 |
| Ice on the Bloors pools |
 |
| Wigeon |
 |
| Dusk, Berengrave |
 |
| Red-breasted Mergansers |
 |
| Knot, Funton |
 |
| The pink fluffy cloud factories, Grain |
 |
| Black-tailed Godwits |
 |
| 'Togger, Rainham Dock |
 |
| Wigeon |
 |
| Funton |
 |
| On the rocks, Nor |
 |
| Dunlin, Rainham Creek |
Monday, 29 February 2016
A picture post, from February 2015
Sunday, 28 February 2016
Reasons to love Lower Halstow, #1
The incessant medley of the Mediterranean Gulls has just started up for another year. The seawall Halstow Creek is one of the best places to hear it. You have to learn to love it, or it will drive you insane between now and July.
 |
| Spot the Meds, Halstow Creek, February 2016 |
(If you don't know the call, here's a short recording c/o the wonderful xeno-canto website.)
 |
| Spot the Meds, Halstow Creek, March 2015 |
Friday, 26 February 2016
A ring from middle estuary- #DB97059
Although I restrict myself to the southern shore I trained as a ringer under my good friend Bill Jones out on Oakham Island, which is frustratingly mid-estuary, just north of the main channel. I hope no-one objects to my publishing an occasional map from some of his ringing recoveries over the years here on this blog for interest.
Greenshank Ring no. DB97059
Ringed: 21st August 2001
Found: 4th July 2004, Taka-Aapa, Sodankyla, Lappi, Finland.
Leg recovered from Peregrine nest.
Found 1,048 days after ringing, 2,312 kilometres from Oakham.
Reading very much like DB97190, 059 was more than twice the distance of that Norwegian recovery, being found more than a hundred kilometres within the Arctic circle.
The Greenshank is a monotypic species, meaning no sub-species have evolved. However, discreet populations can be recognised by the timing and direction of their movements as well as their natal ranges and birds passing through here in the south-east of England are believed to mainly be from this Fenno-Scandinavian population (the Russian population move through eastern Europe south to Africa, and the small Scottish population are thought to winter between Ireland, western Britain and south-western Europe/ northwest Africa).
Once again a Peregrine was the villain of the piece. There will be some bias to the number of recoveries found at raptor nests, due to the volume of research work carried out at such sites.
Are losses like this routine on the breeding grounds? In their excellent monograph, Greenshanks, the Nethersole-Thompsons noted 21 Scottish nests out of 112 failed before hatching due to the following predators-
- Hooded Crow (9)
- Fox (4)
- Common Gull (2)
plus
- Red Deer (trampled, 1)
- self-inflicted by fighting female Greenshank (1)
- human interference (4)
As well as these nest failures, during the study Peregrines and Sparrowhawks also took a minimum of five adults, Foxes another four- and this was known to be an underestimation. "In all these years, however, the Greenshank groups have contained a number of surplus birds and pairs, some of which replaced the killed birds."
Reason, if reason were needed, to take all hints of possible population declines seriously- there is an evolutionary need for a surplus population. Reading BirdLife International's latest summary:
"There is evidence to suggest that the European population (200,000-510,000 pairs, occupying 50-74% of the global breeding range) has declined by up to 30% over ten years (three generations)..." The reasons for this are not known, and could even reflect a shift within the breeding population; there is always more to be learnt.
Greenshank Ring no. DB97059
Ringed: 21st August 2001
Found: 4th July 2004, Taka-Aapa, Sodankyla, Lappi, Finland.
Leg recovered from Peregrine nest.
Found 1,048 days after ringing, 2,312 kilometres from Oakham.
The Greenshank is a monotypic species, meaning no sub-species have evolved. However, discreet populations can be recognised by the timing and direction of their movements as well as their natal ranges and birds passing through here in the south-east of England are believed to mainly be from this Fenno-Scandinavian population (the Russian population move through eastern Europe south to Africa, and the small Scottish population are thought to winter between Ireland, western Britain and south-western Europe/ northwest Africa).
Once again a Peregrine was the villain of the piece. There will be some bias to the number of recoveries found at raptor nests, due to the volume of research work carried out at such sites.
