Salt Marsh

Boathook said:
The latest fad .... ??
UK's muddy saltmarshes vital to tackle climate change - report

Will this help or hinder boating ?

Will it affect the EA's vision of saving money be allowing the shingle bank to Hurst Castle to be breached ?
Click to expand...

Which is what they did at Medmerry, sacrificed a load of farmland. Elsewhere around Chi Harbour there seems to be an assumption that sacrificing farmland (often with footpaths on it) to Saltmarsh habitat for birds is so self evidently the right thing to do there was no need for consultation.

(I suspect Medmerry may be the right decision, but elsewhere I strongly doubt it, and in both cases the motive was to save money first and foremost. )
 
The "managed retreat" response to sea level rise is hardly a new fad. This is just highlighting the marshes role as a carbon sink, which I suppose is largely attributable to the anaerobic nature of the mud preventing oxidation of fixed carbon.

Where I am in Taiwan there was a comparable project abandoning fish farm empoundments in an estuary. I've used this as a student remote sensing project, monitoring a big increase in mangrove swamp habitat, much of which is accessible to boats due to partial buldozing of berms during the initial abandonment.. Much of the Taiwan shoreline consists of increasingly massive concrete seawalls, so this additional habitat is very valuable.

In the UK I'd think boating-wise not much direct impact since these areas are probably largely innaccessible to boats, being often behind abandoned but essentially intact coastal defences.

Might make the general environment that people boat in a bit nicer, though, Dylan Winter stylee.
 
Last edited:
ducked said:
The "managed retreat" response to sea level rise is hardly a new fad. This is just highlighting the marshes role as a carbon sink, which I suppose is largely attributable to the anaerobic nature of the mud preventing oxidation of fixed carbon.
Click to expand...

You're right it's not.

But is allowing salt marshes to flood a practical approach to trapping carbon or simply an excuse for the relevant authorities to save themselves millions on the expense of maintaining sea defenses that previous generations invested in for good reason I wonder?
 
Was it with good reason, or just good intentions? I'm reminded of the situation with a lot of rivers that were straightened and managed to within an inch of their lives. Allowing them to meander where they will, it turns out, is a great way to reduce flooding.

It seems that rewilding marginal agricultural land is a great way to improve biodiversity and, compared with reconstructing sea defences designed 50 or 100 years ago to cope with rising sea levels, saves gazillions that can be spent on something more useful. Additionally, those salt marshes are a great habitat for fish, especially young fish hiding from predators.
 
Sailing steve said:
You're right it's not.

But is allowing salt marshes to flood a practical approach to trapping carbon or simply an excuse for the relevant authorities to save themselves millions on the expense of maintaining sea defenses that previous generations invested in for good reason I wonder?
Click to expand...
Just another benefit to add to the balance sheet, I'd think, and probably a relatively minor one, but every little helps.

If you dont allow retreat, but stubbornly "hold the line", the saltmarsh habitat will get squeezed between the fixed embankments and the rising sea level, and much of it will be lost. Retreat will simply replace some of these inevitable casualties.
 
Last edited:
I spent many years working on coastal schemes in the east of England for the Environment Agency, when they had the funds to actually achieve something.
Rising sea levels coupled with the slow sinking of land levels recovering from the ice age has been eroding salt marshes constrained by hard sea defences that were put in place to protect homes or create highly fertile farmland.
The habitats directive meant that new habitat had to be created when other habitat was lost due to holding the line of flood defences protecting people and property. A choice is then made to stop spending money on flood defence assets that aren't protecting high value assets and in actively removing others to recreate habitat lost elsewhere because of the need to hold the line elsewhere. Wallasey island is a case in point.
On the north Norfolk coast some of the defences protect fresh water marshes which are also a rare endangered habitat, which creates a dilemma over which you protect, or create new habitat areas for freshwater marsh.
Bodies like the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts are the natural partners to manage such habitat.
 
WoodyP said:
I spent many years working on coastal schemes in the east of England for the Environment Agency, when they had the funds to actually achieve something.
Rising sea levels coupled with the slow sinking of land levels recovering from the ice age has been eroding salt marshes constrained by hard sea defences that were put in place to protect homes or create highly fertile farmland.
The habitats directive meant that new habitat had to be created when other habitat was lost due to holding the line of flood defences protecting people and property. A choice is then made to stop spending money on flood defence assets that aren't protecting high value assets and in actively removing others to recreate habitat lost elsewhere because of the need to hold the line elsewhere. Wallasey island is a case in point.
On the north Norfolk coast some of the defences protect fresh water marshes which are also a rare endangered habitat, which creates a dilemma over which you protect, or create new habitat areas for freshwater marsh.
Bodies like the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts are the natural partners to manage such habitat.
Click to expand...
My inclination is to preserve and if possible enlarge wilderness areas, but on the other side there is the need for productive farmland. Striking a balance is clearly a technical matter and I certainly don't have the information needed, but saltmarsh does have some special benefits in terms of control of erosion, wildlife, and now it seems climate control. Given the choice of environment vs farming, I would on the whole prefer that saltmarsh and the coast was given priority over the equally controversial hill farms, or mixed area rewilding.
 
