Lune Rivers Trust

INNS Strategic Plan 2015

Forest of Bowland AONB

Written & compiled by Benjamin Myerscough, Louisa Blundell & Sarah Littlefield

The Lune Rivers Trust Strategic Plan for the controlling of Invasive Non-native Species (INNS) is

divided into separate sections for clarity. Further details in these sections, such as contact

information, can be obtained through The Lune Rivers Trust.

Contents

Introduction to the Area

Projects

Appendix A - Funding

Appendix B - Stakeholder Engagement

Appendix C - Monthly Reports

Appendix D - Actions Table & Schedule of Events

Appendix E - Species Identification

Appendix F - Species Information & Distribution

Appendix G - Species Control methods & Calendar of control times

Introduction to the Area

The Forest of Bowland AONB is located in both Lancashire and Yorkshire and is monitored by a

partnership of landowners, farmers, voluntary organisations, local councils and other groups. It is

also protected by different government acts, in order to preserve the natural habitat. 13% of the

area is classified as a SSSI, mainly focused on peat and heather moorlands.

On the whole FOB is a large area of countryside with few large settlements (except for links to those

on the borders) with a population estimate of about 16,000 people. The majority of land is used for

sheep grazing and beef farming and for recreational fishing areas. Grouse shooting is permitted in

season, but the majority of hunting for sport activities are not allowed by law. The most prominent

wildlife found in FOB or those of plant and insect species, including the Ivy-leaved bellflower, unique

to the area within the North West. Aquatic species found in the main rivers include salmon, brown

trout, greyling and also otters are present in the wider stretches.

Facts and Figures

Area: 803km2 total area - 730km2 in Lancashire & 73km2 in Yorkshire

Main Rivers: Ribble, Lune, Wyre, Hodder

Key Features: Gritstone fells, peatland & heather moors, Gisburn Forest

Major Infrastructure: Still water reservoirs, including Stocks, Ogden & Black Moss Reservoir.

At least twelve fishing areas, one small railway station (Clapham/Keasden)

Major Urban Areas: Roughly a dozen settlements, with Caton & Claughton the largest

Other Areas of Interest: 500 listed buildings, Trough of Bowland

Figure 1: Map showing area of FOB AONB contained

within the Lune Catchment boundary

Figure 2: Map showing settlements within the Lune Catchment boundary of the FOB

INNS Strategic Plan

The Lune Rivers Trust EA INNS project works with many partners to eradicate/ control the spread of

INNS, in particular Japanese Knotweed, Himalayan Balsam and Giant Hogweed. We aim to do this

with a five step programme outlined in this, our strategic plan. The funding for this plan is available

in appendix A.

Collaboration - amalgamation and communication of available data and resources

throughout the catchment involving all partners (LRT, LWT,EA, CFINNS, RRT, WRT)

Collection of data - assess obtained data for usage and initiate volunteer surveying and Lune

reporting system

Community Involvement - Publicising project through social media, websites, newsletters,

etc. Produce database of volunteers and prepare for training/involvement days

Education - extension of LRT Talking Rivers Project, publicising the need for control and

raising awareness of INNS identification.

Engage and train volunteers - Training days, spraying licenses, and the purchase and

distribution of safety equipment such as gloves, hi vis jackets. Training to commence in

March 2015 with the organisation of volunteer days for both long and short term

procedures for combating INNS.

Mapping

Partner information, in reference to mapping availability, is available in Appendix B.

The Trust's use of mapping software is currently improving and constantly updating with the

continued additions of datasets and maps sourced from various partners and volunteers. Having a

dynamic map is one part of the 'collection of data' section of the plan. Below are some of the key

actions that need to be carried out:

Update GIS software with full detailed Lune water network, especially in rural areas where

up-to-date records may be lesser available

Keep GIS software dynamic by constantly included any datasets relevant to funding

opportunities

Use mapping supplied by the EA and LWT to identify key sites for HB and JK control, which

may be difficult to access and include in GIS

Work with partners to identify sites for control that would be best suited to individual

groups, eg. schools in urban areas, canoe groups, fishing areas, corporate days

Appendix A - Funding

Lune INNS funding applications, as of 25th November 2015

Funding body Stage of Application

Details

Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – Sustainable Development Fund

Approved 21.10.14 £1,500

To help map and control INNS on the Lune Catchment waterbodies which are/rise within the Forest of Bowland AONB.

