Coastal HabitatManagement Plans:An Interim Guide to Content and StructureThis document was produced with the support of the European Commission’s LIFE Nature Programme

LIVING with

seathe

ContentsForeword by The Minister for Fisheries and the Countryside 3

1 Introduction 1.0 4

2 Scope of Coastal Habitat Management Plans 2.0 4

3 Who should prepare and use Coastal Habitat Management Plans? 3.0 4

4 Outline content of Coastal Habitat Management Plans 5Inventory of features 4.1 5

Conservation objectives 4.2 5

Predicted changes to the shoreline 4.3 5

List of features that can and cannot be maintained in situ,and sustainability criteria 4.4 5

Assessment of effect on site integrity 4.5 5

Programme of measures 4.6 6

Monitoring 4.7 6

5 Details of methodology 6The iterative nature of the plan 5.1 6

Anticipatory replacement of habitat 5.2 6

Legal basis for the Coastal Habitat Management Plan 5.3 6

Management of site boundaries 5.4 7

Consultative approach to plan preparation 5.5 7

6 Feed back to the Project 6.0 7

Appendix 1A Provisional List of Site Complexes that are likely to require a Coastal Habitat Management Plan in England 8

Figure 1CHaMP Production, and Plans and Projects Routing 9

Figure 2Diagram showing the contribution of CHaMPs in addressing dynamic change to coastal Natura 2000 sites and their relationship to other management plans 10

Glossary 11

Paragraph Page

As a nation, we are fortunate in having a coastline that is of the highest value for wildlife. As aconsequence, there are many internationally protected habitats along our shores that the Government iscommitted to protecting. There are many pressures on the coast, and we need to be vigilant to ensurethat we fulfil our obligations towards these special habitats. In doing so, one of the greatest challenges isthat of rising sea level.

In July 1998 I announced that flood and coastal defence funding arrangements would be changed to ensure that these sites receive the necessary protection from flooding and erosion. Within MAFF, arrangements are now in place, and I was recently able to approve funding for the first scheme to protect part of a Special Protection Area in North Norfolk. I am aware also thatofficials in MAFF, DETR, English Nature and the Environment Agency have been working together insetting up the Coastal Habitat Management Plan (CHaMP) initiative. This mechanism will allow us toidentify the best approach for protecting those sites where matters are more complex.

The “Living with the Sea” project, which is being undertaken jointly by English Nature,the Environment Agency and the Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences, will make a very importantcontribution. It is through this EU LIFE Nature funded project that the Coastal Habitat ManagementPlan (CHaMPs) initiative will be further developed. In particular, the project will involve the preparationof six CHaMPs, a best practice guidance on habitat creation, and a framwork for managing European habitats on changing coastlines. The CHaMPs will identify the likely losses and gains inwildlife habitats over the next 30-100 years, the flood and coastal defence works that need to beundertaken to maintain protected habitats, and the new habitat that will need to be created to offset losses.

In July last year I announced the issue of a consultation draft on preparing CHaMPs, and I am pleasedthat sufficient further progress has now been made to allow this guidance document to be published. Ihave been encouraged by the extent of interest and degree of support for CHaMPs. Publication of thisdocument is an important step forward in assisting flood and coastal defence operating authorities inidentifying the measures they will need to to take to protect our most important coastal habitats.

Elliot MorleyMinister for Fisheries and the Countryside

Foreword

3

Coastal Habitat Management Plans:An Interim Guide to Content and Structure

1 Introduction: The purpose of Coastal HabitatManagement Plans and the role of this guide

Coastal Habitat Management Plans (CHaMPs)are intended to provide a framework formanaging European and Ramsar sites that arelocated on or adjacent to dynamic coastlines.They will provide a way of fulfilling the UKGovernments obligations under the Habitats andBirds Directives and the Ramsar Convention, toavoid damage and deterioration to Natura 2000and Ramsar sites; particularly when developingShoreline Management Plans (SMPs) and floodand coastal defence strategies, and planningmaintenance and capital works. They will applywhere the conservation of all the existing interestsin situ is not possible due to natural or quasi-natural changes to shorelines. Their two primaryfunctions are to act as an accounting system torecord and predict losses and gains to habitat, andto set the direction for habitat conservationmeasures to address net losses. This will ensurethat damage to Natura 2000 sites from the coastaldefence response to natural changes to the coastis avoided or compensated for. The plans willtherefore contribute to maintaining the overallcoherence of the Natura 2000 and Ramsar sitenetwork.