WoodyP said:
Don't get me Started on the loss of good land to solar PV industrial areas. I refuse to call them farms.
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to be one or the other.

There are plenty of crops that benefit from a bit of shade, so putting the panels higher, and planting under and between can be an effective way of squaring that particular circle. It's the same for grazing land - animals appreciate having shade and shelter available.
 
To those who have problems with windfarms and PV farms, happy to put a coal or oil fired power station on your doorstep or first out the door with the
protest petition ?
 
Stemar said:
Was it with good reason, or just good intentions? I'm reminded of the situation with a lot of rivers that were straightened and managed to within an inch of their lives. Allowing them to meander where they will, it turns out, is a great way to reduce flooding.

It seems that rewilding marginal agricultural land is a great way to improve biodiversity and, compared with reconstructing sea defences designed 50 or 100 years ago to cope with rising sea levels, saves gazillions that can be spent on something more useful. Additionally, those salt marshes are a great habitat for fish, especially young fish hiding from predators.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, it comes down to personal preference.

I live in a desperately overcrowded area and every acre they surrender to the sea is space we can't walk on, kids can't play on. Personally I liked the meadows and farmland.
Another feature round here is that the land is surrendered, then the public aren't allowed near it to avoid disturbing the wildlife.

If they're going to concrete over hundreds if acres of green belt the least they can do is hang on to the precious scraps of land we still have to enjoy.

...but yes, it's personal preference. There's no rule of nature that says meadow is better than mud Saltmarsh. Equally, there's no rule the other way. So people should get a genuine choice IMHO.
 
As I understand it, if there's a boundary of salt marsh outside the final sea wall, when a big storm coincides with a big high tide, the salt marsh gives some protection to the sea wall. Otherwise the waves are breaking straight onto the sea wall, and if that gives, you get a major unplanned saltwater flood that can do a lot of damage.
 
MisterBaxter said:
As I understand it, if there's a boundary of salt marsh outside the final sea wall, when a big storm coincides with a big high tide, the salt marsh gives some protection to the sea wall. Otherwise the waves are breaking straight onto the sea wall, and if that gives, you get a major unplanned saltwater flood that can do a lot of damage.
Click to expand...

I think that's true, but some of this land has been drained productive farmland for 400 years. I can't believe it's that hard to manage. (Although the catastrophe of dumping endless tons of shingle at Medmerry for years suggests it might be.)
 
Stemar said:
It doesn't have to be one or the other.

There are plenty of crops that benefit from a bit of shade, so putting the panels higher, and planting under and between can be an effective way of squaring that particular circle. It's the same for grazing land - animals appreciate having shade and shelter available.
Click to expand...
A local farm has just got permission to become a solar farm, miles of grey steel fencing surround it already. Yet just three miles away are the warehouses & distribution centre building of the new London Gateway super port, hundreds of acres of roofs with nothing on them. The same is repeated across the country by the side of the M1, M6, A5 & many other major roads.
If anyone can explain to to me why it is better to build solar farms on good farmland instead of warehouse roofs when we import more people & food by the week from I would like to hear it.
Utter idiotic madness.
 
Mark-1 said:
I think that's true, but some of this land has been drained productive farmland for 400 years. I can't believe it's that hard to manage. (Although the catastrophe of dumping endless tons of shingle at Medmerry for years suggests it might be.)
Click to expand...
I guess the concern is that with climate change pushing up sea levels and creating more extremes of weather, we might need to bolster the sea defences a bit. Salt marsh is cheap, creates a rich habitat for wildlife and is quietly beautiful, so might be a good way to do it.
 
Keith 66 said:
A local farm has just got permission to become a solar farm, miles of grey steel fencing surround it already. Yet just three miles away are the warehouses & distribution centre building of the new London Gateway super port, hundreds of acres of roofs with nothing on them. The same is repeated across the country by the side of the M1, M6, A5 & many other major roads.
If anyone can explain to to me why it is better to build solar farms on good farmland instead of warehouse roofs when we import more people & food by the week from I would like to hear it.
Utter idiotic madness.
Click to expand...
I'd be very happy to see planning law changed so that new large industrial buildings could only be built if they were covered in solar panels. It needn't cost the builders, they could partner up with a solar generation company.
But I'd also.like to see solar farms compelled to have a biodiversity or cropping plan - as has been mentioned, although they don't look great, the land beneath could be farmed or could offer a rich wildlife habitat.
 
MisterBaxter said:
I'd be very happy to see planning law changed so that new large industrial buildings could only be built if they were covered in solar panels. It needn't cost the builders, they could partner up with a solar generation company.
But I'd also.like to see solar farms compelled to have a biodiversity or cropping plan - as has been mentioned, although they don't look great, the land beneath could be farmed or could offer a rich wildlife habitat.
Click to expand...
I would probably be cheaper to build them in Morocco and import the electricity, which I have heard proposed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top