Lappel Bank and Fagbury Flats, in particular shelduck (Tadorna tadorna), dunlin and redshank (Tringa totanus).

In addition, the proposed realignment site should, where practicable, deliver the necessary habitat characteristics that provide the opportunity for the full assemblage of waterfowl to feed and roost within the site, that is:

• Soft intertidal mudflats;

• Saltmarsh – this should be higher saltmarsh generally suitable for roosting waterfowl;

9

• A range of islands with appropriate capping material i.e. shingle, cockles and mud, to provide suitable habitat for roosting waterfowl; and

Limited disturbance – for example, through the prevention of wildfowling, casual access and speed boating on or over the intertidal areas created.'

Date development commenced

Quay 2005

Green Port Hull


Project did not commence - replaced by Green Port Hull

Not yet developed

Date compensation completed

2007

February 2005-April 2006


2007

Were permits etc. for compensation package in place at the same time as the development?

Quay 2005 No

Green Port Hull Yes, and compensation largely completed, although it is unclear what has happened at Alkborough


No

Is there a regulator's group?

Environmental Steering Committee (ESC) composed of:

ABP, Environment Agency, Natural England, DfT, Cefas, Local Authority, RSPB, Yorkshire WT and Lincolnshire WT.

Description of compensation sites at time of visit

Note: no visit was made to Alkborough because this was not part of the project brief.

Chowder Ness (visited 19 May 2014) - Photographs 1-4:

A relatively small site (11 ha) that is roughly triangular in shape. There are two breaches with an island in between. The largest (western) breach is actually effectively a bank removal and allows substantial wave penetration into the site. This is the area where saltmarsh development is least advanced.

The site has accreted very substantially and is now Upper estuary marsh dominated by cordgrass (Spartina anglica) with rapid transitions to sea club rush (Bolboschoenus maritimus), common reed (Phragmites australis) and sea couch (Elytrigia atherica). On the outer mudflats sea aster (Aster tripolium) is abundant. Left to develop, cordgrass will probably die out and be replaced by more typical upper estuary marsh. Vegetation extends across much of the most sheltered parts of the site and is clearly invading remaining open space. Upper saltmarsh transitions

10

are evident with cordgrass, sea couch and then a mosaic of saltmarsh grass (Puccinellia sp.) and red fescue (Festuca rubra) with ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata) and sea beet (Beta vulgaris) amongst the stones. There are also substantial patches of common reed.

At the time of this visit the site had been recently inundated and although there were localised signs of mud cracking the overall surface was wet and un-cracked. This contrasts with a site visit in 2012 in which the entire surface was desiccated, extensively cracked and capable of supporting the weight of a large man!

The sea walls are reinforced by open concrete blocks, presumably over geotextile. In places there is developing scrub with lots of seedling hawthorn and brambles.

Welwick (visited 13 May 2014) - Photographs 5-8:

This is a larger triangular site (45 ha) that was created by removing the main outer sea walls along the entire outer face, together with creation of two breaches. On the seaward side there are the remains of former stoning at the base of what would have been eroding saltmarsh.

The site has substantially gained elevation as a result of accretion and its topography is now fairly uniform, with limited channels and extending areas of saltmarsh vegetation. Where vegetation has established, succession from cordgrass to saltmarsh grass sward is apparent. In places, classic circular patches of colonising cordgrass can be seen. More open areas towards the rear of the marsh are most likely to be due to higher salinity brought about by ponding at the back of the marsh. The community is diverse, with glasswort (Salicornia sp.), Scurvy-grass (Cochlearia sp.), saltmarsh grass, small plants of sea purslane (Atriplex portulacoides) and red fescue.

Mudflats remain extensive and apparently wet on a spring tide, but there are various areas where the patches of developing saltmarsh indicate a shift towards greater coverage. The breaches have very minor (braided) channels running through them, suggesting that the rate of water ingress and egress is slow and that volumes may be comparatively low. There are no signs of major erosion channels through adjacent mudflats.

Doigs Creek (visited 19 May 2014) - Photograph 9:

This project involved sealing the sluices from the port of Grimsby that emptied through Doigs Creek. Its objective was to allow mudflats to gain elevation and for this to help to offset the impact of loss of mudflat at Immingham. The site visit confirmed that the objective had been met and that extensive sedimentation had taken place. In the area closest to the shore there has been substantial colonisation by cordgrass and further colonisation should be expected across a wider area of the former creek.

Key outcomes

Sufficient compensation has been created in terms of extent of inter-tidal habitat. This habitat is consistent with other habitats within the Humber Estuary and can be expected to maintain the overall coherence of SAC habitat 1130 'Estuaries'.

On the basis of current evidence it is possible that in the longer-term the Chowder Ness and Welwick compensation sites will fulfil objectives for usage

11

by migratory waterfowl. Monitoring evidence indicates that the design objectives are met by the combined populations of waterfowl using these compensation sites (together with Doigs Creek).

Compensation for Green Port Hull has been delivered in advance of the damage to the SAC/SPA/Ramsar interest, which is consistent with EU guidance.

Monitoring has been comprehensive and is properly scrutinised by a strong regulators group.

Summary of the key lessons learned:

Natural England identified a practical way of addressing sub-tidal habitat loss by accepting that this could be compensated by extending the overall boundary of the Natura 2000 site. It should be stressed, however, that compensation in this case involved losses to the extent of habitat 1130 'Estuaries', rather than a specific sub-tidal habitat listed within the designation as SAC. Thus, the concept remains un-tested in a wider context of SAC habitats.

Consents granted for imperative reasons of over-riding public interest address commercial issues that can be driven by external factors such as global trade patterns. It is not always the case that such developments will necessarily be built immediately, as trade volumes and pressure can change dramatically. If, however, compensation is developed immediately after consent for a development is granted there is a greater chance that it will be in place before the damage takes place.

Monitoring data for the compensation sites is comprehensive and was disseminated to regulators through a secure web portal.

Sedimentation within managed realignment sites on the Humber Estuary is extremely rapid; possibly more rapid than might have been anticipated. It can be expected that such sites will form saltmarsh in a relatively short period (less than 20 years). If viewed in strict isolation from wider estuarine functioning, compensation sites may not address waterbird feeding habitat loss in the long-term.

12

1. Chowder Ness: facing west towards South Ferriby. Note extensive development of sea club rush and general spread of vegetation in this region, which is more protected from wave action than other parts of the site. (19/05/2014)

2. Chowder Ness: facing NW towards the main breach. Note developing fringe of common reed - a species that occurs extensively in the more brackish parts of the Humber Estuary. (19/05/2014)

13

3. Chowder Ness: facing north towards the main breach. Note extensive grassland habitats that are rarely inundated, and developing reed fringe. The mudflat at this point is exposed to much larger waves owing to the presence of the breach and is less vegetated. (19/05/2014)

4. Chowder Ness: facing east across the main breach. Note the developing vegetated topography even close to the breach. (19/05/2014)

14

5. Welwick: facing east towards the pumping station. Note extensive vegetative cover, but it should be recognised that in part this is an illusion of the photograph and that areas of open mud remain. (13/05/2014)

6. Welwick: photographed from a point closer to the south-western end than photograph 1, showing developing saltmarsh, creek formation and open mudflats. (13/05/2014)

15

7. Welwick: the junction between the former sea wall and adjacent saltmarsh on the estuary side of the wall. Note that the wall has not been fully levelled to the height of the original saltmarsh and that there is clear zonation. (13/05/2014)

8. Welwick: one of the two breaches, facing north into the site. Note that this area retains open mudflat habitat and that braided erosion patterns extend across the breach. (13/05/2014)

16

9. Doigs Creek: The structure in the foreground is the original (listed) 18th Century lock entrance and the remains of the former sluice mechanisms (recent). Since the creek was filled in, there has been substantial saltmarsh development and invasion of cordgrass onto mudflat habitat.(19/05/2014)

17

Chowder Ness

18

Doig's Creek

19

Welwick

20

A2.3. Defra: Fagbury Flats and Lappel Bank

Note: Responsibility for meeting this obligation fell to Defra rather than the respective ports because this was a legal requirement rather than a direct assessment of the possible implications of the port developments.

Compensation site(s) Allfleet’s Marsh (Wallasea Island)

Designated Site (s) UK9012131 Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA

UK11040 Medway Estuary and Marshes Ramsar Site

UK9009121 Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA

UK11067 Stour and Orwell Estuaries Ramsar Site

Article 6(4) rationale Lappel Bank in the Medway Estuary was excluded, on economic grounds, from the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA when it was designated in 1993. The area was subsequently developed as part of the Port of Sheerness. In a similar manner, Fagbury Flats, on the Orwell Estuary, was excluded from the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA, again on economic grounds, and was then developed as part of the Felixstowe deep water container terminal development in the 1990’s. Following referral of the case (brought against the UK Government by the RSPB), the European Court of Justice found against the UK Government. As a result the Government was committed to find compensatory measures to offset the environmental impacts.