Appendix B - Stakeholder Engagement, as of 25th November 2015

This section details in full all partners, stakeholders and volunteers throughout the catchment with

whom we are in discussion regarding this project. It includes all organisations, businesses,

community groups and individuals who have committed to support us in the removal of INNS

(including information on commitment, scope etc). For completeness we have also detailed those

organisations who have been contacted and have either no INNS issue in their area or who do not

wish to be involved. This is a working document and will continue to grow as partners, stakeholders

and volunteers are added. The stakeholder list is a large file and is available on request from

louisa@luneriverstrust.org.uk.

Appendix C - Monthly Report

Key:- AW - Alison Whalley (EA INNS Project Leader), RM – Rebecca McAllister (EA Business User), SB – Simon Bennett (EA Lune and Wyre Catchment Co-

ordinator,SL - Sarah Littlefield (LRT Project Leader), BM – Ben Myerscough (LRT Scientific Officer), LB – Louisa Blundell (LRT Catchment Administrator),

TM – Tom Myerscough (WRT Project Officer), JL - John Lamb (LWT Project Officer), AdamW – Adam Walmsley (RRT INNS Project Officer).

Project Objective People involved Actions

1. Strategic Management Plan

SL, AW,BM, AdamW, RM, TM

September 2014 AW forwarded LWT Strategic Management Plan. BM trained with AdamW and collected RRT management plans and reports. Discussed with SL – BM now preparing Lune Strategic Management Plan . October 2014 Draft Strategic Management Plan now taking shape (SL,BM) - will include Appendices covering A Lune Catchment Stakeholders, B Funding bids, C Action points - traffic lights, D LRT Monthly progress reports, and E LWT 2012 Survey reports. A - D will be dynamic documents, updated at each month end. BM and SL attended Wyre RT's INNS Task Force(TM) meeting to discuss opportunities for collaboration with all parties. November 2014 Strategic Management Plan now complete and submitted to AW and RM for comment. Appendices B and D updated. Appendices A - D to be updated monthly. December 2014 Appendices A - D updated. January 2015 Appendices A - D updated. Discussions re: preparation for detailed plans for the Forest of Biowland and Yorkshire Dales National Park projects.

2. Funding Strategy SL, AdamW, LB September 2014 LB collated statistics for all Living Lune Catchment Workshops and Surveys relating to INNS and forwarded to AdamW for RRT’s HLF bid. Forest of Bowland forwarded 2 possible funding applications to LB for INNS - SL and LB to complete October. (Wyre RT already have funding from these pots.) October 2014 FOB funding application completed, Lancashire CC Green Partnership Award in final drafting stage. SL in discussions with YDNP with regard to their Sustainable Development Fund. (All of these now to be included in Appendix B of our Strategic Management Plan (BM, SL). November 2014

FOB funding successful (£1,500), also First TransPennine Express Green Grant (£2,2896.50) with element for INNS control on the Keer. Lancashire CC Green Partnership Award submitted and YDNP Sustainable Development Fund in drafting stage. December 2014 Queries answered for Lancashire CC Green Partnership Award. YDNP Sustainable Development Fund draft submitted for comments. January 2015 YDNP Sustainable Development Fund submitted - successful (£8,000).

3. Collection of Data SL, BM, AdamW, AW, RM , JL.

September 2014 SL emailed RM and AW to request best practice template for recording new data. BM trained with AdamW on GIS for INNS but looking at the EA INNS layer the data was old and seemed incomplete. SL emailed RM and AW to ask for clarification (does this layer include RRT, LWT, CFINNS and YDNP data for the Lune?) BM preparing simple reporting grid for INNS sightings (based on RRT grid) to give to volunteers . October 2014 LWT forwarded data to LRT and EA from their 2012 Lune Survey (possibly more to come). BM now including these on our catchment map. LRT reporting grid now ready and issued to LRT members and Trustees, Living Lune Partners (BM) 5 grids received back detailing 24 individual reports. LB to include with all contacts with stakeholders. November 2014 Existing data from EA, RRT, CFINNS and LWT now collated (BM). New data collated and shared with EA and LERN who have suggested that we share the Cumbria data with CBDC and the Yorkshire data with NEYEDC. December 2014 Continued promotion of collection of data and collation. Promoted at LRT meetings and through Talking Rivers. January 2015 Continued promotion of collection of data and collation. Promoted at LRT meetings and through Talking Rivers.