Are losses like this routine on the breeding grounds? In their excellent monograph, Greenshanks, the Nethersole-Thompsons noted 21 Scottish nests out of 112 failed before hatching due to the following predators-
- Hooded Crow (9)
- Fox (4)
- Common Gull (2)
plus
- Red Deer (trampled, 1)
- self-inflicted by fighting female Greenshank (1)
- human interference (4)
As well as these nest failures, during the study Peregrines and Sparrowhawks also took a minimum of five adults, Foxes another four- and this was known to be an underestimation. "In all these years, however, the Greenshank groups have contained a number of surplus birds and pairs, some of which replaced the killed birds."
Reason, if reason were needed, to take all hints of possible population declines seriously- there is an evolutionary need for a surplus population. Reading BirdLife International's latest summary:
"There is evidence to suggest that the European population (200,000-510,000 pairs, occupying 50-74% of the global breeding range) has declined by up to 30% over ten years (three generations)..." The reasons for this are not known, and could even reflect a shift within the breeding population; there is always more to be learnt.
Wednesday, 24 February 2016
What's the F U in Ham Ooze? (Boris Waters, part four)
Towards the end of August I can always guarantee seeing at least one other birdwatcher out and about Ham Ooze. This individual will usually be on his boat, scanning the mudflats, looking in towards Ham Creek.
I saw him out on there on the 20th and 30th August this last year. He always kept his distance from the shore, making sure he didn't disturb any duck that might have already returned to this part of the estuary. The date for the start of the wildfowling season is pretty much bang on- first numbers have usually arrived by September, and this local wildfowler knows how to check up on the Greenborough/Slayhills/Burntwick dabbling duck numbers for the start of their season; do not bother checking the islands themselves, simply check (what ornithologists call) the optimal daytime areas of the Functional Unit.
A Functional Unit (or Core Area) is, for a duck, all of the habitats used routinely during any 24 hour period. Think of it as being like a nesting territory, but without a nest. For the majority of (well-fed) dabbling duck, daylight hours are spent loafing. It makes sense to carry out much of your feeding at night, spread out among the islands, saltings, marshes and fields, when predators are less likely to find you. Then you simply rest up by day- safety in numbers, always a few birds in the flock alert for predators and similar threats (such as human recreational disturbance).
And for this part of the estuary, the main loafing area is where Sharfleet Creek turns south to merge into Ham Creek.
The reasons for choosing Sharfleet/Ham are fairly obvious; a fair depth of sheltered water, even on low tide. More open views than will be found inmany of the other creeks around the islands. On the flood the majority of the birds can simply drift in towards Millfordhope Creek and not waste energy flighting from one area to another (avoiding the guns)- and they remain a sizeable distance from observers on the mainland at all times. Finally, the Ooze is not an easy area to navigate, only possible for boats with a shallow-draft on the highest tides, so they are rarely bothered by pleasure craft. It is a true wildfowl refuge.
Hungrier duck will also continue to feed in the loafing area as well as along the tidal edge of Half Acre and the small creeks, where tidal action will be stirring up plant seeds. Numbers also cross to and from the freshwater pond on the edge of Bayford Marsh to drink and bathe.
At the right time of year cumulative totals of Wigeon, Teal and Pintail can routinely run into four figures. And that will be only what can be counted easily at a distance; undoubtedly birds are often missed. The birds have chosen an extremely safe area for this part of their functional unit.
The Medway Estuary gets scant coverage here by birders because it is remote and the birds are distant. Public viewing is only possible from the Saxon Shoreway footpath at Shoregate Creek. It is an area for which even I have few photos, though I'm usually happy with 'speck-shots'. But the spectacle of thousands of wildfowl and waders is always enjoyable.
