Species management and control

9 Species Management

9.1 Non native species control

Subject: Non native species control: Thanet, Dover and Canterbury

What is the long term goal?

20/20 vision / Main objective

Where it is possible, eliminate non- native species without damaging other species or worsening the problem.

Is this compatible with the SPA and SAC objectives?
Yes

2. What is the current situation?  (Background Information  – Facts and Figures)

Description

Thousands of marine species and plants and algae are transported from their native range to “new” areas. These species are called non-native species (sometimes referred to as alien or invasive species). Species can be introduced to non-native environments accidentally (in ballast water; fouling of boats, and introduced in aquaculture) or deliberately.

Location, information and trends over the last 6 years

Likely trends over next 6 years

• Japweed has been recorded to be slightly extending its hold on the shore – but prefers to be immersed in water of tidal pool, gullies and larger rockpools.
• Wakame is likely to be limited to the constant immersion from pontoons or boats within the harbour and has not been found on the shore.
• Pacific or Portuguese Oysters appear to be spreading rapidly around the north Thanet coast

There is likely, however, to be more non-native species e.g.:

• Chinese Mitten Crab (which has now been recorded in the Sandwich bay area)
• American oyster drill (which has now been recorded at Coldharbour and Bishopstone)
• Non-native barnacles etc.

3. What are the current effects of this activity?

Social, Economic and cultural

• Non native species e.g. Wakame and Portugese Oysters may be edible and harvesting would therefore be a good management tool
• Specialists have strong values about what is native and what is not and feel that it comprises the naturalness of a place if they are present, but the wider community do not share this view.

SSSI features

Cord Grass (S anglica) affects other species of saltmarsh

Other key habitats and species and those of local value

• Japweed may provide a habitat for marine invertebrates.
• Negative effects on native species – displacement of substrate habitat for habitat for seaweed or food source for wildlife that relies on this displaced seaweed.

The functioning of the local Ecosystem

• Effects are not well understood.  Some non-native species seem to have little effect others displace native species, damage our natural environment, and can alter food chains and bring in viruses e.g. Crayfish.
• Control itself can cause physical damage e.g. Wakame control was tried on the Isle of White but pulling it up caused too much physical damage and it was not a success.

The functioning of adjacent ecosystems

• Invasive non-native species will colonise adjacent ecosystems if the conditions are suitable.

4. What is the current management?

Organisations responsible for management

• TDC as landowner and also Harbour Authority
• Sandwich P&HC
• CCC as Whitstable Harbour Authority
• Private Landowners

Key Documents

• Globallast.imo.org/index.asp?page=bwdirectories.htm&menu=true
• UK – Directory of non-native marine species in British waters (http://www.jncc.gov.uk/marine/dns/default.htm
• http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1532
• www.marlin.ac.uk/PDF/MLTN_alien_non_natives.pdf
• www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/resprog/findings/non-native/execsummary.pdf

Existing Management

• Mapping and monitoring is taking place and needs to continue but no other management is taking place

5. Will this management get us to where we want to go – if not why not?

Will current management deliver the long term vision for this activity

General comments

• Over the very long time it will lead to changes in evolution
• Some changes and new species will colonise the area due to spreading their range as a result of climate change and warmer water and this is already happening.
• The view of non-natives species will differ if they have colonised through naturally spreading their range or have been introduced.
• Very little management is possible, or likely to have any great effect.

What will current management mean for the ecosystem over the long term?

• It is not possible to control non-native species effectively so the situation is likely to get worse.
• In the long-term there are likely to be significant shifts in species composition due to climate change.  Some species will shift their range but also non European species will be able to colonise the area
• Species that have colonised may be accepted as a natural feature
• Full facts are needed to make informed decisions for the future

Gaps in management

• Non-native species are entering the local ecosystem via a range of human activities. Much more needs to be done about raising awareness and taking action at a national level on harbour management and ballast water.
• At a local level it is necessary to decide whether or not putting effort into control is feasible or sustainable when it is not possible to eliminate species altogether.
• Laws governing non-native species introduction need to be better promoted.
• The risk of new introductions should be minimised with tighter controls on commercial ventures and control of applications from commercial ventures e.g. the release of Pacific Oysters from the shell fishery should not have happened.
• Early and continued monitoring of species types, numbers is required.