Development details

Port of Felixstowe Trinity Terminal

Trinity container terminal was developed in the late 1980s. As part of this development the Port of Felixstowe constructed the Trimley nature reserve now run by Suffolk Wildlife Trust, but this was not considered to be compensation for losses within the SPA.

Port of Sheerness Development of additional storage area for importing/exporting cars. Site developed in 1994.

Known key impacts

Port of Felixstowe Trinity Terminal

32 ha of inter-tidal mudflat and saltmarsh which supported waterbird populations that would have formed part of the overall designated populations of the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA.

Port of Sheerness 22 ha of inter-tidal mudflat, which supported waterbird populations that would have formed part of the overall designated populations of the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA.

21


Compensation measures were determined long after the development consents were granted. These were set at:

115 hectares of intertidal habitat including, approximately, 92 hectares of mudflat and 23 hectares of saltmarsh.


Targets set were:

The compensatory habitat should provide feeding habitat for waterfowl throughout the year whenever they are present; the main compensation requirement is for wintering waterfowl.

Within 10 years of the breach of the existing seawalls, the site should be of sufficient quality to qualify for designation as an extension to the Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA and Ramsar site.

The targets against which the success of the compensation scheme will be assessed are that the site should be capable of supporting the following:

An assemblage of roosting waterfowl, comprising, on a 5-year mean peak basis, at least 3600 waterfowl in similar proportions to those historically supported by Fagbury Flats, in particular ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola), dunlin (Calidris alpina) and turnstone (Arenaria interpres); and

An assemblage of feeding waterfowl, comprising, on a 5-year mean peak basis, at least 2800 waterfowl in similar proportions to those historically supported by Lappel Bank and Fagbury Flats, in particular shelduck (Tadorna tadorna), dunlin and redshank (Tringa totanus).


There was a delay of 12-16 years between the loss of the sites and the final delivery of the compensation site in 2007.


An independent Wallasea Project Management Team was set up to oversee the project’s environmental quality objectives. It comprised representatives of English Nature (Natural England), The Environment Agency, RSPB and Cefas2.

2 Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

22

Description of compensation site at time of visit on 22 May 2014 - photographs 1-6

The managed realignment site is composed of 3 cells, which in total extend along a length of 3.5km of the northern side of Wallasea Island was completed in 2006. It included innovative use of maintenance dredged sediment from the approach channels to the port of Felixstowe. This element was an 'at cost' partnership between Defra and Harwich Haven Authority. Dredged sediment was placed behind clay bunds constructed from material within the site. The bunds form a strip of elevated ground immediately in front of the new sea wall but each attains a slightly different elevation, with the lowest at the western end of the site and the highest at the eastern end. This is reflected in the extent to which these areas are vegetated, with glasswort (Salicornia) / annual sea-blite (Suada maritima) / cordgrass (Spartina sp.) communities at the western end and a good mixture of red fescue Festuca rubra, saltmarsh grass (Puccinellia sp.) and sea aster (Aster tripolium) with sea purslane (Atriplex portulacoides) hummocks colonising the most easterly section.

Clay-winning to create the bunds left the surface of the realignment site at a lower level that would otherwise have obtained. The surface included variations that formed ponds at low tide when first constructed, but these have long-since filled in and there are substantial parts of each compartment (protected by the old sea wall) where mudflat levels have substantially increased. The implications of this increase in levels are demonstrated by occasional clumps of cordgrass extending well beyond the confines of the raised bunds.

Material from the breaches was placed in a manner to reduce wave penetration through the breaches and designed to form roosting areas for waterfowl. These structures are still visible and contain the rubble from former armouring of the sea wall. From a distance they appear to have substantially eroded away. It was not possible to access the outer sea walls owing to the risk of disturbing breeding birds, but from a distance it appears as though there is significant internal erosion of the old sea walls, a feature shared with many other realignment sites.

Photograph 7. The site is managed by the RSPB on behalf of Defra and forms one part of a developing major initiative: the 'Wallasea Island Wild Coast Project'3

Key outcomes

The site has evolved substantially according to predictions and broadly meets the design objectives. There appears to have been limited sedimentation on the original bunds but elsewhere within the site there has been substantial and obvious gains in mudflat elevation so that a more 'natural' topography is developing.

Monitoring of overwintering birds using the realignment site shows that the 5-year peak mean for feeding birds was 5,714 which was more than 200% of the compensation target (at least 2,800 feeding birds). The 5-year peak mean for roosting waterfowl at Allfleet’s Marsh was 9,185 and this was 255% of the agreed compensation target (at least 3,600 roosting waterfowl).

The dredged sediment retained within the bunds has consolidated and to a greater or lesser extent has developed saltmarsh vegetation. This vegetation is somewhat patchy and there are areas devoid of vegetation and clearly

3 http://www.rspb.org.uk/reserves/guide/w/wallaseaisland/

23

ponded.

Habitat creation appeared to be largely successful at the time of the visit. There was, however, substantial coverage of mudflat and saltmarsh by sea lettuce (Enteromorpha sp.), which may affect the productivity of the site and vegetation cover. In addition, cordgrass clumps point to a new phase developing in which the site becomes more extensively vegetated with the main mudflats associated with breaches.

The project has generated a substantial body of monitoring data that makes it of considerable scientific interest as a possible long-term study site.

The site has been given substantial public profile through a dedicated website that also links to a webcam and live transmissions of activity on the mudflats. This source contains a wide range of relevant key documents.

Summary of the key lessons learned:

The rigorous site selection process led to the development of a compensation site that appears to meet all of the original design objectives.

Artificial creation of raised ground using maintenance dredged sediment has been shown to be a viable technique in inter-tidal habitat creation, although there may be a need to evaluate further how to avoid significant ponding within such structures.

It has been demonstrated how modest changes in mudflat elevation can affect the nature of vegetative colonisation.

It would appear that under certain circumstances it is possible to create highly viable inter-tidal habitat, capable of supporting significant waterbird populations. It is not clear, however, whether the numbers involved represent a shift in usage of mudflats within the Crouch and Roach Estuaries, or if numbers have been augmented by greater overall usage of the estuary.

Provision of a website to disseminate relevant documents and other information can ensure wider public access to the project and its outputs. This example could readily be recognised as 'best practice'.

24

1. Saltmarsh and mudflats and breach in the first (most westerly) compartment. The saltmarshes comprises red fescue, saltmarsh grass. and sea aster with sea purslane forming hummocks in the middle distance and sea couch (Elytrigia atherica) along the foot of the fence. (22/05/2014)

2. Western end of the second compartment. The sediment-retaining bund here was slightly lower than others (necessary to maintain structural stability). The saltmarsh largely comprises a mixture of glasswort, annual sea-blite and cordgrass with a substantial smothering by sea lettuce. Bare areas probably arise from ponding effects and raised salinity. (22/05/2014)

25

3. Middle and eastern end of the second compartment facing east. Clear delineation between the sediment retaining bund and the mudflats. The saltmarsh lies at slightly greater elevation than that in photograph 2 and is therefore a more complex mixture of vegetation comprising saltmarsh grass, sea aster and glasswort. with sea purslane forming hummocks. (22/05/2014)

4. Middle compartment, between the first and second breaches. Mudflat projected by the remaining sea wall has gained elevation and in places scattered patches of cordgrass have established. Note, the saltmarsh in the foreground is more uniform than in photographs 2 and 5. The precise reasons for lack of bare areas is unclear. (22/05/2014)

26

5. Eastern-most compartment. Saltmarsh within the retaining bund is well-established comprising open pioneer glasswort to saltmarsh grass and sea aster, with sea purslane. Note large bare areas in the developing saltmarsh that probably reflect ponding effects. (22/05/2014)

6. Far eastern end of compartment 3 (area behind Fleet Point). This area appears to be somewhat more sandy. (22/05/2014)

27

7. Infrastructure at the Fleet Point end of the site associated with the ongoing development of the Wallasea Wild Coast Project. Barges are discharging clean spoil from the Crossrail project. (22/05/2014)

28

Allfleet's Marsh, Wallasea Island

29

A2.4. Dubai Ports World: London Gateway Container Terminal

Compensation site(s) Site A - Stanford Wharf

Site X - Cliffe Marshes

Designated Site (s) UK9012021 Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA

UK11069 Thames Estuary and Marshes Ramsar Site

Note, the appropriate assessment also considered the following sites but concluded that an impact was unlikely:

UK9009171 Benfleet and Southend Marshes SPA

UK11006 Benfleet and Southend Marshes Ramsar Site.

Article 6(4) rationale Adverse affect on site integrity.

Predicted key impacts Conversion of 5ha intertidal (SPA) to shallow sub-tidal.

Loss of 29 ha undesignated intertidal.

Loss of 68 ha undesignated subtidal.

Loss of benthic communities in the dredging footprint.

Accretion (50 to 100mm/year ) of sediment onto the northern end of Mucking Flats. Over a period of 7 - 12 years up to 1m of accretion will occur on Mucking Flats.