4. Local Involvement and 5. Volunteer engagement.

SL, LB. September 2014 LB preparing data base of all corporate bodies, local groups, clubs, volunteers and the areas they wish to cover. 3 different pledge certificates prepared for companies, clubs/societies, “Me and My Friends” in readiness for training and volunteer days from April 2015 onwards. Gloves, high viz jackets etc purchased (cut-price) from South Lakeland DC. October 2014 LB has adapted the Douglas stakeholder grid (provided by LWT) to include Lune stakeholders identified . There will

be a "waterbody/geographic" filter as many of the Lune tributaries are very large rivers in their own right. As stakeholders are contacted the grid will be completed and housed under Appendix A in our strategic Management Plan, being updated monthly. SL to publicise at all Talking Rivers presentations. In addition to our standard Talking Rivers presentation LRT are now offering an INNS presentation. November 2014 LB has progressed the stakeholder grid, colour-coding it to show those groups who have already pledged support. December 2014 LB has continued to update the stakeholder grid and pledges. January 2015 LB has continued to update the stakeholder grid and pledges. Preparation for specific stakeholder lists for the Keer, Forest of Bowland and Yorkshire Dales National Park projects.

Appendix D - Action Table

This table is a dynamic document, which will be updated as work proceeds. More details on project updates can be found in Appendix C

(Monthly Reports).

Action/Aim Partners Involved Mandatory End date (if required)

Notes/Comments Current Status Last updated?

Collaboration

Organise list of all partners and stakeholders into single spreadsheet

All Early 2015 Master copy held by LRT, can be obtained via Louisa Blundell

Ongoing 25/11/15

Update LRT records with what data is available from other partners in the form of INNS data, mapping, etc

All Master copy held by LRT, can be obtained via Louisa Blundell/ Ben Myerscough

Ongoing 25/11/15

Keep up-to-date records of different groups available for corporate days, volunteering or the potential of training days

All More information can be obtained from LB or SL

Ongoing 25/11/15

Full amalgamation of existing All Access granted to EA, UU, Complete 25/11/15

databases from all organisations active in the Lune catchment

databases, information shared within partnership

Collection of Data

Initiate volunteer survey programme to collect data on INNS

LRT - to produce form

All - to complete

Forms produced and distribution ongoing

Complete 25/11/15

Collect data from EA regarding control sites with difficult access that may be more suited to their staff than volunteers

LRT, EA LRT given permission to access available data via EA database

Ongoing 25/11/15

Convert all existing datasets into GIS layers for easy observation and comparison

LRT, with assistance from

RRT

Whilst complete, new information can be added at any time

Complete 25/11/15

Convert all collected data into GIS format as it arrives

LRT, with assistance from

RRT

Ongoing

Ongoing 25/11/15

Source Identification sheets for main INNS for use in events and in strategy

LRT November 2014 ID Sheets available as posters and are included in this strategy

Complete 11/11/2014

Community Involvement

Organise list of volunteers and potential groups into a dynamic spreadsheet

All Whilst complete, new information can be added at any time

Complete 11/11/14

Identify key qualities of volunteers to utilize to greatest potential

LRT, All E.g. Canoeists can observe the river from a different perspective or can access difficult areas with equipment in boats

Complete 25/11/15

Research available training courses and their relevance to our work

LRT Compare costs and consult partners to find better offers

Complete 25/11/15

Organise training days for potential LRT, EA, All March 2015 onwards Basic training only In Progress 01/04/15

volunteers

Publicise project through social media, local events, etc

All, primarily LRT SL and LB have more information available

Ongoing 25/11/15

Upload Strategic Plan to LRT website and publicise through Living Lune website

LRT Complete, consult with BM for more information

Complete 25/11/15

Education

Raise awareness through events, social media, newsletters, etc.

All Ongoing, consult with LB for updates

Ongoing 01/04/15

Distribute INNS Identification sheets to local groups, volunteer groups, schools, etc.