English Nature,The Environment Agency andthe Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences havereceived funding from the European Union’sLIFE Nature fund for a project (“Living with theSea”) to develop this initiative. The project haspublished this document as an interim model for CHaMP production following detailedconsultation with key coastal interest groups.Though the Project a framework and bestpractice model for CHaMPs will be developed.The project will also lead to the preparation of sixpilot plans in eastern and southeastern England.

The project runs from December 1999 toDecember 2003. The six pilot CHaMPs will becompleted during 2000/2001 and the frameworkand best practice model will be published in 2003.

2 Scope of Coastal Habitat Management Plans

Each CHaMP will cover a site complex. This willnormally consist of either a single coastal SAC or SPA, or more commonly a complex ofoverlapping or contiguous coastal SACs and/orSPAs and Ramsar sites. However, in order toencompass areas where replacement habitats canbe created and sustained, CHaMPs will often also

have to take in areas immediately adjacent tothose currently designated as European or otherinternational sites; areas which could reasonablybe predicted to serve a similar ecological functionwith appropriate management, such as a coastalor estuarine flood plain

It is not intended that CHaMPs should beprepared for every coastal site complex. They areintended to help resolve situations wherepredictable changes to the coastline make itimpractical or unsustainable to maintain all thecomponents of a European or other internationalsite in situ, and to meet their conservationobjectives. Such as dynamic coasts where habitatsare no longer able to naturally respond to sea levelrise. Under the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheriesand Food (MAFF) High Level Targets,Target 11aplaces an action on English Nature, theEnvironment Agency and other OperatingAuthorities to prepare a definitive list of sitecomplexes in England for which a CHaMP isrequired, and a programme for their completion.Figure 1 explains how to determine if a CHaMPis needed, and a provisional list of site complexesfor England is attached as Appendix 1.

Figure 2 explains how CHaMPs address theissue of dynamic change to Natura 2000 sites andtheir relationship to other management plans.MAFF’s FCDPAG5 document provides guidanceto operating authorities on CHaMPs and HabitatRegulations issues in general and will be animportant reference during CHaMP development.

CHaMPs will provide a framework formanaging site complexes over a long term period,it is anticipated that this would normally bebetween 30 and 100 years depending on the typeof coastline involved. Habitat creation and otherworks should however be planned with a view totheir sustainability for the foreseeable future.

3 Who should prepare and use Coastal HabitatManagement Plans?

Management Plans should be prepared andowned by the operating authority (normally theEnvironment Agency) and English Nature,working together and in consultation withrelevant stakeholders. Stakeholders need to be part of the CHaMP development andimplementation process and also have ownershipof the outcomes. English Nature and theEnvironment Agency will provide centralguidance and support to local staff to ensureconsistency of approach.The completed plans willbe used by the operating authority to plan floodand coastal defence works and associated habitatrecreation works within the plan areas. MAFF will

4

use them to assist in decisions on grant aid forcapital flood and coastal defence and habitatcreation works, and they will assist English Naturein reporting on site condition. Under theirrespective duties for flood and coastal defence, andNatura 2000 sites, both the operating authority(normally the Environment Agency) and EnglishNature must approve completed CHaMPs prior tosubmission to MAFF. Local planning authorities(LPAs) will need to use them in revising statutorydevelopment plans and land use designations, andthey will assist LPAs in making decisions onplanning applications for coastal defence schemes.

Stakeholders include all operating authorities, planning authorities, non-governmentorganizations, landowners and local community orrepresentative groups with an interest in the futuremanagement of the CHaMP area.