Accretion (8-16mm/yr) due to the reclamation process over the rest of Mucking Flats, in the mouth of Holehaven and on Blyth Sands (7mm/y) and the Southend Flats (SPA) (<1mm/yr r).

Dispersion and temporary settlement of material onto intertidal areas during the capital dredging.

Accretion (7mm/yr) due to the dredging on the northern part of Mucking Flats; the western part of Blyth Sands; and at lower rates over the rest of Mucking, the mouth of Holehaven Creek and the Southend Flats (SPA) (4mm/yr).

Temporary disturbance to feeding and roosting birds during construction.

Loss of and disruption to un-designated grazing marsh habitat that supports SPA bird populations.

30


Site ‘A’ (Stanford Wharf ) at least 33 hectares of inter-tidal mudflat.

Site ‘X’ (Cliffe Marshes ) at least 41 hectares of inter-tidal mudflat.

In addition, it is proposed to convert the eastern part of Site X from the existing arable fields back to grazing marsh, in order to provide mitigation for the habitats lost as a result of the breach of the sea wall for the rest of Site X.


Sites A and X, in combination with northern Mucking Flats, the necessary intertidal habitat to support such an assemblage of wintering waterfowl - at least 7,900 birds, made up of, in particular, avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta), dunlin (Calidris alpina) and black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa) in similar proportions to those supported by North Mucking during the winters of 1999/2000 to 2002/2003 (considered in the context of the wider population trends). The target for the overall assemblage have been derived from low water count data for the four winter periods 1999/2000 to 2002/2003

Within 15 years of the breach of the existing seawalls, the sites are of sufficient quality to qualify for designation as an extension to the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA. In addition, the compensation measures will provide a fish habitat to support fish populations of not materially less abundance at the port reclamation site than pre-construction although it is agreed that there is no precise data which clearly determines the existing abundance against which to compare.

In addition (under the Outline Planning Application) to use all reasonable endeavours to manage coastal grazing marsh at Great Garlands Farm and the Northern Triangle (see plan) to provide feeding. roosting and loafing habitat for teal (Anas crecca) and wigeon (Anas penelope) that potentially form part of the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA assemblage. The target against which success of the mitigation will be assessed shall be that peak winter counts of 150 teal and 200 wigeon are recorded in these combined areas.


2010 Site A

31

Site X Not yet completed

Is there a regulator's group? Yes, comprising:

Dubai Ports World, London Gateway Port Authority, Port of London Authority. Natural England and the Environment Agency.


This is complex as the London Gateway project is being developed in stages. Construction of the port commenced before the compensation site was fully functional but the key effects on Natura 2000 habitats were expected to be gradual and therefore the compensation is at least partly in place before/at the same time as the damage.

Description of compensation site at time of visits on 24 and 27 May 2014

Site A (Stanford Wharf) visited on 24 May 2014 - Photographs 1-4:

This is a relatively recently breached site that is still evolving. There is a single large breach at the south-western end. Much of the substrate within the breach area is gravelly and consequently there are fairly extensive patches of the brown alga bladder wrack (Fucus vesicularis).

Elsewhere, the mudflats appear to have evolved but lie relatively low in the tidal frame (although they look to be above the height of the nearby Mucking flats. In the north-west corner there is a small area that appears to have been deliberately elevated to create saltmarsh. This area is now developing into early stages of saltmarsh.

There are already signs of colonisation by cordgrass (Spartina sp.) with small clumps developing on several points on both the eastern and western sides.

It is reported that a series of islands were created within the site to meet the requirements of the RSPB. These structures have largely eroded away, although two remain partially obvious. The mudflats are clearly in early stages of evolution but there is some evidence of creek formation.

Site A (Stanford Wharf) visited on 24 May 2014 - Photograph 5:

Behind the sea wall, the borrow pit and dyke are well-vegetated and look to be making a useful contribution to local freshwater ecology.

Site X (Cliffe Marshes) visited on 27 May 2014 - Photograph 6:

Construction of this site has yet to commence. The engineers have been appointed (Royal Haskoning) and topsoil stripping is expected to commence once the bird breeding season has ended (2014).

Key outcomes

This is a project that is ongoing and consequently it is not possible to identify key outcomes at such an early stage apart from confirmation that one of the two compensation sites (Site A - Stanford Wharf) is in place and appears to meet the broad description of inter-tidal mudflat.

It is confirmed from the site visit and discussions with the developer that Site

32

X is being prepared for construction work and will be delivered in due course.


Experience at Site X shows that there are considerable costs and risks associated with sterilising a site and removing protected species: some species such as water voles (Arvicola amphibius) rapidly return and it is extremely difficult to make a site secure from re-colonisation.

Where projects lead to gradual functional changes it may be practical to phase compensation measures to make sure that they are in place as the impacts start to take effect, but these effects are gradual and consequently there is scope for greater flexibility.

The absence of Natural England licensing team involvement after consent was granted has meant that the opportunity to gain detailed understanding of operational challenges of creating compensation may have been missed.

Documentation explaining delays in implementing part of the compensation package has not been made available. This case exemplifies the need for continued oversight of development projects after consent is granted, and for an appropriate archiving process to ensure relevant documents are available for future scrutiny.

1. Site A (Stanford Wharf). View from NW end of the site looking SE across raised section and saltmarsh creation towards London Gateway. (24/05/2014)

33

2. Site A (Stanford Wharf). View looking north from the breach area. Mudflats appear wetter than they should be due to recent torrential rain! (24/05/2014)

3. Site A (Stanford Wharf). Breach and main channel looking east towards London Gateway. Note extensive covering of bladder wrack. (24/05/2014)

34

4. Site A (Stanford Wharf). View from NE corner towards the breach (SW) and the port of Tilbury. (24/05/2014)

5. Site A (Stanford Wharf). Borrowdyke and pits to the rear of the realignment site. (24/05/2014)

35

6. Site X (Cliffe Marshes). Facing SE from the sea wall. Main works so far are sterilisation of the former borrowdyke and associated ditches. (27/05/2014)

7. Site X (Cliffe Marshes). Facing west along the main borrowdyke, showing how the water body has been cleared of emergent and bank vegetation to discourage water vole re-colonisation. (27/05/2014)

36

Site A: Stanford Wharf

37

Site X: Cliffe Marshes

38

A2.5. Environment Agency Cley/Salthouse Flood Management Scheme

Compensation site(s) Hilgay

Designated Site (s) UK0017075The Wash and North Norfolk Coast marine SAC

UK0019838 North Norfolk Coast SAC

UK9009031 North Norfolk Coast SPA

UK11048 North Norfolk Coast Ramsar site

Article 6(4) rationale Cannot ascertain no adverse affect on integrity.

Predicted key impacts The proposal was to change the management of the 5km shingle ridge between Kelling and Cley on the north Norfolk coast from annual intervention and re-profiling to ‘no active intervention’. In doing so, this would allow the vegetated shingle SAC feature to recover to 'favourable condition'.

Creating the conditions for restoration of coastal shingle features was expected to lead to roll-back of the shingle ridge, naturally reducing the extent of the freshwater wetlands behind the ridge and potentially leading to a change in water salinity with implications for fish used as prey by otter (Lutra lutra) and bittern (Botaurus stellaris). The indirect impacts of habitat restoration were therefore:

Reduced feeding habitat for otter (Habitats Directive Annex II species)

Possible loss of two pairs of breeding bittern (Birds Directive Annex I species).


Compensation measures were developed after detailed evaluation of two possible sites. The final choice at Hilgay forms part of a wider biodiversity initiative: the Wissey Wetland Creation project. The Hilgay site will create 65 ha of wetland habitat; 40 ha of reedbed were required as compensation for the Cley-Salthouse flood management scheme.


It is unclear as to whether specific indicators have been developed. The measure of functionality relates to the establishment of reedbed to support two pairs of nesting bittern and marsh harrier (Circus aeruginosus), along with other wetland species [such as water vole (Arvicola amphibius) and otter].


Not yet completed

39


There is not a regulators group, as in the sense of other compensation schemes, but there is a management group comprising the Environment Agency, Natural England and Norfolk Wildlife Trust.


Active intervention at Cley-Salthouse ceased around 2006, when the Hilgay site was purchased by the EA. However, it was a further two years before the necessary permissions and consents for the compensation work were secured. Work commenced in 2010, but has been delayed by weather-related factors and, at the time that this review took place, it was about to be completed and wetted-up. Despite the delays, the compensation should be available before the full effects of roll-back and over-topping manifest themselves at Cley-Salthouse.

Description of compensation site at time of visit on 21 May 2014

Hilgay is located adjacent to the River Wissey, approximately three miles south-east of Downham Market, in west Norfolk. It was formerly agricultural land and has been profiled to allow the creation of open water bodies together with reedbeds.

Major ground works have been completed and water management infrastructure has been installed. Locally-sourced reeds were planted in 2012/13 alongside the ditches and in the storage lagoon area to speed-up reedbed development. Patches of naturally occurring reeds have also developed in different parts of the site. The ditch system and some of the scrapes have been partially inundated by groundwater and recent rainfall.

