Skip to main content

PDF


Title: Monitoring Protocols and Measures of Habitat Quality for Habtat Migration and Managed Realignment
Author: N. Frost
Author: S. Hull
Author: N.. Pontee
Author: Environment Agency
Document Type: Monograph
Annotation: Environment Agency Project ID:EAPRJOUT_1253, Representation ID: 415, Object ID: 2464
Abstract:
The number of managed realignment schemes in the UK being planned and implemented has increased markedly over the last decade. It has therefore become increasingly important that we have a sound understanding of the parameters that influence scheme success. Appropriate monitoring strategies are fundamental in determining whether progress towards scheme objectives is satisfactory, and thus whether or not the scheme has been successful overall. This project is concerned with providing guidance for the monitoring of managed realignment and habitat creation sites. The project will therefore provide guidance for: a a a the collection of better data in terms of relevancy, consistency and statistical validity (including both baseline and ongoing measurements); the assessment of the success of habitat creation schemes; and, validating the effectiveness of mitigation schemes and assessing the residual impacts. Additionally, the project will provide guidance to managers to enable corrective action to be undertaken where habitat quality objectives may not be achieved, or to develop alternative quality objectives which better reflect the capacity/ capability of the site. The report has been produced by ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd (ABPmer) and has incorporated the comments of the project review panel composed of: a a a a Mark Rehfisch - British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) Sue Brown, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) Robert Hughes, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) Ruth Parker, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) The document has also been circulated to a number of other organisations who have a key interest in the project outcome. These include: a a a a a Mouchel (the client representative for the Environment Agency) - Adrian Dawes The Environment Agency (EA) - Jane Rawson, Helen Richardson and Karen Thomas English Nature (EN) - Stephen Worral, Tim Collins and Roger Morris Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) - Nicola Melville and Malcolm Ausden Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) - Peter-Allen Williams The outputs of two additional projects, Suitability Criteria for Habitat Creation (CEFAS, 2004) and Design Issues for Managed Realignment (CIRIA, 2004) have also been taken into account. The task of determining the success of habitat recreation has long been challenging and sometimes contentious because the appraisal of success is dependent on the objectives of the scheme. What may be recognised as a successful scheme by one individual or R and D TECHNICAL REPORT FD1918 i organisation might be deemed as failure by another, depending on the criteria used. Each scheme that is undertaken will therefore have different objectives and consequently different measures of success. Thus, because of the range of objectives which habitat creation schemes may be seeking to achieve, different schemes are likely to require different monitoring programmes to chart progress towards these objectives. This highlights the importance of monitoring in the assessment of progress towards objectives and the potential for adaptive management where required. As a consequence practical measures of habitat quality encompass a suite of parameters and statistical measures. The present review demonstrates that whilst habitat quality may be measured in terms of ecological parameters, the failure to achieve target values for these parameters may be attributed to the creation of inappropriate physical conditions. This emphasises the need, in many cases, to monitor a range of both physical and ecological parameters, to fully understand the development of habitat creation schemes. In terms of physical factors, elevation relative to tidal range is seen to be a prime determinant in the creation of given habitats. Relevant ecological indicators of successful habitat establishment should include vegetation coverage, the status of macrobenthic populations and the bird and fish usage of the site. This review illustrates that there are a range of techniques available for measuring all of the parameters that have been identified as of interest at habitat creation schemes. The strengths and weaknesses of the various techniques have been evaluated with a trade off usually existing between the speed and simplicity of measurement versus the cost in terms of equipment and time. Most of the managed realignment schemes that have been implemented to date have incorporated some degree of monitoring. The number of parameters monitored at each scheme is, however, highly variable. The intensity of the monitoring programmes are also quite different depending on the nature of the scheme. A review of several case studies demonstrates that birds, invertebrates and sediments appear to be the most widely monitored aspects. However, the monitoring programmes carried out to date differ from scheme to scheme. This underlines the importance of the current project in providing guidance for the systematic design of monitoring programmes for similar schemes in the future. A conceptual model has been developed which incorporates the key reasons for monitoring, how this determines what to monitor, what the results are gauged against and the end uses of the monitoring data. The results collected from monitoring of managed realignment schemes can be used in a number of beneficial ways including enhancing the understanding of site design and management. Following from the identification of a atoolboxa of monitoring techniques it was possible to group the techniques into acore toolsa, which are relevant for all sites, and aoptional toolsa whose use is dependent on site specific requirements. Where there is no formal requirement for monitoring it is suggested that core monitoring is still undertaken at as many sites as possible. This would incorporate, as a bare minimum, changes in elevation and habitat boundaries at a site. A large proportion of managed realignment schemes that are undertaken will, however, have statutory requirements for monitoring. Where monitoring forms a requirement for the scheme there may be a shift R and D TECHNICAL REPORT FD1918 ii in emphasis from the quantity to the quality of what develops at a site. The types of