Generally the procedure for the completion ofa plan will be:

Operating authority (normally theEnvironment Agency) writes to English Naturerequesting approval of the plan. English Naturegives its approval and, with the operatingauthority, submits the document to MAFF.MAFF notifies agreement to the relevantoperating authority and English Nature in writing.operating authority and English Nature adopt theCHaMP. This whole adoption procedure shouldbe completed in a timely manner.

4 Outline content of CoastalHabitat Management Plans

CHaMPs will contain the following main sections:

4.1 Inventory of features

This inventory will show features of European orother international importance currentlyoccurring within the sites. It will also list theirattributes and where practical map the currentextent and distribution of each feature. Thisincludes Annex 1 (habitats), Annex II (species),bird populations relevant to the SPA designationand the components of sites listed under theRamsar convention.

4.2 Conservation objectives

This will be a statement of the formalconservation objectives for all features ofEuropean significance. For marine sites these willappear in the Regulation 33 packages, land basedsites will be addressed separately.

4.3 Predicted changes to the shoreline

A best guess methodology will be developed toidentify the likely shoreline changes that will occurover the next 30 to 100 years. This will beinformed by the review of coastal processes,information contained in the SMP, andinformation in any more detailed strategic plans

for flood and coastal defences, but also building inother available data and expert opinion. Thisreview of predicted changes to the shoreline will inturn inform the next revision of SMPs and anystrategies produced subsequently. The aim will beto integrate CHaMPs into the shoreline planningprocess; ensuring Natura 2000 sites are accountedfor when selecting sea and coastal defence options.

4.4 Lists of features that can and cannot be maintained in situ,and sustainability criteria

Taking account of the information in sections 4.1-4.3 the next step is to draw up a list ofsignificant European and other internationallyimportant features that can and cannot bemaintained by holding the existing line of defence.

Having regard to the terms of the Habitats andBirds Directives, for designated features landwardof a sea defence, there will be a presumption infavour of maintaining the habitat in situ. Wherethis would be unsustainable or would causedamage to other features of conservation interest,the alternative option of habitat creation shouldthen be considered. For features to landward, thesustainability of defences should normally beconsidered over the probable design-life of astructure: between 30 and 100 years depending onthe type of scheme. In general, it will besustainable to protect such features in situ whereto do so would a) not result in an adverse effect onthe integrity of the designated site or otherconservation assets, and b) would work with ratherthan against coastal processes.

They must also be technically feasible and should not require excessive capital or maintenance costs disproportionate to theimportance of the feature under threat. In regard tocost, where there is more than one technically andenvironmentally acceptable solution, the lowestcost method should be chosen. (See FCDPAG5)

In view of rising sea levels, for features seawardof sea defences managed retreat is likely to be thefavoured option. Where it is decided that a seadefence cannot be retained on the existing lineand new habitat must be created, the sustainabilityof the location of the new habitat must also beconsidered. This will involve consideration of themedium to long-term (30-100years) effect ofcoastal processes, and also of the resourcesrequired to ensure the development of suitablereplacement habitat and its management(environmental, technical and economic).

4.5 Assessment of effect on site integrity

The list of features that cannot sustainably bemaintained in situ will be used to inform anassessment of whether or not the scope and scaleof habitat loss and/or change, has the potential tocause an adverse effect on site integrity. In thecase of SPAs, a whole range of factors external tothe site can influence bird populations. Because

5

6

of this, the basis for assessing losses to SPAfeatures will normally be changes in the extentand/or quality of the habitats used by the birdsthat affect the ability of the site to support thebird populations for which it is classified.

4.6 Program of measures

Where it is predicted that an adverse effect onintegrity would occur, the CHaMP would then goon to set out the targets to either avoid an adverseeffect on integrity or to compensate for it. Aprogram consisting of the measures consideredessential to meet these targets would follow.Thesewill include the review and testing of flood andcoastal defence options and development ofreplacement habitats.