The site is, therefore, largely ready for the critical phase in which it is wetted-up. Water extraction from the River Wissey is expected to commence in the near future, initially flooding the perimeter ditch system and then the storage lagoon and other scrapes. Water levels will be managed by control structures and a pump.

Key outcomes

Cessation of active management of the shingle ridge at Cley-Salthouse has allowed re-colonisation of the shingle ridge by annual and perennial vegetation of stony banks. Washover fans are developing and the bank crest is slowly re-profiling. This will deliver favourable condition of the designated shingle habitat.

A 40 ha compensation site is under construction and nearing completion at Hilgay. It will form part of a bigger wetland creation project and provides an important nucleus for the development of a major new wetland. It remains to be seen whether this wetland will qualify for designation as a Natura 2000 site in its own right.

Provision of potential breeding habitat for bittern is well on its way to completion. It is, however, impossible to be certain that suitable wetland habitat will develop to the point where bittern will breed: this is dependent upon the site developing into reedbed and reports from Natural England

40

indicate that there is a risk of willow scrub becoming established.


Shingle barrier beaches can be restored by ceasing to profile the crest and bank. They will develop into a wider, lower and more resilient profile that will support annual and perennial stony bank vegetation.

The process of restoring shingle barrier beaches is episodic and, consequently, any indirect impacts on freshwater wetlands that they protect will be take place over a series of storm events.

It is sometimes possible to use the objectives for a compensation package to act as a stimulus for bigger biodiversity initiatives.

Creation of major wetland sites using bunds and water control structures can be slow and may be affected by bad weather. Hilgay provides an important demonstration project from which important design and management lessons can be drawn.

1. Reedbed development in a scrape surrounded by wet grassland (top right on map). (21/05/2014)

41

2. Partially inundation of the storage lagoon area (top left of map). (21/05/2014)

3. Recent groundwork to complete the storage lagoon (centre left of map). (21/05/2014)

42

4. Reedbed development and a water control structure (bottom right of map). (21/05/2014)

5. Design plan for Hilgay wetland creation project.

43

Hilgay

44

A2.6. Environment Agency: Hullbridge Tidal Flood Defence Scheme

Note: Documentation for this project is extremely fragmentary and it has not been possible to establish a clear picture of the case.

Compensation site(s) Brandy Hole

Designated Site (s) UK0013690 Essex Estuaries cSAC

UK9009244 Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA

UK11058 Crouch and Roach Estuaries Ramsar Site

Article 6(4) rationale Adverse affect on integrity

Predicted key impacts 2.95ha Indirect loss of inter-tidal habitats due to coastal squeeze and perpetuation of ongoing habitat loss.

0.05ha direct loss of inter-tidal habitat as a result of placement of toe protection works and gabions.


A 12 ha site at Brandy Hole, some 1.5 km from the main impact of the flood defence scheme. It was predicted that this would yield 7 ha of inter-tidal habitat (including transitional upper saltmarsh) and 5 ha of rough grassland.


The only functionality indicator appears to be confined to the development of 2.95ha of saltmarsh.


This is unclear from the documents seen. It appears to be between 2002 and 2003.


No.


It is unclear from the documents we have seen how the direct loss related to habitat creation. It should be noted however that the majority of the loss is expected as a result of 'coastal squeeze' which is a long-term process that will be realised well after the compensation site was created.


This small site was extremely difficult to access and it was far from clear where the site boundaries lay. In addition, the complex of creeks, sea walls and breaches complicated access. Visual appraisal was therefore limited to readily accessible sections of the site and we cannot be sure that the entire site was seen! Indeed, re-evaluation of the area using Google Earth suggests that the areas photographed may be of an older provenance but it is unclear how the site would have been physically separated from this. Breaches in the sea wall are detectable from the aerial view.

Access to the site traverses an area of rough ground that is now scrubbing up. Within this effectively terrestrial area there is also a small pond with potentially

45

interesting emergent vegetation but little open water. This rough ground is far from easy to traverse, with considerable thorny scrub.

The saltmarsh area has clearly evolved into a recognisable community of halophytes but in terms of topography it remains noticeably different from adjacent saltmarsh within areas of seeming 'unmanaged' realignment. Google Earth images suggest that clear delineation between the newly created habitat and older habitat is possible, but relevant features do not appear to be accessible using the route used to access the site (from Hullbridge). This saltmarsh does not have a diverse species composition but would appear to fulfil other objectives especially from a functional point of view. Given time plant (and animal) diversity will improve.

Key outcomes

The package of measures exceeds the ongoing losses at a level that will amply compensate for projected losses to coastal squeeze. It will therefore contribute to a wider pool of measures to address coastal squeeze in the Essex Estuaries SAC.

The compensation has largely resulted in saltmarsh habitat that is now fully functional and remarkably similar to older 'natural' saltmarsh.

A full transition from mudflat to terrestrial habitat has been created, allowing capacity for saltmarshes to gradually migrate landward.

Uncertainty was effectively covered by a substantial multiplier of compensation to loss (2.4:1).


This case preceded the development of Coastal Habitat Management Plans (CHaMPs) and there are several places a lack of guidance prior to the development of CHaMPs become apparent from the documents. This case serves to emphasise the positive benefits of the concepts developed by the 'Living with the Seas' LIFE project and helps to show both the need and the potential benefits.

The cost of constructing a realignment site where it abuts rising ground is relatively cheap (£90k for 4 breaches). Wooden bridges to connect breached sections of walls are reported to allow continued use as a footpath (these can be identified on Google Earth).

It was difficult to track down a sufficiently detailed audit trail of the project to fully analyse the issues. This emphasises the need to establish a clear protocol for retention of historic documents where they involve Natura 2000 compensation decisions.

In the 2007 NVC monitoring report it was noted that the higher levels of the site (former arable) were becoming scrubbed up. As far as could be discerned during our visit it appears that no remedial action has been taken, bringing into question the level of attention paid to the monitoring and reported outcomes.

46

1. Rough grassland on rising ground with small and largely vegetated pond. Note developing hawthorn scrub. (22/05/2014)

2. view eastwards along the northern drain within the compensation site. The margins of this drain (right) and other channels are widely colonised with sea purslane (Atriplex portulacoides). (22/05/2014)

47

3. View across the site from the north-eastern corner. Note deep, steep-sided channels and general lack of sloppy sediments, suggesting that this site is starting to erode in a manner similar to other Essex saltmarshes. (22/05/2014)

4. The north-eastern breach - a steep narrow break in the former sea wall. The saltmarsh to the left lies within an enclosed area that appears to have been a previous 'unmanaged realignment'. Saltmarsh to the right appears to be well-established and not dissimilar in composition to the older saltmarsh. (22/05/2014)

48

Brandy Hole managed realignment monitoring map, 2007. This map is reproduced a report produced by Wild Frontier Ecology (2007). It is included to try to place into perspective the four photographs (P1-P4 in red) presented above in the context of the site map on the following page.

49

Brandy Hole

50

A2.7. Environment Agency: Humber Estuary Flood Risk Management Strategy

Note: Paull-Holme Strays is the only case study amongst several proposed and extant packages (including Alkborough - also see ABP Green Port Hull).

Compensation site(s) Paull Holme Strays

Designated Site (s) UK0030170 Humber Estuary SAC

UK9006111 Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast SPA

UK9006111 Humber Estuary SPA

UK9006111 Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast Ramsar site

UK11031 Humber Estuary Ramsar site


Predicted key impacts The 50 year strategy was predicted to result in temporary and permanent losses of 379 ha of designated intertidal habitat. This figure was a best estimate based on relatively wide confidence limits to predictions of change.

These habitats are also likely to be adversely affected by potential changes in physical regime and changes in flow and velocity regime as a result of implementing managed realignment schemes.

The strategy and individual flood defence schemes is expected to affect mixed estuarine habitats, including saltmarshes (various), sandflats and mudflats, and small amounts of dune habitats around the margins of the designated site, resulting in long narrow sections of habitat loss, together with foreshore recession.


The specific targets for the Paull Holme Strays managed realignment were to create the following habitats:

45ha of intertidal mudflats

35ha of saltmarsh.


The intertidal mudflats should support an invertebrate assemblage of similar species, population abundance and biomass to reference sites in the middle estuary.

The saltmarsh should support a range of species which are representative of the middle and lower saltmarsh communities in the area. Upper saltmarsh should be retained on the remnant flood bank.

In addition, at least 30 foraging wintering waterfowl: redshank (Tringa totanus), dunlin (Calidris alpina), shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) and curlew (Numenius

51

arquata) must be present; and at least 12 roosting wintering waterfowl: golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria) must be present.


2003


Yes, but documents we have seen do not identify who is involved.


The impacts of the strategy are expected to occur over a protracted period of 50 years. Thus, the Paull Holme Strays project has been created in advance of the majority of losses.


Photograph 1: Behind part of the sea wall, borrow-dykes and pits have developed into varied freshwater wetland sites with a variety of submerged and emergent water plants, giving structural diversity that is potentially beneficial to a wide variety of invertebrate taxa.