All Ongoing distribution, ID and recording sheets available on website

Complete 25/11/15

Arrange school visits for education and the possibility of balsam bashing days

LRT, EA

SL in charge, Ripley St. Thomas & other schools shown interest with events planned

In Progress 01/04/15

Engage & Train Volunteers

Obtain spraying licenses and training for at least 1-2 LRT staff members and a small number of volunteer coordinators

LRT, EA March 2015 and onwards Control period for INNS starts in 2015

Awaiting Commencement

(Jan 2016)

25/11/15

Purchase and distribution of safety equipment and PPE

LRT March 2015 All volunteers receive gloves and high vis

Complete 25/11/15

Training days to commence for long and short term INNS control

All INNS identification is now part of most of the Trust's talks

Awaiting Commencement

25/11/15

- Not Started

- Ongoing

- Complete

Schedule of Events

This is a dynamic list of past and upcoming events planned in the Lune Catchment. Attendees and their age ranges will be added following scheduled

events.

Date Event Location County/Area Details Age Range Attendees

22/5/15 Wray Primary School Bash Wray FOB Training, small scale 8-10 29

Appendix E - Species Identification

This appendix links to the species Identification guides supplied via the NNSS

(http://www.nonnativespecies.org/) which are distributed at any relevant LRT meetings and events.

Included are those for the three priority species. The aim of providing this information is so that the

public and our network of volunteers can easily identify these species and report back to the Trust

and these sightings can be added to our database.

Other species are available via the NNSS website and will be included in this report as seen fit.

Species included:

Himalayan Balsam

Giant Hogweed

Japanese Knotweed

Appendix F - Species Distribution

Figure 3: Distribution of INNS across the main river system of FOB AONB.

Himalayan Balsam

Himalayan Balsam (Impatiens glandulifera) is widespread across the catchment. It is however limited

in data especially to the Eastern side (this data may be collected and obtainable from other Trusts

operating within the park. The majority of the overall data is of Himalayan Balsam sightings. Due to

the nature of the species and its invasive nature it is appropriate to assume that due to sightings

upstream of the river Lune towards Hornby & Wray and further sightings in Lowgill (not on the main

river system); that Himalayan Balsam is prevalent in the lower reaches of the main river in the FOB

area. The majority of sightings are taken on riverbanks near settlements indicating possible sites for

improving awareness and obtaining volunteer assistance.

Japanese Knotweed

There are many records of Japanese Knotweed in the whole Lune catchment and many in the Forest

of Bowland area. Sightings have been recorded as North as Gressingham on the upper reaches of the

AONB and as southerly as the bottom reaches of the FOB near Artle Beck.

In a similar way to Himalayan Balsam, Japanese Knotweed requires more data for the distribution of

information to be useful and present accurate mapping, although patterns can be seen by analysing

the data. Again, some key locations have been identified that can significantly impact the species’

distribution in the catchment and with some more concerted data amalgamation and gathering, a

more accurate picture can be confirmed in the future.

Giant Hogweed

As Giant Hogweed is generally found in smaller clutches compared to a wide spread of Himalayan

Balsam or Japanese Knotweed there are even fewer recorded sightings. This is likely due to a lack of

detailed surveys of the area. According to the collected data there is only one verified sighting just

North of Caton and covers a small patch. A full survey of the area is needed to quantify the full

infestation. Historic records indicate a presence as do upstream and downstream river records. It is

also possible that if plants were found other organisations may have already sprayed the area

without reporting the location.

Other sightings

There is historic data showing sightings of Canadian Pondweed in the River Lune North of Claughton

and Caton. As this data is almost 20 years old, it is unlikely that this issue persists, but it is included in

this report for full clarity.

Appendix G - Species Control methods & Calendar of control times

All information has been collected by the Ribble Rivers Trust in 2013.

Himalayan Balsam

Action Target Notes Rationale

Surveying Himalayan balsam on un-surveyed watercourses.

Surveying is most effective in the summer months; however this time is best spent on control work. It is possible to survey at any time of year.

A record of the area covered by the survey and areas with no balsam should be kept. The majority of the major tributaries in the catchment are now surveyed, and the priority streams have been identified. However, a better understanding of the distribution of Himalayan balsam would help inform the management strategy for future years. Records of the survey route are useful for planning future surveys. Absence data is useful for determining the true species distribution and is particularly useful for locations with old records of the species.