Habitat replacement measures should belocated within or immediately adjacent to the sitecomplex wherever possible, though it maysometimes be necessary to look more widelywithin the natural area. It is important that otherenvironmental and social issues are taken intoaccount when deciding where to establish anynew habitats, such as planning and tourism. TheCHaMP would also assist this part of the processby identifying potential sites for replacementhabitat within rolling five to ten year time frames.

4.7 Monitoring

CHaMP will set out a monitoring programdesigned to keep track of actual losses and gainsof habitats that can be compared with predictedlosses and gains, and used to update or amendthose predictions.

5 Details of methodology

5.1 The iterative nature of the plan

It is recognised that the targets for habitatreplacement will initially be set on the basis ofsome fairly broad assumptions, both on the likelyscale of habitat loss, and on the likely response.The plan will therefore need to be a livingdocument. The figures for anticipated habitatloss, and the targets for habitat replacementderived from them, will need to be adjusted eachtime a scheme goes forward, after detailedconsideration of the different options for thatscheme, or as and when other new informationbecomes available. The CHaMP will need toidentify the monitoring requirements to keep theinventory of habitat losses and gains current. Theplan should be fully reviewed every 5 years.

5.2 Anticipatory replacement of habitat

Once plans have been prepared and agreed, it willbe desirable to start to replace the habitats andthe habitats of species of international importancein advance of predictable losses occurring. Thiscan be achieved through the coastal and seadefence strategies and capital programs prepared

by operating authorities. The ability to replace inadvance also offers the pragmatic and ecologicaladvantages of economies of scale that may beachieved by combining several smaller habitatreplacement schemes. The plans will need tomonitor the replacement of habitats and use adatabase for recording and linking habitatreplacement schemes with operating authoritystrategy plans. This may link with EnvironmentAgency databases used in reporting CHaMPprogress against MAFF High Level Targets.

However, bearing in mind the uncertaintiessurrounding the prediction of future changes, andthe need for an iterative approach withinCHaMPs, it is proposed that the loss predictionsand the habitat replacement targets should as faras possible be profiled within the 30 to 100 yearlife of the plan. Advance habitat replacementshould then normally be limited to that predictedas necessary within a rolling five to ten year timehorizon, though this limit will need to be appliedwith a considerable degree of flexibility so as notto preclude otherwise sensible and economicsolutions.

Habitat recreation proposals resulting fromother plans, such as mitigation/compensation forport development, should complement andsupport habitat replacement measures proposedto offset the results of shoreline change. However,they are to remain distinct from and additional toany measures recommended by CHaMPs.

5.3 Legal basis for the CoastalHabitat Management Plan

At the broadest level, it is proposed that aCHaMP constitutes a management plan asmentioned in Article 6.1 of the HabitatsDirective. More specifically, however, a CHaMPis seen as a particular aid in the application of TheConservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations1994, for the management of coastal Europeansites. CHaMPs will often cover several differentsites of European and International importance,thus considering the wider impacts of schemes ofmanagement in the coastal cell.

Where, however, a CHaMP overlaps with aEuropean marine site, the relevant authorities inpreparing or updating the management schemefor the European marine site must use theinformation contained in the CHaMP. This is inorder to comply with the Regulation 34(2) of TheConservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations1994, so that only a single scheme ofmanagement is prepared for each Europeanmarine site. CHaMPs will not replace a “schemeof management”.

In addition, it is envisaged that CHaMPs willbe particularly helpful in making decisionsrequired by the Habitats Regulations in relationto the assessments of impacts in combinationwith other plans and projects and in relation towhether there will be an adverse effect on theintegrity of a site. It must be stressed that aCHaMP does not offer an alternative regulatory

7

pathway to the Habitats Regulations, but willprovide a qualitative reference in the assessment.See Figure.1.