Photographs 2-6:This is a large site composed of two parts: a large open expanse with potential for substantial fetch, combined with long and narrow section with limited fetch. A substantial part of both elements has gained sufficient elevation to turn into saltmarsh. Consequently, the extent of mudflat is rapidly diminishing. Occasional patches of vegetation across parts of the remaining mudflats indicate that these too will become vegetated in due course.

The site is substantially colonised by cordgrass (Spartina anglica) with saltmarsh grass (Puccinellia sp.) and red fescure (Festuca rubra), sea purslane (Atriplex portulacoides) and scurvy grass (Cochlearia officinalis) following. In higher places such as the base of the sea walls, sea couch (Elytrigia atherica) is also established. Localised common reed (Phragmites australis) also follows old ditch lines. The site is therefore developing rapidly into high-level saltmarsh that is only intermittently inundated.

On the occasion of this visit, the mud was relatively wet and dangerous to walk on, but in high summer on neap tides it has been found to be much firmer. Various parts of the site were not visited on safety grounds.

It is noteworthy that although there is rising ground to the sides and much of the rear of the site, a separate sea wall has been created along the north eastern boundary. In doing so, the long-term economic advantage of realignment to rising ground has been lost, whilst overall construction costs will have been raised and a rare opportunity for development of a natural transition to rising ground has been lost. At the western end of the site, however, transition between saltmarsh and rising ground has been created and provides the opportunity to demonstrate how such transitions develop.

Key outcomes

A substantial area of inter-tidal habitat has been created in advance of predicted losses. This habitat include a small, but significant area of transition (at the western end) between saltmarsh and rising gtround that greatly enhances the overall functionality of the Humber Estuary SAC.

52

The narrowest sections of the site have rapidly evolved into a high-level saltmarsh, except in the immediate vicinity of the breach. Within the larger open section a moderately large expanse of open mud remains (after 12 years of inundation) but the margins and most sheltered areas have rapidly gained sufficient elevation to turn into saltmarsh. Classic patches of cordgrass extending onto open mud indicate that colonisation is ongoing and the site has some way to go before it is morphologically stable..

The site has been the subject of a variety of monitoring programmes and has generated a small but significant peer-reviewed literature. It is therefore important as a reference point for understanding the ways in which managed realignment sites evolve in sediment-laden environments.

At the moment, the site meets objectives for saltmarsh creation and for waterbird usage but it is likely to fail to meet objectives for creation of open mudflat habitat in the longer term.

The borrowdyke to the rear of the site has developed into visually attractive and ecologically beneficial freshwater wetland habitat.

Car parking is provided, making access to the perimeter of this site an attraction for a variety of pursuits. A hide is provided at the south-eastern end to benefit bird watchers.


This is a comparatively large site that has rapidly evolved from mudflat to saltmarsh. It provides an important baseline that shows how managed realignment can be expected to evolve in sediment-laden waters using conventional breach technology.

The site demonstrates the sheltering effects of former sea walls around long narrow sites. Most of the remaining mudflat occurs within close proximity of the breaches. Bare areas in other parts of the site probably reflect localised ponding and elevated salinities.

The construction of sea walls in front of substantial rising ground bring no obvious flood risk management benefits and limit the opportunities to create natural transitions from saltmarsh to rising ground - a habitat that is largely absent from the modern Humber Estuary.

The project was developed as a direct result of strategic planning for long-term flood risk management that sought to embrace responsibilities for the natural environment. It provides clear evidence of commitment by the Environment Agency to meeting its obligations in the context of both the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive.

53

1. Borrow-dyke to the rear of the sea wall protecting the gas transfer terminal. Photo taken in early spring and therefore emergent vegetation is not fully developed. (13/05/2014)

2. Main body of the realignment site, looking south towards the main breach. Note patches of cordgrass colonisation extending onto open mud. (13/05/2014)

54

3. Narrow section of the site, behind the remains of the former sea wall. Almost all of this section has developed into high level saltmarsh with some fringes of common reed along the margins of a former ditch. (13/05/2014)

4 Saltmarsh grass with scurvy grass hummocks and partially open mud, possibly resulting from ponding effects. (13/05/2014)

55

5. Bird hide on the former sea wall at the south eastern corner of the site. Note also the rubble pile, the origins of which are unclear. (13/05/2014)

6. Smaller breach at the eastern end of the site. (13/05/2014)

56

Paull Holme Strays

57

A2.8. Environment Agency Pett Frontage Tidal Flood Defence Scheme

Compensation site(s) Rye Harbour

Designated Site (s) UK0013059 Dungeness SAC

UK9012091 Dungeness to Pett Levels SPA

UK11023 Dungeness to Pett Levels pRamsar Site


Predicted key impacts Precise details of the impacts are difficult to disaggregate but include:

Loss of 3.1 ha of shingle habitat, including HD1220 perennial vegetation of stony banks and HD1210 annual vegetation of drift lines.

In addition temporary damage to shingle habitat is expected to recover within 10 years.


Arable reversion, leading to the creation of at least 6.1 ha of shingle habitat capable of supporting perennial vegetation of stony banks. This lies within an area of 9 ha allocated as the compensation site, some of which cannot be classed as shingle).


Indicators do not appear to have been identified. It appears, however, that agreement was reached that the definition of vegetation of stony banks would include all communities comparable to those described in Sneddon and Randall4.


There does not appear to be a regulator's group in the strict sense, although there is a management committee that runs Rye Harbour nature reserve.


This is not entirely clear from the documents we have examined. It would have been broadly coincident and would not have been fully functional before damage occurred.

Description of compensation site at time of visits on 12 February 2014 and 16 May 2014

The site is largely arable reversion with shingle areas previously used to grow linseed (Linum usitatissimum), oilseed rape (Brassica napus), winter wheat (Triticum sp.) and other crops, and adjacent areas of shingle were subject to the drift of agricultural chemicals.

The vegetation that is re-establishing in these areas should eventually become typical of shingle vegetation on the older shingle margin, where the shingle grades

4 Sneddon, P. & Randall, R.E., 1993. Coastal vegetated shingle structures of Great Britain: Main

Report. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. 61pp. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2644

58

into alluvial soils. This recovery has some way to go as the vegetation at present resembles disturbed B1 communities in the Ferry, Lodge and Waters' Dungeness vegetation classification5. These are areas that have been subject to significant disturbance and support a range of ruderal species including thistles (Carduus sp. and Circium sp.), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), and a range of other species including early forget-me not (Myosotis ramosissima).

Ruderal species such as thistles are abundant and are still being controlled. There has also been an issue with bramble (Rubus sp.) invasion, although this species was more abundant prior to the compensation scheme starting. This is being controlled by cutting and grazing with sheep and goats.

During the February visit parts of the site were submerged beneath fresh/brackish water flooding, although the main shingle habitats were largely elevated above floodwaters. The site lies within a larger area of land secured to deliver a broad range of biodiversity benefits and linked to the creation of new flood defences. In places the flooding has killed bramble. It has resulted in a sparsely vegetated area of shingle with woody nightshade (Solanum dulcamara). Quite how regular this sort of event is likely to be is unknown, since the storm surge may be a one-off event, allowing re-colonisation by bramble.

During the May visit, it was noted that the shingle is starting to be colonised by some shingle species. Yellow horned poppy (Glaucium flavum) occurs but is rare. Couch (Arrhenatherum elatius), was noted to be frequent, particularly in areas that had not been ploughed. However for the moment much of the shingle vegetation looks highly modified. Breeding waders [lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) and ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula)], and wheatear (Oenanthe oenanthe) were noted on the restored shingle whilst avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta) was present on adjacent wetland.

A vegetation survey was carried out in 2004/5 and there has been subsequent monitoring, but vegetation surveys were discontinued because of concern about disturbance to breeding birds. Consequently, there is a limited account of the ways in which the actual compensation site has performed. This is emphasised by the site objectives listed in the 2013 monitoring report:

i. Ground nesting birds – moderately successful, with lapwing, redshank, skylark and oystercatcher confirmed nesting and wheatear, yellow wagtail, grey partridge, meadow pipit, using it for feeding during the breeding season. Stone curlew have been present during the breeding season, but breeding not confirmed.

ii. Flowering plants and their associated invertebrates – low success. there is now widespread viper’s bugloss and yellow-horned poppy but few other shingle plants have done well. occasional plants of herb robert and red hempnettle have been noted.

(Note: viper's bugloss (Echium vulgare) and yellow-horned poppy are species that are associated with highly disturbed shingle habitats and do occur within late pioneer communities on active coastal shingle).

Key outcomes

5 Ferry, B. Lodge, N. & Walters, S., 1990. Dungeness: a vegetation survey of a shingle beach.

Research and survey in nature conservation No. 26. NCC, Peterborough. 96pp.

59

At least 6.1 ha of shingle habitat has been secured as compensation for losses. The site is being managed within a broader project designed to secure a wider range of biodiversity gain, including saltmarsh habitat. As such, the overall result will complement the key attributes within the SAC/SPA.