Habitat restoration of treated areas

Local origin native wildflower seed can be sown on areas lacking in vegetation or flowers due to balsam removal. In riparian sites it may be possible to do a habitat scheme comprising fencing and tree planting.

Removal of Himalayan balsam can leave large areas of bare earth which may lead to erosion and promote re-colonisation by invasive species. It also deprives local insects of a major pollen source. Suitable habitat restoration, for example by planting wild flowers can help mitigate these effects. Grazing helps keep balsam under control so stock exclusion and tree planting more appropriate on sites cleared of Himalayan balsam.

Re-survey of treated areas and follow up control

All treated areas need to be revisited a number of times throughout the summer to check the effectiveness of control and carry out any further work needed.

The first treatment is rarely 100% effective, especially in dense or extensive patches. Re-surveying the area a few weeks after treatment will give an indication of the survival rate. Follow up control of any regrowth can be carried out at the same time.

Spray suitable sites with glyphosate-based herbicide

Suitable sites will be densely colonised with balsam and have low native plant diversity. Ideally away from water and low gradient terrain. May to July is the most effective time.

Glyphosate is the most effective approved herbicide for this plant. Spraying is a labour efficient way of treating dense infestations but care must be taken to reduce damage to native flora. Environment Agency permit required if spraying near water.

Spray grassland sites with 2,4-D amine-based herbicide

Suitable sites will have abundant balsam growing amongst grass, with few other native broad-leafed plants. April and May is the best time

2,4-D amine is a selective herbicide which only kills broad-leafed plants, without harming grasses. This is particularly useful for balsam control in grassland as it leaves the sward intact and protects the underlying soil. EA permit required if spraying near water.

Strimming (Brushcutting) of plants in accessible areas

Most habitats types are suitable for using a strimmer to clear the balsam. A metal brushcutter

Strimming is an effective way to control Himalayan balsam, particularly when it is growing densely. It avoids the need to use herbicide so can be more

Lessons learned from 2012

In sites with high densities of Himalayan balsam, hand pulling as the only method of control can be

prohibitively time consuming. A better management strategy would be to start with strimming

and/or spraying treatments and follow up with hand pulling later in the season. Contrary to some

literature, Himalayan balsam does not flower or set seed synchronously. Late developing plants

continue to flower through to the end of September. Some of these late plants flower when only a

few inches tall though it isn’t known if these would successfully set seed. To ensure full control of

each site, repeat visits are required throughout the growing season at regular intervals to prevent

seed being set.

Japanese Knotweed

Action Target Notes Rationale

Cutting of dead knotweed stems

A brushcutter or machete can be used for this task. Cut material can be left on site. Between late November and March the stems are dead and will not re-root so there is no risk of spreading the knotweed by cutting the stems.

Knotweed stems die back in winter but can still be a significant obstruction the next year when the new growth needs spraying. Clearing the old stems during the winter will much improve access for spraying meaning that the application is more effective.

Spraying with glyphosate- based herbicide

Each site should be sprayed at least twice per year. Ideally, spray each time the regrowth reaches about 1 m tall and once in autumn just after flowering. The first application is usually in May.

Glyphosate is the most effective approved herbicide for this plant. Spraying is a labour efficient way of treating dense infestations but full control can take several years to achieve. Care should be taken to reduce damage to native flora but there is usually little else growing underneath Japanese knotweed. An EA permit is required to spray near water.

Survey new records of knotweed and assess for

Important information to record is the size of the colony,

Speculative surveys for knotweed are not usually an

head is useful for cutting through thicker vegetation. April to September

appropriate by watercourses and on other sensitive sites. The lower the balsam can be cut, the better; below the first stem node is ideal. Can be useful as a pre-treatment for other forms of control.

Controlling plants by hand, by pulling and using ‘grass slashers

Suitable for sites with difficult terrain, by watercourses, with low densities of balsam and environmentally or ecologically sensitive habitat. April to September.