5.4 Management of site boundaries

CHaMPs will need to include a procedure forsafeguarding habitat replacement sites outside theformally designated boundaries of the Europeansites making up the site complex. This isnecessary to ensure that the provisions of theDirective are complied with, and that areas ofrecreated habitat receive legal protection againstdevelopment and other man-made threats. Newhabitat sites should first be designated a SSSI.Formal adjustment of European boundaries willthen follow, although there is no adjustmentmechanism for SACs at present. The plan willhowever need to identify at the outset acomprehensive Site Envelope within whichhabitat replacement works are likely to berequired during the lifetime of the plan. LocalAuthorities will need to be given a policy steer tointegrate the management plan and theimplications for these Site Envelopes, in structureand local plan land use designations.

5.5 Consultative approach to planpreparation

Successful implementation of a CHaMP willrequire the active co-operation of the localauthorities, the landowners and the wider localcommunity. Such co-operation is only likely to beforthcoming if these stakeholders feel someownership of the issues and the proposed solution.

Consultation and awareness raising therefore needsto be regarded as an integral part of planpreparation, with sufficient time allowed for it at allstages in the process, including its inception.Mechanisms for acquiring land and managing newhabitats should be explored with landowners at anearly stage; this will help the development of aprogram for habitat replacement measures.

6 Feed back to the ProjectTo assist the development of the frameworkfor maintaining European features and theproduction of best practice guidance, feedbackon the CHaMP process is welcomed. Anyideas on how the initiative can be improved,other projects or schemes delivering habitatcreation or furthering the aims of “Living withthe Sea” can be referred to the ProjectManager at English Nature. The Project willalso be raising awareness of this initiative inEurope, and seeking clarity and commonunderstanding of the Habitat and BirdsDirective. More project information will beavailable via the English Nature web site andassociated links.

Contact:The Project Manager Living with the Sea English Nature Northminster House Peterborough England PE1 1UA

E-mail: stephen.worrall@english-nature.org.uk

8

Appendix 1:A Provisional List of Site Complexes that are likely to require a Coastal Habitat Management Plan in England

Site Complex Names of Sites in Complex

Humber Humber Flats, Marshes and CoastSPA/Ramsar

Wash and North Norfolk Gibraltar Point SPA/RamsarThe Wash SPA/RamsarThe Wash and N.Norfolk cSACNorth Norfolk Coast SPA/RamsarNorth Norfolk Coast and Gibraltar Point Dunes cSAC

Winterton and North Dunes Winterton-Horsey Dunes cSACGreat Yarmouth North Dunes SPA

Suffolk Coast and Estuaries Benacre to Easton Bavents Lagoons cSACBenacre to Easton Bavents SPAMinsmere-Walberswick SPA/RamsarMinsmere-Walberswick Heath and Marshes cSACOrfordness-Havergate SPA/RamsarOrfordness-Shingle Street cSACAlde-Ore Estuary SPA/RamsarDeben Estuary SPA/RamsarStour and Orwell SPA/Ramsar

Essex Coast Essex Estuaries cSACHamford Water SPA/RamsarColne Estuary SPA/RamsarBlackwater Estuary SPA/RamsarDengie SPA/RamsarCrouch & Roach Estuaries SPA/RamsarFoulness SPA/RAMSARBenfleet and Southend Marshes SPA/Ramsar

North Kent Estuaries and Marshes Thames Estuary and Marshes pSPA and pRamsarMedway Eastbury and Marshes SPA/RamsarThe Swale SPA/Ramsar

Sandwich Bay and Thanet Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and RamsarThanet Coast cSAC Sandwich Bay cSAC

Dungeness and Pett Levels Dungeness cSACDungeness and Pett Level pSPA and pRamsar

West Sussex and The Solent Pagham Harbour SPA/RamsarChichester and Langstone Harbours SPA/RamsarPortsmouth Harbour SPA/RamsarSolent and Southampton Water pSPA/RamsarSolent and Isle of Wight Lagoons cSACSolent Maritime cSAC

Poole and Studland Poole Harbour pSPA/pRamsarDorset Heaths and Studland cSAC

The Severn Estuary The Severn Estuary SPA/Ramsar

Sefton and the Ribble Alt Estuary SPA/Ramsar Sefton Coast cSACRibble Estuary SPA/RamsarRibble and Alt Estuaries SPA/Ramsar

Morecambe Bay Morecambe Bay SPA/RamsarMorecambe Bay cSAC

Cumbria Coast Duddon Estuary pSPADrigg Coast cSAC

Solway Estuary Solway Flats and Marshes SPA/RamsarUpper Solway Flats and Marshes SPA/RamsarRockliffe Marsh SPA/RamsarSolway Firth cSAC

9

Figure 1:CHaMP Production, and Plans and Projects Routing

Is this a dynamic coastline with European habitat features of Importance?