The site provides a valuable insight into management challenges involved in re-creating perennial vegetation of stony banks.


The project has demonstrated that it is probably not possible to deliver 'like-for-like' replacement of early successional stages of shingle habitats. These habitats are constrained by the need to combine particular substrates with active coastal processes - a finite resource.

Where compensation packages are incorporated within projects to deliver wider biodiversity gain, there is a risk that the specific compensation requirements are overlooked in pursuit of a broader set of objectives.

The problems of re-creating shingle habitat mean that more attention may need to be paid to conserving areas of vegetated shingle that are not designated under UK or EU law.

Photographs. Note, the camera was not functioning properly and hence shots are not as sharp as they might have been desired.

1. Shingle vegetation at the eastern end of the compensatory area. The area to the left of the photo, which is more ruderal dominated, is lower lying and had been subject to ploughing and growing of linseed and other crops. In this area stinging nettle had 5-10% cover in places. The more sparsely vegetated shingle to the right of the photo had not been mown. (16/05/2014)

60

2. Area subject to saline flooding after this winter’s storm surge resulting in death of bramble. This area was sparsely vegetated by woody nightshade, a vegetated shingle species the only species noted. (16/05/2014)

3. In places grazing by sheep and goats, to control bramble, is preventing the establishment of couch grass communities – note the greater cover of vegetation behind the fence on land that is not stocked with these animals. (16/05/2014)

61

4. More natural-looking shingle vegetation at western end of compensatory area with sparse cover of couch grassland. (16/05/2014)

62

Rye Harbour

63

A2.9. Environment Agency Portchester Castle to Emsworth Flood Risk Management Strategy

Compensation site(s) Medmerry

Designated Site (s) UK9011051 Portsmouth Harbour SPA

UK11055 Portsmouth Harbour Ramsar

UK9011011 Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA

UK11013 Chichester and Langstone Harbours Ramsar

UK0030059 Solent Maritime SAC

UK0017073 Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons SAC

Article 6(4) rationale Adverse affect on integrity - the effect on the European sites within the area covered by the strategy would result from loss of intertidal habitat through coastal squeeze as a result of the continued and future implementation of coastal defence policies.

Predicted key impacts The following impacts on European and International habitats and species requiring compensatory measures are identified in the appropriate assessment:

Loss of 35.5ha of intertidal habitat.

In addition, the appropriate assessment considers the in-combination impacts of the strategy with other plans or projects. Four other Coastal Management Strategies are identified (Portsea Island Strategy, the Hayling Island North Sectoral Strategy, the Hayling Island Eastoke Sectoral Strategy and the Hayling Island Selsmore to Mengham Sectoral Strategy.

The implementation of the policies contained in these four other strategies would result in the additional loss of 56ha of intertidal habitat from the Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and the Solent Maritime SAC.

The total losses calculated for the Porchester to Emsworth Strategy, and requiring compensation measures are therefore: 35.5ha of intertidal for the strategy alone and 91.5ha for the strategy in-combination with other plans or projects.

The strategy development process itself considered the potential for mitigation (via intertidal habitat creation) within the individual policy units through

64

the testing of various coastal defence policies. It was determined that there were no locations within the strategy area where habitat creation could be considered appropriate to offset the predicted losses. The strategy process (including the appropriate assessment), in line with the above, concluded that there were no opportunities for compensation within the strategy area largely due to the conflicts that habitat creation would have with maintaining high tide waterbird roosts (i.e. for SPA designated species) within the strategy area. It was therefore concluded that compensatory measures would have to be undertaken outside of the strategy areas and the sites in which the impacts could arise.


Within the strategy, there is no specific definition of the compensation measures that would need to be implemented. However, it is stated in the EA Appendix 20 documentation that “Habitat compensation will be secured through the Environment Agency Southern Regional Habitat Creation Programme in respect of the adverse impacts of implementing the strategy.”

Regional Habitat Creation Programmes have been developed by the Environment Agency and are supported by government as a practical vehicle for delivering strategic habitat compensation arising from flood and coastal erosion risk planned and projects. They are funded in advance of engineering works that would cause the predicted

damage. The Southern Region RHCP is a dedicated, resourced plan for delivering compensatory habitat. The Regional Habitat Creation Programme was established to provide a strategic and proactive approach to enable South East Region to meet its legal and corporate habitat creation targets resulting from flood and coastal risk management schemes in a structured and efficient way.

The Medmerry realignment site is predicted to deliver 158ha of saltmarsh and 25ha of mudflat. It provides compensation for extant and predicted losses at a ratio of habitat loss to replacement of 1:1.


A key objective for the Medmerry realignment is given as the creation of 183ha of intertidal habitat, including mudflat, saltmarsh and transitional grassland. However, it is not known whether there are specific indicators relating to ecological function

65

which underlie this overarching objective. RSPB management plan for the site.


The compensation site was breached in 2013 and is designed to address cumulative impacts of numerous individual projects that will take place over a 50-year programme of works. Consequently, the compensation is substantially in place before damage occurs.


It seems that there is a regulator's group but the documents do not identify who is involved.

Description of compensation site at time of visit on 18 August 2014

The site was visited on a receding tide. As the breach was a considerable distance from available parking in Bracklesham only part of the site was inspected in detail. The site was breached relatively recently and is in the first year of its evolution. The breach and associated channels are substantial and receding tidal currents were very strong, clearly having cut a seep channel through under-lying sediments (photograph 1). On the seaward site a large area of the underlying clays has been exposed, giving access to geological studies.

There appears to have been some sediment deposition around the breach and within the main body of the site (photographs 3 & 4). This sediment is predominantly sandy or silty. In addition there is some evidence of the development of wash-over fans along the former barrier beach (photograph 5). In addition, the presence of typical colonisers of coastal shingle is noteworthy, as the seaward edge of this site can be expected to evolve into a more natural vegetated shingle system.

The topography of the site is undulating, which means that it will not form a uniform expanse of mudflat and saltmarsh. This offers considerable potential for the development of a full saltmarsh transition which is currently not evident. Some annual sea-blite (Suaeda maritima) / glasswort (Salicornia sp.) was noted in areas to the rear of the barrier beach (photograph 6).

Key outcomes

A 183 ha site has been secured to create a full spectrum of inter-tidal habitat in a region that has been notoriously difficult to find compensation for development projects.

The creation of the compensation site also allows development of more natural profiles over the shingle ridge (an SSSI feature) that formerly protected this agricultural land. This will enable annual and perennial vegetation of stony banks to recolonise, thus increasing the overall resource of shingle habitat in favourable condition ( noted to be a very difficult habitat to re-create - see Pett Levels to Rye Harbour).


The use of Regional Habitat Creation Programmes to secure a single large site appears to be a cost-effective way of creating new inter-tidal habitat big enough to support a range of habitats and a sizeable number of migratory

66

water birds.

The compensation site is within close proximity of the various designated sites, but is not contiguous with them. It shows that there is potential for addressing the coastal management issues relating to a suite of sites at one strategic location.

1. The main breach channel entering the site. This is noteworthy for its overall scale. (18/08/2014)

2. A view across the southern part of the site (towards Selsey) from the main breach channel. There appears to be a significant slope running west to east and the current

67

at this point is rapid and strongly riffled. (18/08/2014)

3. The main body of the site, with small building (partially demolished). Mudflat appears to have developed on the southern (right hand) bank and seems to be fine silty sand. (18/08/2014)

4. View along the main breach channel towards the sea with a large bank of freshly deposited fine silty sandy. (18/08/2014)

68

5. The main shingle beach with wash-over fans. Some shingle vegetation is evident. (18/08/2014)

6. Eastward view from the shingle barrier. Low-lying inundated ground in the foreground is partially colonised by pioneer species (annual sea-blite/glasswort). (18/08/2014)

69

7. Northern bank of the site with rock armour protection against internally generated wave action. (18/08/2014)

8. Large borrow-pit between the sea wall and Bracklesham. This looks to have considerable potential for waterfowl. (18/08/2014)

70

Medmerry

71

A2.10. Harwich Haven Authority: approach channel deepening

Compensation site Trimley managed realignment

Designated Sites UK9009121 Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA

UK11067 Stour and Orwell Estuaries Ramsar Site

UK9009131 Hamford Water SPA

UK11028 Hamford Water Ramsar Site

Article 6(4) rationale Adverse affect on site integrity

Predicted key impacts 4 ha of inter-tidal loss owing to changes in tidal propagation and the degree to which foreshores in the estuaries were exposed at low tide.

Potential reductions in sediment availability and an increase in inter-tidal erosion (estimated at 2.5 ha per year and to be mitigated by a sediment feeding programme).

Agreed compensation measures 16.5ha managed realignment including 12.5 ha of precautionary habitat creation in case there was a delayed response to the sediment feeding (provision for 5 years possible erosion).

Agreed mitigation measures Establishment of a sediment-feeding programme to replenish mudflats in the Stour Estuary using a variety of techniques to place sediment from maintenance dredging on or close to the shore: a technique referred to as 'trickle-feeding'.