Gaps in management in relation to the SPA and SAC features

• None identified

6. What, if anything, do we want to do?

Management measures, policies, actions, New ideas or solutions and who will action

Management Measures for SPA and SAC features

As above

Likely resource requirement

Funding for a research contract

7. What is the likely long tem effect of what we want to do on the following?

Economic and Social

• Generally not noticed by most people until they are informed.
• Encouraging the harvesting to non-native species could become a new cultural activity.

Environment. The functioning of this ecosystem and  adjacent ecosystems

• We will know extent and impact of non-native species and may have a better idea of more effective ways of controls.
• Control would mean increased area for native wildlife and a better balanced ecosystem – but control measures will have to avoid damage to native species and inadvertently spreading the species to adjacent ecosystems

8. How will we know if we are going in the right direction?

Monitoring and who will action

Once a baseline survey has been undertaken it can be regularly updated to identify any changes in distribution and quantities.

Monitoring of SAC and SPA management

As above

Likely resource requirements

Will depend on survey methods and how this can be tied into the regular SAC monitoring

9.2 Mosquito Control

Subject:  Mosquito Control in Thanet  and Dover

1. What is the long-term goal?

20/20 vision / Main objective

Mosquitoes are only controlled when it is essential to do so

Is this compatible with the SPA and SAC objectives?

Yes

2. What is the current situation?  (Background Information  – Facts and Figures)

Description

• Mosquitoes are found in the brackish water pools near the hoverport in Pegwell Bay
• Found in the River Stour from NE of Sandwich to Pegwell Bay

Frequency of activity

• Sprays are carried out dependant on the density of mosquitoes usually twice a year

Time of year

• Spring and Autumn

Other information

• Mosquitoes cause such a nuisance to local residents that if the numbers reach a certain density they are sprayed with Bti which is specifically toxic to:
•  Mosquitoes,
• Certain midges
• Blackfly

Changes over last 6 years

• None identified

Likely trends over next 6  years

• No new trends identified

3. What are the current effects of this activity?

Social, Economic and cultural

• Non native species e.g. Wakame and Portugese Oysters may be edible and harvesting would therefore be a good management tool
• Specialists have strong values about what is native and what is not and feel that it comprises the naturalness of a place if they are present, but the wider community do not share this view.

SSSI features

Cord Grass (S anglica) affects other species of saltmarsh

Other key habitats and species and those of local value

• Japweed may provide a habitat for marine invertebrates.
• Negative effects on native species – displacement of substrate habitat for habitat for seaweed or food source for wildlife that relies on this displaced seaweed.

The functioning of the local Ecosystem

• Effects are not well understood.  Some non-native species seem to have little effect others displace native species, damage our natural environment, and can alter food chains and bring in viruses e.g. Crayfish.
• Control itself can cause physical damage e.g. Wakame control was tried on the Isle of White but pulling it up caused too much physical damage and it was not a success.

The functioning of adjacent ecosystems

• Invasive non-native species will colonise adjacent ecosystems if the conditions are suitable.

4. What is the current management?

Organisations responsible for management

• Thanet District Council  Environmental Health
• Situation Monitored by KWT

Key Documents

• NE consent for this Activity

Existing Management

• Carried out by Thanet District Council in liaison with the National Nature Reserve and Natural England

5. Will this management get us to where we want to go – if not why not?

Will current management deliver the long term vision for this activity
Restricting spraying to only when it is essential will minimise the effect on the environment

Will current management mean the ecosystem can support this activity over the long term?
Yes

Gaps in management
None identified

Gaps in management in relation to the SPA and SAC features
None identified

9.2 Coastal and marine plants collection

Subject: Seaweed and Coastal Plant collection
Thanet, Dover and Canterbury

1. What is the long-term goal?

20/20 vision / Main objective
The sustainable harvesting of edible and non edible coastal and marine plants 

