Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs UK COMPLIANCE WITH BALLAST WATER REGULATIONS Ref: CDEP 84/5/286 FINAL REPORT MARCH 2002 Suzanne Welch Ian Lucas Contractor: Dr. I.A.N.Lucas School of Ocean Sciences University of Wales, Bangor Contents List of figures and tables 3 Acknowledgements 5 Abbreviations 6 Executive summary 7 1.0 Background to the project 8 2.0 Objectives 11 3.0 Milestones 11 4.0 Methods 12 4.1 Literature review 12 4.1.1 Non-native species 12 4.1.2 Sampling methodology 13 4.2 Ports 15 4.3 Buoys 22 4.4 Database 22 4.5 General approach on port surveys 23 4.5.1 Target species 23 4.5.1.1 Target introduced pest species list for the UK 24 4.5.1.2 Marine pest species that pose a threat to the UK 24 4.5.1.3 Known or likely non-native marine species in UK waters that currently are not assigned pest species 24 4.5.1.4 Native UK marine species that appear on other port nations target species list (Australia) 25 4.6 Cysts 25 4.7 Information sources 25 4.7.1 Government agencies 25 4.7.2 Marine groups 25 4.7.3 General public 26 4.8 Sampling 26 4.9 Preliminary surveys and equipment testing 27 4.9.1 Panels 27 4.9.2 Van Veen Grab 28 4.9.3 Dredge 28 4.10 Sampling methodology 29 4.11 Preservation and curation 34 4.11.1 Cyst analysis 35 4.12 Statistical analysis 35 1 5.0 Results and observations 36 5.1 Introduction 36 5.2 Non-native species collected 37 5.3 Sampling 37 5.3.1 Plankton 37 5.3.2 Benthos 37 5.3.2.1 Mobile organisms 37 5.3.2.2 Sessile organisms 37 5.3.2.3 Infauna 38 5.3.3 Encrusting organisms 40 5.3.4 Community analysis 42 6.0 Analysis and discussion 44 6.1 Analysis of methods employed 44 6.1.1 Plankton 44 6.1.2 Dredging 45 6.1.3 Grab and Corer 45 6.1.4 Panels 45 6.1.5 Destructive sampling 46 6.1.6 Trapping 46 6.1.7 Visual search, intertidal 47 6.1.8 Visual search, subtidal 47 6.2 Time allocation for surveys 48 6.3 Analysis of results 48 7.0 Conclusions 51 8.0 Recommendations 51 References 52 Appendices i - lxxiii A. UK maps showing the distribution of established non-native species collected during the survey i B. Port summary for Cardiff viii C. Port summary for Felixstowe xiii D. Port summary for Liverpool xix E. Port summary for Milford Haven xxvi F. Port summary for Southampton xxxvii G. Port summary for Teesside xlv H. Summary of sample methods used at each site l I. Table for dates that panels were deployed and retrieved lii J. Distribution maps for established non-native species not found liii K. Distribution maps for non-established non-native species not found lxv 2 List of Figures and Tables Table 1: Summery of common sampling techniques. Table 2: Sampling techniques recommended by Hewitt & Martin 1996 Table 3: Habitat types at each port. Table 4: Names and ports of buoys sampled Table 5: Sampling dates for each port Table 6: Initial test sites for panels Table 7: Non-native species collected at each port. Table 8: Dredging summary for all ports and the number of species collected Table 9: Comparisons between the number of species found in Collingwood using three sample methods Table 10: Sampling methods that successfully collected non-native species, the numbers collected by wach method and the ports in which they were collected. Table 11: Total numbers of native and non-native species found at each port Table 12: Comparisons between the use of biological divers, destructive sampling and settlement panels Table 13: Suggested time allocation for surveys Figure 1: Map of the UK showing the six ports used in this survey. Figure 2: Map showing the port of Liverpool and the sampling sites. Figure 3: Map showing the port of Cardiff and the sampling sites. Figure 4: Map showing the port of Milford Haven and the sampling sites. Figure 5: Map showing the port of Southampton and the sampling sites. Figure 6: Map showing the port of Felixstowe and the sampling sites. Figure 7: Map showing the port of Teeside and the sampling sites. Figure 8: Opening screen of database. Figure 9: Deploying the phytoplankton net with the pulley system at Teesside. Figure 10: Benthic dredge. Figure 11: Benthic dredge in use at Cardiff docks. Figure 12: Van Veen grab. 3 Figure 13: Two tier settlement panels Figure 14: Destructive scraper Figure 15: 0.25m2 quadrat used for sampling on buoys Figure 16: Base of a buoy after samples have been taken Figure 17: Shrimp and crab traps Figure 18: Underwater photograph of the non-native sea squirt, Styela clava Figure 19: Typical photograph obtained of the subtidal community in Collingwood dock, Liverpool Figure 20: Distribution and abundance of Styela clava Figure 21: Number of Carcinus maenas caught in Gladstone dock, Liverpool between March 2001 and August 2001 Figure 22: MDS plot of replicate cyst assemblages in sediment samples taken from Liverpool Figure 23: Dendrogram showing similarities between cyst assemblages in sediment samples taken from Liverpool. Figure 24: Map of Cardiff docks