'To create 4ha of intertidal habitat (of which no more than 30% should be saltmarsh) to replace the habitat lost due to the immediate effect of the change on tidal range, within 2 years of the commencement of the deepening.

To prevent, through the immediate reintroduction of sediment into the system for as long as the channel is maintained‘, the annual loss of l.7ha of intertidal (mean springs) (plus l.lha from the l994 dredge’) and 3.3ha of intertidal (mean neaps) (plus 2.2ha from the I994 dredge) due to increased rates of erosion; where intertidal should be

72

considered to represent a combination of habitats that sustain the form and function of the system.

To create 12.5ha of intertidal habitat (of which no more than 30% should be saltmarsh) as soon as possible, but not later than 5 years from commencement, to mitigate habitat losses that could occur before sediment replacement measures can be expected to be fully effective.'


The effects of channel deepening occurred gradually over a period of 18 months between 1998 and 2000 and would have started to take effect before the compensation site was completed in 2000. However, the compensation site was also designed to address possible ongoing losses, had mitigation measures failed. In practice, the sediment-feeding measures have prevented possible ongoing erosion and therefore the compensation package has delivered a far bigger area of habitat than was required for the immediate loss effects.

Is there a regulator's group? Yes, comprising: Harwich Haven Authority, Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Marine Management Organisation, Kent and Essex IFCA together with representatives of the Suffolk Wildlife Trust and RSPB. This group broadly overlaps the Stour and Orwell partnership's management group and its meetings are broadly coincident with other meetings.

Description of the compensation site at the time of the visit on 07 May 2014

Photographs 1-4: The site was mainly designed to create mudflat and anticipated creation of a relatively small area of saltmarsh, This seems to have been achieved. Saltmarsh development follows a normal succession from cordgrass (Spartina sp.) followed by saltmarsh grass (Puccinellia sp.), and then sea purslane (Atriplex portulacoides). The creek system is relatively undeveloped, presumably because there are weak tidal flows. Consequently, sea purslane has established as hummocks in response to the build up of sediment (rather than developing along the levee of creek edges). At the moment, it appears as though the site will maintain extensive mudflat habitat. Saltmarsh has developed in the most sheltered area and those areas most affected by wind-driven wave action are maintained almost entirely as mudflats.

Photographs 5-6: The outer sea wall (breached) is eroding both on the inside and outside faces. It can be expected to breach in several places within 3-5 years and this will increase wave exposure within the site.

73

Key outcomes

The compensation site is fully functional and has been designated as a SSSI, SPA and Ramsar site.

Sediment feeding to arrest predicted acceleration of foreshore erosion has been successful and it has been possible to reduce volumes being fed into the Stour Estuary.

Monitoring has been comprehensive and well disseminated through the Regulator's Group and the wider Stour and Orwell partnership. It partly focuses on specific questions and partly upon baseline data gathering that has the potential to dovetail with other monitoring initiatives.

Key findings:

i. A comprehensive monitoring programme covering wider aspects of the impacts of the channel deepening has been undertaken over a period of nearly 15 years. Despite this effort, it has not been possible to make a conclusive conclusion about the wider effects of the channel deepening project on birds and benthic organisms.

ii. The level of detail involved shows how, even with very comprehensive recording, it may not be possible to disentangle development impacts from the influences of other factors such as disturbance or natural cyclical fluctuations.

iii. Use of the Estuary management strategy's regulator and advisory forums has facilitated good information dissemination and dialogue with key stakeholders.

iv. This is a realignment site that has not turned into saltmarsh and is therefore unusual when compared with other sites in Essex, on the Humber and on the Ribble. The reasons for this difference have not been established to any degree of absolute certainty.

1. The breach, with gravel recurve and extended areas of mudflat. (07/05/2014)

74

2. Creek extending from flap valve from adjacent drains. (07/05/2014)

3. Mudflats looking west towards the breach. (07/05/2014)

75

4. Site from south eastern side of the breach. (07/05/2014)

5. Erosion on the outer face of the old sea wall, showing block collapse and gradual disintegration of hardened defences. (07/05/2014)

76

6. Erosion of the inner face of the former sea wall - caused by internally generated wave action. Although not as rapid as outer wall decay, this can be expected to accelerate overall decay of the former sea wall. (07/05/2014)

77

Trimley

78

A2.11. Highways Agency: A249 Iwade to Queensborough road improvement scheme

Compensation site(s) Chetney

Designated Site (s) UK9012031 Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA

UK9012011The Swale Special Protection Area

UK11040 Medway Estuary and Marshes Ramsar Site

UK11071 The Swale Ramsar Site


Predicted key impacts Permanent loss of 3.9ha of habitat.

Temporary loss of 3.6ha of habitat and extension of the impact of road noise.


The compensation site comprises 22 ha of grazing marsh, including translocation of turves containing divided sedge (Carex divissa) and sculpturing the land surface to create seasonal wet areas and ditches with sloping margins.


To provide habitat for the following breeding bird species in at least the numbers of pairs indicated: shelduck, 3 prs; shoveler, lpr; coot, l pr; oystcatcher, 9 prs; lapwing, 8 prs; redshank, 3 prs; skylark, 15 prs; yellow wagtail, 3 prs.

To provide habitat for the wintering bird species in at least the number of individuals indicated: Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) 400 birds

So far as is consistent with (a) and (b) above, to foster the development of a sward with a species composition and structure which approaches as closely as possible those of original grazing marsh that has not been subjected to cultivation, herbicide or fertiliser treatment.

So far as is consistent with (a) and (b) above, to encourage the survival and spread of divided sedge.

(e) so far as is consistent with (a) and (b) above, to develop an invertebrate fauna in the ditches and over the pasture similar in composition to that found on original gazing marsh not subject to nutrient enrichment or pollution.


It is unclear from the documentation, but it must be assumed that the development and the compensation broadly coincided as part of the

79

process involved translocation of divided sedge sward from the affected site and onto the compensation site.


No, as far as can be ascertained from documents.

Description of compensation site at time of visit on 27 May 2014.

A rectangular block of wet grassland, created from arable reversion habitat with new ditches and wet rills created as a result of the compensatory works. The land lies within a complex of wet grassland and inter-tidal habitat.

The wetland habitats have been allowed to develop largely by natural colonisation. As a result the new ditches and the margins of reprofiled ditches largely have a short sward, unlike the taller sea club rush (Bolboschoenus maritimus) fringing the edge of the long established ditches. It was too early in the year to get an impression of the diversity of aquatics in the ditches and access to these habitats was limited by the abundance of breeding waders using the grassland.

The ditch profiles were gently sloping and suitable for waders and aquatic vegetation. The latter communities are still developing with sea club-rush frequent only where it had been planted. This vegetation will develop with time. One species reported to be in the long-term ditches but not the newly created ditch habitat was the water vole, because the ditch margins have such shallow ditch margins, but also perhaps due to the absence of tall vegetation cover.

The grassland habitats are likely to be relatively species poor. Normally an unimproved grassland sward in this habitat would have abundant divided sedge. The species had been established by lifting turf from the development site and moving it to a series of fenced areas. One of these was visited and the plant was well established in this area but did not appear to have spread much beyond the confines of the plot.

The site is managed for wildfowling and management has produced excellent habitat for breeding and wintering birds. A redshank (Tringa totanus) nest was located and numerous avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta) chicks were seen in the flood pools on the site. The grassland was reported to be used by 13 pairs of redshank, 20 pairs of avocet, 9 pairs of lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) and 6-7 pairs of oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus). All of these species seen during the visit. Tufted duck (Aythya fuligula), pochard (Aythya ferina), shoveler (Anas clypeata), gadwall (Anas strepera), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and little grebe (Tachybaptus ruficollis) were all reported to breed on the flood areas.

Flocks of up to 10,000 lapwing, 300-700 black tailed godwit (Limosa limosa), 2-5,000 golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria) and 50-300 brent geese (Branta bernicla) were reported by the gamekeeper to be using the land in the winter, as well as various duck (pintail (Anas acuta), wigeon (Anas penelope) and teal (Anas crecca) using the floods).

Key outcomes

A 22 ha grazing marsh site has been created.

The site seems to have met its design objectives in respect of breeding and

80

overwintering bird usage.

Divided sedge has been successfully translocated but it largely appears not to have spread from the translocated turves.

Invertebrate data for the compensation site cover a restricted range of taxa, and whilst it has been estblished that some mobile taxa such as water beetles have colonised, there are no data for other typical assemblages of grazing marsh ditches such as Diptera or Mollusca.


It is possible to re-create grazing marsh habitat capable of supporting a wide range of breeding waders and waterfowl.

More research is needed to establish the re-creatability of grazing marsh swards.