Whilst not too many duck make the journey to mid-estuary and the likes of Bishop Spit, Brent Geese can often be seen there. The Spit appears to provide good feeding, as well as being a gathering point for flocks departing the Medway, remaining popular through to the last departing birds in May. Often where the small number of over-summering birds can be picked out June to August.
 |
| Scanning for duck, August 2015 |
A Functional Unit (or Core Area) is, for a duck, all of the habitats used routinely during any 24 hour period. Think of it as being like a nesting territory, but without a nest. For the majority of (well-fed) dabbling duck, daylight hours are spent loafing. It makes sense to carry out much of your feeding at night, spread out among the islands, saltings, marshes and fields, when predators are less likely to find you. Then you simply rest up by day- safety in numbers, always a few birds in the flock alert for predators and similar threats (such as human recreational disturbance).
 |
| Ham Ooze, distant wildfowl and waders, September 2013 |
 |
| The main named areas within Ham Ooze |
The reasons for choosing Sharfleet/Ham are fairly obvious; a fair depth of sheltered water, even on low tide. More open views than will be found inmany of the other creeks around the islands. On the flood the majority of the birds can simply drift in towards Millfordhope Creek and not waste energy flighting from one area to another (avoiding the guns)- and they remain a sizeable distance from observers on the mainland at all times. Finally, the Ooze is not an easy area to navigate, only possible for boats with a shallow-draft on the highest tides, so they are rarely bothered by pleasure craft. It is a true wildfowl refuge.
 |
| Ham Creek Wigeon moving into Slayhills/Millfordhope, September 2013 |
 |
| Marsh Harrier putting Wigeon to flight, Slayhills, October 2013 |
 |
| Wigeon, Ham Ooze, October 2014 |
 |
| Part of Ham Ooze tideline, September 2013 |
 |
| A distant gathering of Brent Geese, Bishop Spit, May 2014 |
Shelduck also gather in large numbers about both areas, especially late winter. In the summer, the goose interest is more 'feral', with the local Canada and Greylag Geese flocks often to be found swimming between Nor/Friars and the island complex. They are likely not to be able to move out of the way of any seaplane very quickly, being they use these waters are their safe area during their full wing moult when they are unable to fly. (One hopes, for safety's sake, any seaplane pilot might recognise these birds won't be able to leave an operational area at any great rate of knots.)
Offshore, the Half Acre channel appeals to feeding diving duck, with Red-breasted Merganser and Goldeneye often feeding throughout the covering/uncovering of the tide (rarely Eider), rafts of Great Crested Grebe, the odd Diver and scarcer Grebe species. As winter evenings approach, Bishop and Half Acre can often hold five-figure roost gatherings of Gulls. In the summer months Terns often hunt for food for their young, and three-figure counts of Little Egret crisscross the estuary. Ham Ooze and Bishop Spit are clearly important parts of the functional units for many species that rely on the Medway estuary complex.
------
The notification of these seaplane operational areas alongside Bishop and Ham moves ahead next month regardless. Whether Natural England (or RSPB/Kent Wildlife Trust) do eventually raise concerns over recreational disturbance will have to be seen. I hope this short series of posts have given an indication as to why they should.
 |
| Canada Geese (and hybrid) off Ham Green, July 2015 |
Offshore, the Half Acre channel appeals to feeding diving duck, with Red-breasted Merganser and Goldeneye often feeding throughout the covering/uncovering of the tide (rarely Eider), rafts of Great Crested Grebe, the odd Diver and scarcer Grebe species. As winter evenings approach, Bishop and Half Acre can often hold five-figure roost gatherings of Gulls. In the summer months Terns often hunt for food for their young, and three-figure counts of Little Egret crisscross the estuary. Ham Ooze and Bishop Spit are clearly important parts of the functional units for many species that rely on the Medway estuary complex.
 |
| Little Egret, Ham Ooze, October 2014 |
The notification of these seaplane operational areas alongside Bishop and Ham moves ahead next month regardless. Whether Natural England (or RSPB/Kent Wildlife Trust) do eventually raise concerns over recreational disturbance will have to be seen. I hope this short series of posts have given an indication as to why they should.
Monday, 22 February 2016
Hub airspace movements (Boris Waters, part 3)
The proposed estuary airport 'Boris Island' is on hold, with environmental concerns one of the biggest factors in getting the concept rejected from further considerations. (I always say 'on hold'- developers only have to win their case once, those fighting for the environment have to win every single time someone raises the matter.)
Now it seems any seaplane can come and go as they please within an estuary. At least there is some movement towards designated operational areas, but it is admitted these have only really been assessed for navigational purposes.
