| |
Initiating shingle erosion for conservation purposes
The reliance on a 'static' approach to conservation, which is so often associated
with the identification of boundaries of sites on maps, may be counter productive
for a habitat existing in such a dynamic environment.
The natural tendency of shingle beaches for movement both alongshore and inland,
not only has implications for the management and restoration of beaches and
areas of vegetated shingle, but also associated habitats such as lagoons and
saltmarshes. This is especially true where 'Natura
2000' sites are concerned, which are designated under the 'Habitats'
or ' Species' Directives of the European Union and where replacement
habitats may need to be created.
Whilst natural
movements of shingle in response to storms will be seen as being
part of the "natural structure and function" of the system, interference
to create instability may not!
These issues have particular poignancy in relation to Dungeness,
Orfordness
and to some extent at Cley. Here the scale of surface damage to the shingle
in parts of the first two sites covers such a large area that any of the traditional
approaches to restoration are likely to be ineffective. Initiating erosion or
at least removing those static artificial features such as groynes and breakwaters
and/or ceasing beach nourishment (moving from State 2 to State 1 in the restoration
cycle) could help bring about major rehabilitation of shingle beaches and ridges.
This would, of course, require very careful consideration of the implications
for the land and property formerly 'protected' from erosion and flooding by
the coastal
defence activities. In the case of Dungeness (Annex
05), for example, this may be prevented because of the need to protect
the nuclear power stations, but perhaps not at Orfordness (Annex
06)?
|
General guidance - creating instability
The past reliance on coastal protection measures to prevent shingle beaches
and structures eroding has helped to create and sustain a much impoverished
habitat. In some instances the area of damage is so large that even if
the restoration techniques described above were to work and restore form
and function to the shingle and with it vegetation and associated animal
life, the resources needed would be considerable. Under these circumstances
and on the larger sites, creating instability, or at least letting natural
forces reassert themselves is probably the only option if habitat restoration
is to be achieved.
|
|
|
