© David P Howard (CC-BY-SA-2.0) link. Photo of Salt marsh on the north coast. Note how the artificial criteria are determined below.
The following is a short summary of the habitat type and how to create/enhance it to a "good" condition. For an informed position, please refer to official up-to-date UKHAB documentation or the UK Government's Condition Assessment Sheet.
Angiosperm-dominated stands of vegetation, occurring on the extreme upper shore of sheltered coasts and periodically covered by high tides. The vegetation develops on a variety of sandy and muddy sediment types and may have admixtures of coarser material. The character of the saltmarsh communities is affected by height up the shore, resulting in a zonation pattern related to the degree or frequency of immersion in seawater.
For these habitats the artificial nature is determined by the underlying substrate, most restoration activities will fall under the net gain definition of recreated natural habitats. Situations that fall under artificial will be limited but not impossible and include any base substrate that falls under artificial in the definition above. Example: floating habitat creation systems where the underlying substrate is artificially contained.
How to Create / Enhance to a "Good" condition
⚠️ Important Note
The design and management of coastal habitats will have specific competency requirements which should be demonstrated where these habitats are targeted in the SSM.
There are a set of criteria that are used to judge the condition of this habitat. These are listed below.
| Indicator | Good (3 points) | Moderate (2 points) | Poor (1 point) |
A | Coastal processes | Coastal processes are functioning naturally. No evidence of human physical modifications which are clearly impacting the habitat. | Artificial structures present, for example groynes that are impeding the natural movement of sediments or water, affecting up to 25% of the habitat. | Artificial structures present, for example groynes that are impeding the natural movement of sediments or water, affecting more than 25% of the habitat. |
B | Presence and abundance of invasive non-native species | Not more than one invasive non-native species is ‘Occasional’ on the SACFOR scale or is occupying more than 1% of the habitat. No high-risk species indicative of suboptimal condition present, see Footnote 2 for details. | No invasive non-native species are present above ‘Frequent’ on the SACFOR scale or they occupy between 1-10% of the habitat. No high-risk species indicative of suboptimal condition present, see Footnote 2 for details. | One or more invasive non-native species present at an ‘Abundant’ level on the SACFOR scale; they occupy more than 10% of the habitat; or a high-risk species indicative of suboptimal condition is present – GB Non-native Species Secretariat should be notified, see Footnote 2 for details. |
C | Water Quality | No visual evidence of pollution. There are no nuisance algal growths that are likely to be attributable to nutrient enrichment. Consider seasonality of survey timing3. | Visual evidence of low to moderate levels of pollution. Elevated algal growth with increases in cover that may indicate nutrient enrichment. Consider seasonality of survey timing3. | Visual evidence of high algal growth that is indicative of nutrient enrichment. Signs of eutrophication that would impede bird feeding. Consider seasonality of survey timing3. |
D | Non-natural structures and direct human impacts | No evidence of impacts from direct human activities, or they occupy <1% of the habitat area (for example, pontoons, moorings, boats, crab tiles, bait digging or anchoring scars). | Evidence of impacts from direct human activities occupies 1-10% of the habitat area (for example, pontoons, moorings, boats, crab tiles, bait digging or anchoring scars). | Evidence of impacts from direct human activities occupies >10% of the habitat area (for example, pontoons, moorings, boats, crab tiles, bait digging or anchoring scars). |
E | Litter (when examining a beach strandline, mean high water line or intertidal rocky shore) | Following the Marine Conservation Society (MCS) beach litter survey method, the number of items of litter does not exceed 0.0036 m−1 min−1 person−1, equivalent to up to 20 items per person per 100 m per hour. See Footnote 4. | Following the MCS beach litter survey method the number of items of litter does not exceed 0.0078 m−1 min−1 person−1 equivalent to between 21 and 47 items of litter per person per 100 m per hour. See Footnote 4. | Following the MCS beach litter survey method the number of items of litter exceeds 0.0078 m−1 min−1 person−1 equivalent to more than 47 items of litter per person per 100 m per hour. See Footnote 4. |
F | Zonation and transition to other habitats | Zonation of vegetation or communities is clear and continuous5. Distribution of the feature and transition to other habitats, including associated transitional habitats within the site is reflective of expected natural distribution seaward and landward. | Up to 2 of the expected zones are absent or significantly impacted by human modification of the shoreline, and transitions to other habitats are restricted in less than 20% of the habitat boundaries5. | Zonation of vegetation or communities is not clearly visible or is significantly impacted by human modification of the shoreline5. Or transitions to other habitats are restricted in more than 20% of the habitat boundaries. |
Condition Assessment Result |
TOTAL SCORE 14 - 18 (75-100%) = GOOD CONDITION |
TOTAL SCORE 9 - 13 (50-75%) = MODERATE CONDITION |
TOTAL SCORE 6 - 8 (0-50%) = POOR CONDITION |
Useful Resources
If you are interested in enhancing or creating this habitat, you should consider the following (all recommended by CIEEM):