With my last posting touching on protection for the breeding species alongside these areas, there is now the matter of both wintering and migrating birds. Thankfully the Medway is a Special Protection Area. The short of it, the UK Government has committed itself to protecting the estuary for the value of the wildlife already there.
Looking at an aerial view of the estuary, one is instantly hit by the size and scale of the mudflats around the proposed operational areas. Bordered in yellow, the Ham Ooze complex. In red, Bishop Ooze and Bishop Spit. In green, Bartlett Spit and mauve, Wallop Stone. Together, hey are central to many birds using the estuary. Overwintering populations use various parts at various states of the tides, migrating flocks often base themselves centrally before beginning to search out other areas closer to shore. It is the most undisturbed part of the estuary, much of the river traffic sticking to the main channel (blue), and has very limited human disturbance.
To try to explain how these areas form such an important feeding site, I have chosen three wader species as examples.
1) Oystercatcher
Holding sizeable mussel beds, Bishop/Bartlett and Ham represent some of the best feeding areas for Oystercatcher in the Medway, and highest counts of feeding birds are nearly always obtained from here (concentrated within the light blue circles). Many of the best areas are often only available on the lower parts of the tide, and the birds have to concentrate their feeding either side of low tide, up to about the 3.0 metre mark when the tide completely covers Ham Ooze, from where they head to neap tide roosts. For Ham birds, this is usually south and east into the island complex (Stangate on higher tides), for the mid-estuary birds it is Darnett or (more often on the higher tides) the seawall at Kingsnorth. On spring tides all of the birds may head for Kingsnorth.
One further complexity is young over-summering birds. Not usually breeding until at least age of five (for females, seven for males), some, especially in their first summer, remain on the wintering grounds. Usually these birds roost separately from the adults in winter (often Bishop Spit) and in summer will use Motney when undisturbed, or Bishop Ness as an alternative (darker blue line).
2) Black-tailed Godwit
Routine use of the whole of the area has already been proved by colour-ringing undertaken on Oakham. The birds use the estuary to moult/rebuild fat reserves whilst en route between breeding grounds in Iceland and, in the main part, wintering grounds off Portugal.
This species readily changes favoured roost sites, and routinely crosses the main channel of the river. This year, since starting to return in numbers some three weeks ago, the spring moulting flock has used all the areas marked as yellow rectangles on the map (and act similarly during their prolonged autumn stopover). This is a species that seems to 'rest' certain feeding areas from time to time. One week the Rainham/Otterham areas may be favoured, the next Ham, the next mid-Channel and beyond. Birds will sometimes try roosting close to the southern shore, but are all too often disturbed by recreational activity. The roost on the eastern side of Motney is beyond the Water Treatment fence and less disturbed, but prone to going under on higher tides. This leaves Motney Saltings themselves which, although private, are prone to routine (almost daily) disturbance. So the birds often cross the seaplane operational areas and, as is typical of their species, do so at some height.
They might sometimes try to roost on Bishop Saltings/Bishop Ness, but are usually to be found on Oakham. Now the birds often choose to feed (orange lines) close to roost areas, which for Oakham are the northern flats close to the Long Reach operational area, and as the tide drops, Bishop Spit, sandwiched between the two operational areas.
These central areas, and Bartlett Creek, are their most favoured areas; they cannot simply rely on Otterham/Rainham Creeks, because of nearby human activity on the seawalls.
3) Avocet
There are three main groups of Avocet within the Medway during the winter period. The Rainham birds are marked in white. The main roost sites are either Motney Hill saltings or Rainham saltings, the choice mainly dependent on weather or following large-scale disturbance (at both these sites the birds may roost on the water some distance off of the roost). East Motney may be used on a lower tide. Dependent on roost choice, feeding takes place on the tideline (white lines), in the main following the tide out throughout the cycle to low water.
The Bee birds (pale yellow), north of the main channel, may base themselves around Damhead/Humble Bee/Stoke creeks, and will also use Oakham Island as a roost. There is some flighting and interchange with the Rainham birds via Bishop Ooze/Spit (pale green lines).