Is this compatible with the SPA and SAC objectives?
Yes

2. What is the current situation?  (Background Information  – Facts and Figures)

Changes over last 6 years
Edible plants and seaweeds highlighted in walk as added interest (Rock Doc and Seaweeds and their Secrets). This may have led to a slight rise in collecting for food

Likely trends over next 6  years

• May be a rise in collection of edible species with increased information from the TCP and increased interest in the health benefits of seaweed for e.g. reported anti-carcinogen properties, and Fucoids properties for slimming.

Collectors would also like to collect seakale, wild rocket, Alexanders, sea purslane, marsh samphire and wild fennel.

3. What are the current effects of this activity?

Social, economic, cultural and environment

• Provides a small income for collectors
• Traditional activity
• Food for free
• Collectors would like to help in documenting and monitoring the effect of harvesting on plant communities and broader communities.

SSSI features

• Removal of shingle vegetation can be detrimental
• Potential threat to population of other important species within the SSSI habitats – such as Sea Kale on shingle or Rock Sea Lavender on the cliffs etc.

Other key habitats and species and those of local value
Not known

The functioning of the local Ecosystem
Not known, but thought to be fine as collecting has not been excessive.

The functioning of adjacent ecosystems
Not known, but thought to be fine as collecting has not been excessive.

4. What is the current management?

Organisations responsible for management

• TDC as landowner – their permission is required.
• In principle NE consent is required for removal of plant material from a SSSI but in practice private collectors have not sought this.
• Nationally NE is working with key partners to develop a code of conduct for wild food collection.
• TCP advise the public
• Sandwich Bay Residents Association
• Canterbury City Council

Existing Management

• None
• for guidance regarding Sea Kale that was being collected at Sandwich Bay on KWT land.
• KWT at Reculver

5. Will this management get us to where we want to go – if not why not?

Will current management deliver the long term vision for this activity
Not currently as there needs to be clarification over whose permission is required for collection.

Will current management mean the ecosystem can support this activity over the long term?
The Convention on Biodiversity promotes the sustainable use of genetic resources

Gaps in management
Edible seaweed collection guidance required. (Learn from experience of activity in N America and Ireland)

Gaps in management in relation to the SPA and SAC features
It is not currently known which seaweed species are found in sufficient quantities to allow sustainable harvesting

6. What, if anything, do we want to do?

Management measures, policies, actions, New ideas or solutions and who will action

Management Measures for SPA and SAC features
None identified

7. What is the likely long tem effect of what we want to do on the following?

Economic, Social and Environment

• Generate jobs and income
• Enhance restaurant trade for local food
• Helping people connect with the local environment  – more people respecting and understanding it
• People would have more knowledge about plant foods and sustainable harvesting
• Better monitoring

The functioning of this ecosystem and adjacent ecosystems

• Provided it is done sustainably their should be no effect on the functioning of this or adjacent systems

Likely resource requirement

• Funding for advice, research and monitoring of effects. Meeting can be absorbed with staff time.

8. How will we know if we are going in the right direction?

Monitoring and who will action
NE

Monitoring of SAC and SPA management
NE

Likely resource requirements
Minimal

9.4 Seaweed Removal

This activity does not take place in the Dover or Canterbury part of the SPA

Subject: Seaweed Removal 
Thanet

1. What is the long-term goal?

20/20 vision / Main objective
Only remove seaweed when and where essential so that seaweed is left part of the strandline ecosystem where ever possible.

Is this compatible with the SPA and SAC objectives?
Yes

2. What is the current situation?  (Background Information  – Facts and Figures)

Seaweed

• Driftweed (mainly composed of the Brown Fucus species) accumulates in drift line- mainly in the sandy bays between Minnis Bay and Foreness but also elsewhere around the coast.  About 4500 – 5000 tonnes are cleared, and used as a fertiliser and soil conditioners on local farmland. Some is also collected for composting.
• This activity takes place on a daily basis during the summer from the end of June to September and occasionally outside either before or after this period.
• In the late summer to autumn the seasonal growth of seaweed is ripped off the rocks by strong tides, currents and storms and it gets washed up onto the beaches in large piles.