parameters that should be monitored include not only the core parameters identified above but also those for which impacts are predicted, those for which compensation objectives have been set and those which have funding conditions attached. It has been identified that there are no simple rules that can be applied to decide on the parameters that should be monitored at a site. The parameters that require monitoring are largely dependent on a number of factors including the purpose/ objectives of a scheme and a range of site specific issues. To provide guidance on how the selection of monitoring programmes has been undertaken for current schemes two case studies have been presented. The two schemes that have been selected are very different in terms of their overall purpose and as such the process of defining the monitoring protocols also varies. Once the parameters that require monitoring have been established it is then necessary to select the most appropriate technique. The selection of a technique to use for a specified scheme will be influenced by a number of factors, including the purpose of the scheme, the degree of accuracy required, available budgets and more site specific issues. All the available tools need to be reviewed taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of each and all of these factors. There are a number of further considerations that need to be taken into account when developing a monitoring programme. These include the duration and timing of the monitoring period, a continual reassessment of monitoring efforts, the expertise of the personnel involved, quality assurance procedures and the appropriate selection of sample size and statistical analysis. All of these factors can contribute to the overall success of the monitoring programme. A decision tree, covering all of these issues, has been designed to guide the user through the types of questions that need to be addressed in designing a successful monitoring programme. The key aspects required to achieve a successful monitoring programme for a managed realignment site have been addressed throughout this report. The results of such monitoring will not only enable the evaluation of current objectives but will inform the design and management of managed realignment schemes in the future. R and D TECHNICAL REPORT FD1918 iii CONTENTS Executive Summary .........................................................................................................i 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................1 1.1 Aims........................................................................................................................2 1.2 Project Approach and Data Sources .......................................................................2 1.3 Report Structure......................................................................................................3 2. Definitions of Scheme Success................................................................................4 2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................4 2.2 Approaches to Assessing Habitat Quality ..............................................................5 3. Factors Important to Habitat Structure and Function........................................7 3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................7 3.2 Physical Considerations..........................................................................................8 3.3 Ecological Considerations ....................................................................................10 3.4 Linkages................................................................................................................13 3.5 Conclusions...........................................................................................................15 4. Available Field Procedures...................................................................................15 4.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................15 4.2 Morphology ..........................................................................................................17 4.3 Hydrodynamic Parameters....................................................................................18 4.4 Water Quality........................................................................................................19 4.5 Sediments..............................................................................................................19 4.6 Ecology .................................................................................................................22 4.7 Requirement for New Methods ............................................................................25 4.8 Conclusions...........................................................................................................26 5. Statistical Measures...............................................................................................38 6. Case Studies of Existing Managed Realignment Sites .......................................38 6.1 Freiston Case Study ..............................................................................................39 6.2 Paull Holme Strays Case Study ............................................................................41 6.3 Orford Ness Case Study........................................................................................43 6.4 Shotley Case Study ...............................................................................................44 6.5 Orplands Case Study.............................................................................................45 6.6 Tollesbury Case Study..........................................................................................47 7. Conceptual Model .................................................................................................49 8. Guidance on Selection of Monitoring Protocols .................................................52 8.1 Core Monitoring ...................................................................................................52 8.2 Statutory Requirement for Monitoring .................................................................53 8.3 Relative Importance of Parameters.......................................................................54 9. Case Studies Highlighting the Selection of Monitoring Protocols ....................55 9.1 Welwick Managed Realignment Scheme .............................................................55 9.2 West Chidham.......................................................................................................58 10. Selection of Appropriate Monitoring Tools ....................................................59 10.1 Morphology ..........................................................................................................60 10.2 Hydrodynamics.....................................................................................................61 10.3 Water Quality........................................................................................................62 10.4 Sedimentation Rates .............................................................................................63 10.5 Sediment Properties ..............................................................................................64 R and D TECHNICAL REPORT FD1918 iv 10.6 Vegetation ............................................................................................................ 