The third group is the Funton/Greenborough group, roosting either on the seawall at Barksore, the main creek on Greenborough in Millfordhope Creek or on Barksore itself. There is a certain amount of interchange with the Rainham birds, as both will feed, in varying numbers, on the Ham complex from time to time. Rainham birds usually make up the larger number along Ham, having spread over from Motney/Wallop Stone as the tide drops. They will usually return to their normal Motney roost, but do decide to swap. Rainham birds are more prone to (mainly human) disturbance at roost, and can then be be observed flighting over to Oakham or, more often, into Millfordhope Creek (green line).
Three species, all routinely using the areas adjacent to the proposed operational areas. Will routine recreational seaplane flights cause them problems? Did the level of seaplane operations disrupt waders last year? Perhaps the events of 20th August 2015 answer that.
------
20/8. A trip out to Shoregate/Ham Green to count the Ham complex. As expected, the Curlew and Oystercatcher numbers remained high. For Curlew, failed breeders and females begin to move in July, with the first of the adult males and juveniles from August; most are thought to be on their wintering grounds by September. Most Oystercatchers arrive in August and September. I was also very happy to have caught up with some of the first large flocks of Grey Plover. For many of the other migrant species, an early date like this produced just a sprinkling of the first returners, (I noted the Knot looked impressive in their breeding plumage).
I also managed a count of Bishop Spit and the eastern section of Bishop Ooze (as the view partly blocked here) just before the tide reached what I recognise as the 2.5 metre mark (the water reaching up to the end of Ham Green, but the majority of the Ham complex still uncovered).
The counts were routine for the final third of August:
I now made my way a little south, the plan being to watch the Ham birds as they continued to feed for another three-quarters of an hour while the tideline pushed them up toward Slayhills/Greenborough.
Then the seaplane appeared.
The first run, a moderate height some twelve-fifteen metres above and along the tideline to the edge of Burntwick, finished with a loud climb and turn to make the first of several landings/take-offs in Half Acre and Bartlett creeks, rising again just beyond the Ham Green wall. That first run was all it took; instead of retreating with the tide, the Ham waders panicked and flew fast and low into Millfordhope Creek until lost from sight. The birds that had been on Bishop could be picked out heading off the mud for Bishop saltings; they had lost between an hour and an hour and a half's undisturbed rich feeding on the Spit/Ooze.
-----
Three wader species mapped. Maps for other common wader species would detail similar usage at various times throughout the year. One disturbance described. As my tweets that day hinted, this wasn't the first time I had witnessed large-scale flushing during an important part of the tidal cycle.
I have yet to detail the importance of the area as a loafing site for wildfowl. That will be my next post.
Now it seems any seaplane can come and go as they please within an estuary. At least there is some movement towards designated operational areas, but it is admitted these have only really been assessed for navigational purposes.
With my last posting touching on protection for the breeding species alongside these areas, there is now the matter of both wintering and migrating birds. Thankfully the Medway is a Special Protection Area. The short of it, the UK Government has committed itself to protecting the estuary for the value of the wildlife already there.
1) Oystercatcher
Holding sizeable mussel beds, Bishop/Bartlett and Ham represent some of the best feeding areas for Oystercatcher in the Medway, and highest counts of feeding birds are nearly always obtained from here (concentrated within the light blue circles). Many of the best areas are often only available on the lower parts of the tide, and the birds have to concentrate their feeding either side of low tide, up to about the 3.0 metre mark when the tide completely covers Ham Ooze, from where they head to neap tide roosts. For Ham birds, this is usually south and east into the island complex (Stangate on higher tides), for the mid-estuary birds it is Darnett or (more often on the higher tides) the seawall at Kingsnorth. On spring tides all of the birds may head for Kingsnorth.
 |
| Oystercatchers in the Ham Ooze complex, January 2016 |
2) Black-tailed Godwit
Routine use of the whole of the area has already been proved by colour-ringing undertaken on Oakham. The birds use the estuary to moult/rebuild fat reserves whilst en route between breeding grounds in Iceland and, in the main part, wintering grounds off Portugal.