1. An area of shallow food pool created at Chetney. Although they were too small to pick up on this photograph there were adult avocet and chicks on this water body. (27/05/2014)

81

2. A newly created ditch observed from point Q on the habitat creation plan. The northern end of the ditch has a dense bed of sea club-rush, where the species was planted, whilst the remainder of the ditch margin had a short sward. (27/05/2014)

3. Existing ditch whose western margin has been graded to form a shallow margin for waders. Note the more open vegetation in this area although sea club-rush has established from the far bank where it forms a more continuous stand. Soft hornwort (Ceratophyllum submersum) was found in this ditch. (27/05/2014)

82

4. A stand of divided sedge coming into flower. This plant appeared to be restricted to the fenced plots where turf was first relocated. (27/05/2014)

83

Chetney

84

A2.12. Lancaster City Council: Morecambe Coastal Defence Works

Note: The compensation site for this development project was at a location adjacent to an entirely different Natura 2000 site. The realignment site within which the compensation is sited was part of a bigger biodiversity initiative by the RSPB and the Environment Agency.

Compensation site(s) Hesketh Outmarsh

Designated Site (s) UK0013027 Morecambe Bay SAC

UK9005081 Morecambe Bay SPA

UK11045 Morecambe Bay Ramsar Site


Predicted key impacts Phase VI: loss of 5.5ha of cSAC Annex I sandflat habitat and 1.2ha of cobble skear (a sub feature of Annex I feature Large Shallow Inlet and Bay)

Phase VII: loss of 2.393 ha of mudflat and sandflat and 2.405 ha of natural boulder and cobble skear.

Note: according to the Article 6(4) report form, the total impact was a loss of 11.498ha but in the documentation concerning the compensation site at Hesketh Outmarsh the loss was listed as 13ha.


The loss of cobble skear was mitigated by creation of new cobble skear within the existing Natura 2000 sites. This in turn, led to further loss of sandy inter-tidal habitat and consequently the compensation site was expected to focus solely on this habitat.


The EA scoping report for Hesketh Outmarsh highlights a wide spectrum of objectives for the scheme. These objectives include a contribution towards BAP objectives as well as the provision of 52 ha of habitat to compensate for the loss of 13 ha of inter-tidal habitat at Morecambe Bay. This report also clearly shows that the majority of the habitat creation was expected to be vegetated, but that measures taken to create saline lagoons would also be incorporated.


The compensation site was completed in 2008, some while after damage occurred in phases in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This was reported in the Natura reporting form submitted by Defra.


No.

85

Description of compensation site at time of visit on 21 May 2014 - photographs 1-8

Hesketh Outmarsh is a 180 ha site that was one of the last areas of saltmarsh to have been lost to 'reclamation' (in the early 1980s). As a consequence, the land surface lay close to that of existing saltmarsh within the Ribble Estuary.

The site is a complex of deep channels combined with extensive mid- to high-level saltmarsh that is dominated by matted saltmarsh grass (Puccinellia sp.) swards and red fescue (Festuca rubra). A series of saline lagoons is located along the southern edge of the site providing the focus for a wildlife spectacle for visitors.

The Environmental Statement anticipated that the majority of the site would become vegetated and that there was limited scope for development of sandy habitats analagous to those lost at Morecambe Bay. That prediction is largely true, but there are substantial areas of exposed sandy mud along the channels created by the ingress and egress of water on and off the site.

The site visit coincided with the breeding season for a variety of birds and it was therefore not possible to visit all parts of the site, access being confined to the former sea walls.

Key outcomes

A very large realignment site has been created on the Ribble Estuary, making a significant contribution to biodiversity in this estuary and reinforcing the resilience of this SPA and Ramsar Site to change. The realignment also helps to restore the estuary closer to its pre-1980 form.

A range of inter-tidal habitats have been created, including substantial areas of inter-tidal muddy sand exposed over a substantial proportion of the tidal cycle.

Extensive new saltmarsh habitat has been created. Its composition is broadly in line with habitats eslewehere in the Ribble Estuary and elsewhere in north-west England. It can be expected to evolve towards a similar composition provided it is grazed.

A brief visual inspection of the Morecambe frontage on 18 February 2014 suggested that translocation of cobble skear and creation of new skear habitat was successful.


There may be occasions when it is effectively impossible to secure compensatory habitat adjacent to the damaged Natura 2000 site. When this happens, there is the possibility of securing compensation at another site.

It may not, however, be possible to match habitat losses to habitat replacement on an exact like-for-like basis.

Re-creation of sandy inter-tidal habitat by realigning the coast, whilst not impossible, is not straightforward and encounters similar problems to those facing muddy inter-tidal habitats.

It appears that it is possible to translocate/re-create skear habitat under some circumstances, but this has not been tested sufficiently to be certain that it will work in all circumstances.

In certain situations, it may be possible to achieve a greater biodiversity gain by combining resources with projects seeking to secure wider benefits. This

86

can be extremely cost-effective and more environmentally sustainable. However, there are also risks as such projects sometimes lose sight of the compensation objectives in the pursuit of wider objectives.

There is a need to ensure that monitoring outputs are clearly related to the objectives for compensation. In this case, the monitoring in not sufficiently focussed on whether the compensatory habitat has been delivered according to the identified need.

1. View to the north-east from the viewing platform. The lagoons are artificial structures that may have to be maintained in due course. Many of the lagoons had a pair of shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) in attendance. (21/05/2014)

87

2. Extensive open mud and lagoons along the south-western boundary of the site together with access tracks and gates. (21/05/2014)

3. Channel along the western side of the site. this area lies at a slightly lower elevation to adjacent parts of the site and is colonised by extensive saltmarsh grass with some sea aster (Aster tripolium). (21/05/2014)

88

4. Extensive saltmarsh grass along the eastern border of the site. Note that trees along a former field margin were not removed prior to breaching the site and are now standing dead wood. (21/05/2014)

5. The Main channel leading to the north-western breach. Note, this is a very substantial feature and is indicative of the considerable volumes of water entering and egressing the site. (21/05/2014)

89

6. The channel from the north-western breach crossing the saltmarsh within the Ribble Estuary SPA and Ramsar site. This cannel adds diversity within the site extends the extent of unvegetated muddy/sandy habitats favoured by waterfowl such as those also occupying Morecambe Bay SAC, SPA and Ramsar site. (21/05/2014)

7. Part of the channel through the north-eastern breach, showing how the main channel is accompanied by localised areas of un-vegetated muddy sand, the habitat most analogous to that lost at Morecambe Bay. (21/05/2014)

90

8. The channel from the north-eastern breach. In common with its western counterpart, this forms a substantial channel across former saltmarsh within the Ribble Estuary SPA. (21/05/2014)

91

Hesketh Outmarsh

92

A2.13. Tarmac Ltd: Arcow Quarry

Compensation site(s) Moughton

Designated Site (s) UK0012782 Ingleborough Complex SAC

Article 6(4) rationale Adverse affect on integrity on grounds of human health and safety

Predicted key impacts Permanent loss of 0.65 ha of 'Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands' and 'Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation'.

Permanent loss of 0.47 ha of limestone pavement.

(Note: there appear to be discrepancies in the figures for losses and it is not entirely clear whether losses amount to 1.12 or 1.13 ha).


After mitigation measures to translocate 0.3 ha of sward, proposed compensation was:

8.5 ha of land including 2.16 ha of calcareous grassland of a similar quality to that being disturbed by the project and a mosaic area of calcareous grassland and other grassland types which is similar in species composition and diversity to the grassland that is being lost. This land also contains 0.38 ha of surface limestone which is broadly comparable to the broken limestone pavement. It was expected to replace the lost habitats within the SAC with an area of equivalent quality which includes a larger area of rock with chasmophytic vegetation.

The compensation site lies outside the designated site and was to be managed to secure habitat of comparable interest.


No specific indicators appear to have been set.


As the compensation habitat was already in place, there was no time lag between habitat loss and provision of compensation; however, a key component of the package involved a commitment by English Nature (now Natural England) to designate this land.


There appears to have been arrangements for oversight and this group seems to have met in the recent past but no documentation was available to report its proceedings.

Description of compensation site

93

Owing to the developer having sold the land, and the new owner being unwilling to permit access, it was not possible to visit the site.

Monitoring reports focus on the progress of translocated habitat (mitigation) and provide little information on the compensation site itself.

Key outcomes

It is understood that an area of land has been allocated as a replacement for loss of extent within the SAC. However, it is unclear whether this land remains of suitable qualityy for extension of the SAC site boundary.


Experienc shows that there is a need to make sure that a covenant is placed on land identified for compensation, in order to ensure that it is maintained in perpetuity.

There is a need to make sure that a register of compensation sites is maintained and that the progress of habitat creation and management measures on these sites is properly recorded.

There is a need to consider designation of the habitat in question as a matter of urgency, in order to ensure that it is brought into an appropriate management regime.

The presence of habitat of SAC quality beyond the boundaries of a designated site, but contiguous with such a site, suggests that there is a need to reflect on the degree to which site boundaries properly reflect the extent of the scientific and conservation value of the site.

94

Moughton

95

Date post:	09-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Review of the Effectiveness of Natura 2000 Sites Compensation...

Documents