No CHaMP required

Are Flood and Coastal Defence works planned that may have an adverse effecton the integrity of a site in the next 30 to 100 years?

Does this coastline incorporateproposals for development e.gPort or land claim etc?

Is it impossible or unsustainable to conserve the conservation interest in situ, or reconcile the conservation objectives for reasons that relate to management of flooding and/or coastal processes?

Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive applies and Reg.48 & 49 of the Habitat Regulations-appropriateassessments. CHaMP

Modified Coastal/Sea Defence Strategy

Planning Application inaccordance with PlanningPolicy Guidance 9.

NOYES

NO

YES

NO YES

NO

YES

INFORM

KEY

Elements of LIFE project

10

Figure 2:Diagram showing the contribution of CHaMPS in addressingdynamic change to coastal Natura 2000 sites and theirrelationship to other management plans

Dynamic coastal processes

Identification of coastal defence requirements (via

shoreline Management Plans and Strategy Studies)

BAP/Coastal/sea defencestrategies. Maintenance of

ecological integrity of features ofdesignated European importance

Identified impact on designated features of European importance (cSAC and SPA)

Land use/local plans and development plans

Coastal habitat re-creation and restoration

Changes in the land/sea interface and coastal habitat

extent, location and type

Impact on existing coastalinfrastructure and human

activity (including defence)

Natura 2000 Site Network

COASTAL HABITATMANAGEMENT PLANS

Schemes of Management/sitemanagement statement for

Natura 2000 sites

Production of best practiceguidance on coastal habitat re-creation and restoration

Increasing our understanding of ecological integrity in relation

to dynamic change

11

GlossaryAnnex I (Habitats) & Annex II (Species) Habitats and species of Community interest

listed in the Habitats Directive.

BAP Biodiversity Action Plans

CHaMPs Coastal Habitat Management Plans

Coastal squeeze habitats caught between rising sea level, and fixed seadefences or high ground

Coastal/Sea Defence Strategy schemes resulting from a SMP

cSAC candidate SAC (treat as SAC)

Dynamic coastline one that is eroding and accreting

EA Environment Agency, Government funded environmentalprotection Agency for England and Wales. Operatingauthority for flood defence.

EN English Nature, Government funded conservation Agency for England

FCDPAG5 MAFF Project Appraisal Guidance for flood and coastaldefence schemes

High Level Targets Set by MAFF for Operating Authorities

LIFE Nature European Union fund

MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, responsible forGrant Aiding flood and coastal defence works

Natura 2000 SAC/SPAs around the United Kingdom

NGO non-governmental organisation

Operating authority the Environment Agency or local authority

PPG 9 Planning Policy Guidance on Nature Conservation

Ramsar International agreement on endangered habitats

Regulation 33 conservation objectives for marine SACs

SAC Special Area of Conservation (Habitats and Species Directive)

Scheme of Management single management scheme set for SACs under Reg. 34 ofThe Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994

SMP Shoreline Management Plans

SPA Special Protection Area (Birds Directive)

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

Copyright: Joint copyright EN, EA, CCMS

ISBN number: 1 85716 515 2

Living with the Sea LIFE ProjectStephen WorrallProject ManagerEnglish NatureNorthminster HousePeterboroughPE1 1UA

Telephone: 01733 455220Email: stephen.worrall@english-nature.org.uk

Designed and printed by The Creative Company 1.5Mon Evolution Satin, 75% recycled paper ElementalChlorine Free.