65 10.7 Benthos................................................................................................................. 65 10.8 Terrestrial Invertebrates ....................................................................................... 66 10.9 Fish ....................................................................................................................... 67 10.10 Birds ..................................................................................................................... 68 10.11 Freshwater Invertebrates ...................................................................................... 69 10.12 Mammals and Herptiles ....................................................................................... 70 10.13 Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 70 11. General Guidance on Monitoring ................................................................... 74 12. Decision Tree for Monitoring Requirements ................................................. 75 13. Conclusions........................................................................................................ 76 References...................................................................................................................... 78 Appendix A.................................................................................................................... 88 R and D TECHNICAL REPORT FD1918 v List of Figures 3.1 3.2 The identification of key parameters for successful habitat creation................... 8 Simplified illustration of hydrodynamic and geomorphological linkages between estuary systems (blue) and managed realignment schemes (olive) ..... 14 3.3 Simplified illustration of hydrodynamic and sediment dynamic linkages between coastal systems (blue) and managed realignment schemes (orange) .............................................................................................................. 14 4.1 Components required for a successful monitoring strategy ............................... 17 6.1.1 Creek network on mudflat seawards of Freiston managed realignment site...... 40 6.1.2 Freiston managed realignment site at high water............................................... 41 6.2 Paull Holme Strays managed realignment site................................................... 43 6.3 Orford Ness managed realignment site .............................................................. 44 6.4 Shotley managed realignment site...................................................................... 45 6.5 Orplands managed realignment site ................................................................... 47 6.6 Tollesbury managed realignment site ................................................................ 49 7.1 A conceptual model highlighting the importance of monitoring ....................... 51 12.1 A decision tree to aid in the selection of appropriate monitoring protocols ...... 75 List of Tables 4.1 4.2 4.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 8.1 9.1 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 UK case studies (Source: Adapted from Atkinson et al, 2001) ...........................27 American case studies (Source: Adapted from Atkinson et al, 2001) .................28 Monitoring tool box .............................................................................................29 Monitoring carried out at Freiston managed realignment scheme .......................39 Monitoring to be carried out at Paull Holme Strays managed realignment scheme42 Monitoring carried out at Orford Ness managed realignment scheme ................43 Monitoring carried out at Shotley intertidal recharge scheme .............................45 Monitoring carried out at Orplands managed realignment scheme .....................46 Monitoring carried out at Tollesbury managed realignment site .........................48 Requirement to monitor parameter ......................................................................54 Summary of monitoring requirements and proposed sampling methods at the Welwick managed realignment site ...............................................................56 Recommendations for monitoring site morphology.............................................61 Recommendations for monitoring site hydrodynamics .......................................62 Recommendations for monitoring water quality..................................................62 Recommendations for monitoring sedimentation rates........................................63 Recommendations for monitoring sediment properties .......................................64 Recommendations for monitoring vegetation ......................................................65 Recommendations for monitoring benthic invertebrates .....................................66 Recommendations for monitoring terrestrial invertebrates..................................67 Recommendations for monitoring fish.................................................................67 Recommendations for monitoring birds...............................................................68 Recommendations for monitoring freshwater invertebrates ................................69 Recommendations for monitoring mammals and herptiles..................................70 The accuracy, costs and time associated with each of the monitoring tools........71 R and D TECHNICAL REPORT FD1918 vi 1.
Publisher: Environment Agency
Subject Keywords: Habitat creation; Managed realignment; Field measurements; Monitoring strategy
Extent: 99
Permalink: http://www.environmentdata.org/archive/ealit:4757
Total file downloads: 3

Download PDF    Display PDF in separate tab