showing the distribution and abundance of Ficopomatus enigmaticus collected on settlement panels Figure 25: Salinity variation at Cardiff docks Figure 26: Dendrogram showing the similarity between communities at sample sites in Liverpool 4 Acknowledgements Particular thanks to: Associated British Ports Cardiff & Barry, Associated British Ports Southampton, Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, Milford Haven Port Authority, Port of Felixstowe, Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Ltd. In addition, we are grateful to the following: Esso Petroleum Company, Mersey Ferries, Merseyside Development Corporation, Neyland Yacht Club, Phillips Petroleum, Porcupine Natural History Society, Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service, Royal National Lifeboat Institute, Trinity House and the officers and crews of THV Mermaid & Patricia, Sea Angler Magazine. John Hamer, Helen Hardy and the technical and academic staff at the School of Ocean Sciences, Menai Bridge, who helped with advice, identification and sampling Cover page: Calcarious tubes of Ficopomatus enigmaticus, photograph by Suzanne Welch. Underwater photography by Paul Kay. Marine Wildlife Photo Agency. All other photographs by research staff working on the project. 5 Abbreviations ABWMAC Australian Ballast Water Management Advisory Council ACME The Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment AQUIS Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service CRIMP Center for Research on Introduced Pests GEF Global Environment Facility GESAMP The Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection ICES The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IMO International Maritime Organisation IMPACT Results from the Working Group on Impacts on the Marine Environment JAMP Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme JNCC Joint Nature Conservancy Council MARPOL The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships MDS Non-metric multi-dimensional scaling MEPC Marine Environmental Pollution Council OSPAR Oslo and Paris Convention SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest UNDP United Nation’s Development Programme WGITMO Working Group on Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms WHO World Health Organisation 6 Executive Summary The aim of this project was to generate recommendations on the most appropriate monitoring programmes required to address the issue of non-native species in the ports of the UK. The continuing risk from shipborne species introductions, has prompted the IMO to produce guidelines regarding ballast water management. These encourage port states to provide the IMO with information on severe outbreaks or infestations of harmful aquatic organisms which may pose a risk. An essential prerequisite for fulfilling these guidelines/regulations on the prevention of the spread of non-native organisms is a base-line study to record those species present in the waters of docks and harbours at which ballast water is loaded. The main objectives of the research undertaken were to: • Review survey practices and reporting within the OSPAR region and develop a port monitoring program which compliments any on going surveys and utilises existing information. • Produce and develop a baseline recording system for selected UK ports, reporting the occurrence of native species and those non-native species that already have been introduced from elsewhere. • Interpret the data collected on the distribution of non-native species. • Develop recommendations for future monitoring programmes, taking into account OSPAR and IMO requirements. The ports and harbours within the UK are numerous and varied in their size, geography and traffic type. Bearing in mind that UK ports are generally net importers of bulk cargo and hence ships are more likely to load than to discharge ballast water, six ports for England and Wales were selected on the basis of a number of criteria. These included their biogeographical nature and the volume and type of international traffic taking place. Using a range of sampling techniques, between six and seventeen sites at each port were examined. Five of the six ports were sampled twice within a 14 month period and one, Liverpool, was sampled 8 times. Species collected were identified, catalogued and the information entered on a database. In total, over 600 marine species were identified during the course of the project. Of the 52 established non-native marine species reported to be present in UK waters, 33 had been recorded as being present in the areas where sampling took place. Of these records, 14 were identified in the course of the collections made during routine surveys. Conclusions • This study has demonstrated that it would be possible to survey and monitor the occurrence and distribution of native and non-native marine species in the ports of England and Wales.