Hand pulling is a labour intensive but effective control method. It is highly selective so reduces damage to non-target species to a minimum. Grass slashers are useful hand tools which can be very effective at cutting large numbers of plants. Must be carried out during the growing season but before flowering.

impact and treatment options

how dense it is and how far it is from water.

efficient use of time. Knotweed tends to be localised and does not cover large areas. New records of knotweed need to be resurveyed, firstly to assess the need to control and secondly to record the information needed to plan control work.

Habitat restoration of treated areas

Areas of bare earth around and under the Japanese knotweed can be temporarily restored through the use of wildflower and grass seeds. These can be sown after the last treatment each year.

Removal of knotweed can leave patches of bare earth which may lead to erosion and promote colonisation by Himalayan balsam. Suitable habitat restoration which encourages development of native vegetation cover can stabilise the soil and discourage further invasion. The difficulty is that knotweed takes several years to treat and that each treatment is likely to kill many of the plants underneath the knotweed.

Re-survey of treated areas and follow up control

Resurvey should look for the effectiveness of the treatment and whether any patches have been missed. Further herbicide applications may be needed.

Japanese knotweed control requires several years of persistent treatment to fully kill the plants. Re-survey, follow up control and monitoring are essential to ensure full control and prevent a waste of time and money.

Monitor arrival and effects of psyllid Aphalara itadori

Check plants for psyllid before treatment. If suspected psyllid is found, delay treatment until identification is confirmed.

This insect was released by CABI in March 2010 under license from Defra as a biocontrol agent for Japanese knotweed. As a new species and a new control agent, it is important to monitor for presence of the psyllid in the Ribble catchment and if found, inform CABI and seek advice regarding further management.

Lessons learned from 2012

It is difficult to effectively spray colonies of knotweed that are tall and dense. Only the outside edge

of these colonises really gets sprayed. Knotweed should be sprayed when it is a manageable height

in spring so that it does not grow too tall to spray later in the year.

Stem injection is very time consuming and only works for knotweed with thick stems. This technique

can be useful for small patches of knotweed on sensitive sites where herbicide may cause damage,

however for the majority of sites, knapsack spraying is more appropriate.

Giant Hogweed

Action Timing Target & Seasonality Rationale

Glyphosate treatment of high priority sites

April - June Leaves of giant hogweed are most permeable to glyphosate when they are young so the best time to spray is spring and early summer, before flowering.

Glyphosate is the most effective approved herbicide for this plant. Spraying using a knapsack sprayer with a lance reduces the risk of skin contact with the plant. Spraying personal protective equipment also protects against contact with the plant.

Prevention of flowering by mechanical means

May - August

Plants can be cut or dug up just below ground level. This may prevent or delay flowering but may need to be repeated. As a last resort, the flower stalk itself can be cut and removed.

Preventing flowering of the plant prevents seed production. If chemical treatment is not possible in a particular season, this is the next best option. This method of treatment also weakens the plant and reduces the need for herbicide use.

Survey new records of giant hogweed and assess for impact and treatment options

June - November Important information to record is the abundance or number of plants, the size of the plants and the distance from a watercourse.

Giant hogweed is a hazard to health and new records should be assessed promptly for risk posed to the public. Rapid response to new records of giant hogweed may prevent establishment of a colony and be cost effective in the long term.

Habitat restoration

July - November Habitat restoration carried out where appropriate

Removal of giant hogweed, especially by mechanical means can leave areas of bare earth which may be susceptible to erosion or colonisation by invasive plants. Habitat restoration, for example by planting native wildflowers can help mitigate these effects. Wildflower mixes

should be of local origin and suitable for the given habitat.

Re-survey of treated areas and follow up control

June - September Resurvey of treated sites should look for the efficacy of treatment and any plants missed. Follow up control should then aim to achieve full control of the site for that year.

Glyphosate treatment of giant hogweed may require several applications to kill the plant. In subsequent years, new plants are likely to emerge from the seed bank. Re-survey, follow up control and monitoring are essential to ensure full control.

Lessons Learned from 2012

Cutting giant hogweed down at ground level in May is insufficient to prevent flowering in all plants.

Repeat treatment closer to flowering time in June or July is necessary.

Old records of giant hogweed should not be discounted until they have been re-surveyed. The

plants’ long lifecycle and seed dormancy means they can be persistent in a location over many years,

even if control has been carried out in the past.