‘To manage’ means to direct or to control. So, while it may be perfectly valid to choose a policy of strict non-intervention on a particular site, this would hardly qualify as management in the sense used here. Conservation management means interference, either to produce desired changes or to prevent others which may be undesirable. Management may require massive alterations to a site, with or without continuous or long-term follow-up, or it may consist of no more than fencing, screening, signposting or policing to protect the site from further interference. In every case, the aims, requirements and likely effects of the programme must be evaluated before it is begun.

‘Conservation management’ means as many things to people as does conservation itself. A list of possible aims may help land managers and volunteer workers evaluate their own views.

Aims include:

  1. To limit human impact in a natural area.
  2. To maintain geomorphological interest. This is of primary importance on many coastal nature reserves, eg Ynyslas, Dyfed.
  3. To affect ecological succession in order to preserve or increase a site’s scientific interest. In this case management may accelerate, maintain or retard the rate of succession depending on the perceived effects of succession on wildlife.
  4. To save species endangered on a local, national or global level, by providing for their habitat requirements, or, further, by creating sanctuaries for their protection.
  5. To create, protect or maintain ‘unofficial nature reserves’ which act as supply areas for official reserves without which the latter may lose certain species which cannot be maintained by the official reserves alone. ‘Linear reserves’, eg roadside verges, hedgerows, shelterbelts, streams and ditches, are particularly important and may act as vital links between sanctuaries.
  6. To serve people, usually by protecting a resource ‘for the use of the most people for the longest period of time’. Amenity, recreation and resource utilisation may be accepted as legitimate in this view, although each use may be valued differently by different interests.

On the coast, perhaps more than anywhere else, land managers must seek to reconcile the demands of recreation and amenity with those of nature conservation. The goal is to combine these uses in a balance which is appropriate to the individual site. With careful planning and clearly stated priorities, such a balance can usually be achieved.

Site survey and analysis

On the coast, geophysical, biotic and human factors interact with great complexity. Separating these factors, and assessing which ones can or should be controlled by management, requires ecological and historical surveys of trends and patterns of site development. Such work is beyond the scope of conservation volunteers although they can help with certain aspects such as mapping and vegetation studies. Ritchie (1972) shows the value of the geomorphological approach for sand dune systems. Boorman (1977, pp176-80) describes a variety of dune survey approaches and gives references for those who want details.

Surveys ideally should include the following:

  1. Vegetation survey and map. This is usually the best single index of environmental conditions and pinpoints areas of deterioration or evident imbalance.
  2. Geomorphological survey. This should relate the management site to the larger physiographic system so that management problems can be put in the context of overall physical dynamics of the coastal area.
  3. Large-scale gridded topographical survey of the site. This forms a reference document against which all management work can be noted, to avoid ambiguity in carrying out work and to provide a baseline against which progress can be measured.
    Aerial reconnaissance is almost essential when dealing with large systems and intertidal areas. Air photo surveys should be repeated at regular intervals if possible. Their frequency will depend on the speed of change of site features and the importance of monitoring processes of erosion and deposition in each case.
  4. Historical research, to discover as much as possible about past changes in site topography and use. Without this it is difficult to estimate the degree to which today’s changes are an extension of past trends or are due to new factors. Old maps and local records may be useful along with interviews with long-time residents who know the area well.
  5. Current use survey. Depending on the importance of various types of use, this might include such things as visitor questionnaires, monitoring of footpath traffic and assessment of grazing and other agricultural pressures.

Is management required?

Once preliminary analysis and site surveys have been made, the following questions should be asked to clarify management requirements:

  1. Is there a need for direct habitat management? This means, most often, control of ecological succession and diversification of existing habitats. Which plant species are dominant? Should they be controlled? Or are additional plantings needed? If so, which species would best adapt to the site without becoming too invasive? Coastal habitats can usually be left to themselves, but certain invasive species such as sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) and other scrub species on dunes, may threaten to choke out certain localised plant communities or radically alter successional development. The decision whether or not to control invasive species depends on the scale of the problem, the significance of the threatened community and whether or not the species involved is native to the site.
    Certain rare and declining species, particularly animals such as little terns, sand lizards and natterjack toads, may require specific habitat protection or improvement, eg of nesting or spawning sites, for their survival. Because these species are now limited to a very few sites in Britain and cannot readily colonise or adapt to new ones, measures to protect them even at the expense of other species are justified. In other cases it is usually more worthwhile to provide general habitat diversity than to attempt to cater for particular species.
  2. Is there a need to manage human uses of the site? What can be done to counteract damaging development in the vicinity? What is the carrying capacity for desired uses? Human misuse of coastal habitats almost always provides the main cause of their deterioration. Access facilities should be planned as carefully as possible before their installation, since damage afterwards may be hard to correct. Cars and caravans should be strictly regulated or excluded from dune systems. Foot and horse traffic may be harder to limit but it can often be regulated and its impact minimised by suitable fencing and trackway development, as explained in Chapter 6 – Access Management. It is almost impossible to prevent boats from landing on offshore islands and bars which may be important bird nesting and roosting sites. The best approach here is personal persuasion and information.
  3. Does the area surrounding the site need management as well? Many threats to coastal habitats come from industrial, recreational, agricultural or housing developments outside the immediate vicinity. A site may lose much of its wildlife interest if surrounding land is improperly developed. Pollution and alteration of the surrounding environment are often manageable but in many cases only through political and legal procedures outside the scope of this Handbook.
  4. Is management needed to protect existing site uses or surrounding developments, which cannot themselves readily be changed? Even where dune erosion, for example, is naturally caused it may be necessary to stabilise the dunes to protect housing or roads. This interference with the natural dynamics of the dune environment should only be considered as a last resort.
  5. Does the site have management priority over others? Does it really need interference or can it go its own way for some time without losing value? Given the limited resources available for any management work, are there other sites more in need of immediate attention? On coastal sites it is especially important to distinguish natural from man-caused or accelerated disturbances, and where possible to limit management to the latter.
  6. Can less be attempted than is tempting? The sensitivity of some habitats to interference means that there may be a danger of trying too much too soon, with unexpected and unwanted repercussions. This is especially the case with coastal installations which affect patterns of sedimentation or wind deposition. On wild, remote sites such as some of the beaches of northwest Scotland, almost any management, no matter how discrete, may seem an intrusion which is worse than the problem it attempts to correct. Management work should be phased, if possible, so that it can be checked early before making a commitment to the entire programme and so that unavoidable damage is localised and minimised. If a programme requires completion in order to be successful, it should be started only when there is certainty of carrying it through.
  7. How long will improvements due to the work remain? Will they wear off and conditions be the same or possibly worse as a result? Put another way, will the site require continued surveillance and management? If so, this must be included as part of the work programme.
    This is especially important to consider where management is aimed at rehabilitating overused sites, especially dunes which remain subject to renewed erosion if access exceeds carrying capacity. Carrying capacity of foredunes, especially, cannot be increased by stabilisation work alone but is only restored to the natural level. If public pressure returns to prework levels, additional stabilisation will prove necessary.

Choosing a method

If management work is judged necessary, each available work method should be evaluated by asking if it will:

  1. Achieve the desired results
  2. Minimise disturbance to wildlife due to habitat destruction. Coastal soils are particularly fragile and management must be carried out so as to minimise the inevitable disruption.
  3. Minimise disturbance to wildlife due to interference at crucial times, eg flowering or nesting seasons
  4. Involve risk to humans, non-target wildlife or agricultural crops and livestock
  5. Risk damage to equipment or physical installations on site
  6. Risk damage to other people’s property
  7. Require legal permission from government authorities or landowners. Often a tactful, low-key approach to the people concerned will clear up any misunderstandings which might otherwise cause problems
  8. Be possible given available labour
  9. Be possible given available funds for capital and operating costs
  10. Be possible given site topography and problems

On coastal sites, management is seldom once-and-for-all. Areas must be fenced and planted in rotation, paths must be realigned and duckboards lifted and so on. It is usually most sensible, and cheapest in the long run, to choose techniques which require a continuing but low-level management input rather than to attempt more permanent but expensive and inflexible measures.

Problems of animal management

Expert knowledge is essential for the management of any species, plant or animal, but for most invertebrates and many of the higher animals this knowledge is as yet unavailable or scattered. Even the concept of ‘habitat’, by which botanists define a site in terms of distinct areas characterised by dominant and associated species, is difficult to apply to animals. Nevertheless, the obvious richness of coastal habitats for animals, especially invertebrates, means that more study is imperative so that animals can be more fully accounted for in management programmes.

‘Take care of the plants and the animals will look after themselves’. This approach is at present the best rule where the aim is general wildlife protection. The creation and maintenance of floristic diversity is usually the key to animal conservation since all animal food webs are based on plants and because the greater the variety of plant life the better the chance of providing the needed habitat for most animals. Certain species of animals, limited to known specialised habitats, can be provided for as a conscious management aim where their declining status demands it. On coastal sites the natterjack toad, sand lizard and some shore-nesting birds come within this category. Measures to encourage these species are outlined later in Chapter 9 – Dune Wildlife.

Introductions

New species of plants or animals may be introduced to a site for several reasons: to propagate species under threat elsewhere, to add diversity and interest to a site, to attract other species not yet present on a site, or to stabilise an unbalanced ecosystem, by bringing in predators for example. On the coast, there is a further reason for plant introductions. This is to help stabilise eroding soils or to trap mud, silt or sand to raise the soil level. The question of whether or not introductions are justifiable in any particular case is complex. The following safeguards are basic to ensure that harmful introductions can be avoided and all introductions are properly recorded:

  1. Draw up a list of species considered acceptable for introduction to the site. Indicate in which management areas within the site introduction is acceptable or unacceptable
  2. Having consulted the landowner, consult and invite the participation of the local county naturalists’ trust, the Biological Records Centre and the Nature Conservancy Council in any large-scale introductions or those involving rare species
  3. Notify either the local county naturalists’ trust or the Biological Records Centre of all introductions. In this way future scientific study of the area can take introduced species into account

Chapters