Changes over last 6 years

• Large quantities of driftweed have been removed to satisfy bathing award conditions to remove rotting seaweed from these beaches.

Likely trends over next 6  years

• Stricter controls have been put on collection and removal due to EA concerns about nitrate levels in local soils in 2006.
• Seaweed will still continue to be removed from bathing beaches in the summer, however, it will be interesting to see if there will be significantly less driftweed (in quantity) following the transfer of Margate and Broadstairs sewage from the long sea outfall to land based waste water treatment in 2007/08.
• Possibility of local recycling / composting centre.
• Margate Harbour has particular seaweed related issues due to the odour produced from the combination of decomposing seaweed and existing sediment. This may impact on the future Turner Contemporary Gallery and any Margate Harbour and old town regeneration. Similarly, Broadstairs Harbour has large quantities of decaying seaweed that may seem to exacerbate the poor water quality test results sometimes received in this immediate area.

3. What are the current effects of this activity?

Social, economic, cultural and environment

• The removal of driftweed is one of the conditions required in order for beaches to get sea bathing quality awards – Blue Flags and Seaside Awards (soon to be ‘Bucket and Spade’ Awards).  This is a benefit to tourism and the economy of the area.
• This also reduces the extent of the smell of decomposing seaweed and related public complaints.

SSSI features

• Removes a major food source for coastal waders and other strandline wildlife.

Other key habitats and species and those of local value

• May affect fish and other species that depend on the seaweed as it breaks down.
• May cause a large reduction in local strandline wildlife such as sandhoppers and associated ecology features.

The functioning of the local Ecosystem

• The strandline ecosystem is a unique ecosystem/habitat in its own right but is destroyed by this activity

The functioning of adjacent ecosystems

• This activity removes nutrients from the system – but there is much evidence that winter winds and weather conditions result in other driftweed from outside the North East Kent Coast getting washed ashore here. For example: Knotted wrack (or Egg Wrack), which does not grow on the NE Kent Coast but does in the Essex Estuaries, gets washed ashore mainly in the autumn.

4. What is the current management?

Organisations responsible for management
Thanet District Council

Key Documents
Thanet Coast Site Management Statement

Existing Management
Seaweed removal is agreed within the Site Management Statement from June to September and is carried out by a contractor with a telehandler and is then transferred by lorry.

5. Will this management get us to where we want to go – if not why not?

Will current management deliver the long term vision for this activity
Yes, if removal only takes place during June to September – to leave strandline food source for turnstone in autumn and winter.

Will current management mean the ecosystem can support this activity over the longterm?
Yes, as the removal of seaweed has happened over hundreds of years to fertilise the farmland in Thanet.

Gaps in management

• Restrict removal to times and places absolutely necessary.
• Leave strandline as it is on certain beaches e.g. Kingsgate Bay and explain why this is happening
• Develop a guidance note between TCP, NE ,TDC and EA.
• Ensure that there is liaison with the EA over appropriate seaweed disposal sites

Gaps in management in relation to the SPA and SAC features
Knowledge about the removal of seaweed and its impact on wintering turnstone.

6. What, if anything, do we want to do?

Management measures, policies, actions, New ideas or solutions and who will action

Management Measures for SPA and SAC features
None identified

7. What is the likely long tem effect of what we want to do on the following?

8. How will we know if we are going in the right direction?

Monitoring and who will action

• TDC will record amount of annual driftweed removal, and also record the times, place and amounts of any collecting that occurs outside the June to September (start of school holidays period).

Monitoring of SAC and SPA management

• Yearly monitoring of turnstone populations may indicate whether they are being detrimentally impacted by the removal of seaweed.

Likely resource requirements

• NE funds for turnstone monitoring
• Research funds to study effects on disruption of local strandline ecology between seasons and possible effects on turnstone.