This species readily changes favoured roost sites, and routinely crosses the main channel of the river. This year, since starting to return in numbers some three weeks ago, the spring moulting flock has used all the areas marked as yellow rectangles on the map (and act similarly during their prolonged autumn stopover). This is a species that seems to 'rest' certain feeding areas from time to time. One week the Rainham/Otterham areas may be favoured, the next Ham, the next mid-Channel and beyond. Birds will sometimes try roosting close to the southern shore, but are all too often disturbed by recreational activity. The roost on the eastern side of Motney is beyond the Water Treatment fence and less disturbed, but prone to going under on higher tides. This leaves Motney Saltings themselves which, although private, are prone to routine (almost daily) disturbance. So the birds often cross the seaplane operational areas and, as is typical of their species, do so at some height.
These central areas, and Bartlett Creek, are their most favoured areas; they cannot simply rely on Otterham/Rainham Creeks, because of nearby human activity on the seawalls.
 |
| Black-tailed Godwit, having followed the tide up over Ham Ooze to Slayhills, October 2013 |
3) Avocet
There are three main groups of Avocet within the Medway during the winter period. The Rainham birds are marked in white. The main roost sites are either Motney Hill saltings or Rainham saltings, the choice mainly dependent on weather or following large-scale disturbance (at both these sites the birds may roost on the water some distance off of the roost). East Motney may be used on a lower tide. Dependent on roost choice, feeding takes place on the tideline (white lines), in the main following the tide out throughout the cycle to low water.
The Bee birds (pale yellow), north of the main channel, may base themselves around Damhead/Humble Bee/Stoke creeks, and will also use Oakham Island as a roost. There is some flighting and interchange with the Rainham birds via Bishop Ooze/Spit (pale green lines).
The third group is the Funton/Greenborough group, roosting either on the seawall at Barksore, the main creek on Greenborough in Millfordhope Creek or on Barksore itself. There is a certain amount of interchange with the Rainham birds, as both will feed, in varying numbers, on the Ham complex from time to time. Rainham birds usually make up the larger number along Ham, having spread over from Motney/Wallop Stone as the tide drops. They will usually return to their normal Motney roost, but do decide to swap. Rainham birds are more prone to (mainly human) disturbance at roost, and can then be be observed flighting over to Oakham or, more often, into Millfordhope Creek (green line).
 |
| 'Rainham' Avocet switching roost into Millforhope creek, October 2014 |
20/8. A trip out to Shoregate/Ham Green to count the Ham complex. As expected, the Curlew and Oystercatcher numbers remained high. For Curlew, failed breeders and females begin to move in July, with the first of the adult males and juveniles from August; most are thought to be on their wintering grounds by September. Most Oystercatchers arrive in August and September. I was also very happy to have caught up with some of the first large flocks of Grey Plover. For many of the other migrant species, an early date like this produced just a sprinkling of the first returners, (I noted the Knot looked impressive in their breeding plumage).
I also managed a count of Bishop Spit and the eastern section of Bishop Ooze (as the view partly blocked here) just before the tide reached what I recognise as the 2.5 metre mark (the water reaching up to the end of Ham Green, but the majority of the Ham complex still uncovered).
The counts were routine for the final third of August:
Then the seaplane appeared.
The first run, a moderate height some twelve-fifteen metres above and along the tideline to the edge of Burntwick, finished with a loud climb and turn to make the first of several landings/take-offs in Half Acre and Bartlett creeks, rising again just beyond the Ham Green wall. That first run was all it took; instead of retreating with the tide, the Ham waders panicked and flew fast and low into Millfordhope Creek until lost from sight. The birds that had been on Bishop could be picked out heading off the mud for Bishop saltings; they had lost between an hour and an hour and a half's undisturbed rich feeding on the Spit/Ooze.
-----
Three wader species mapped. Maps for other common wader species would detail similar usage at various times throughout the year. One disturbance described. As my tweets that day hinted, this wasn't the first time I had witnessed large-scale flushing during an important part of the tidal cycle.
I have yet to detail the importance of the area as a loafing site for wildfowl. That will be my next post.
Tuesday, 16 February 2016
The letter of the law (Boris Waters, part 2)
The joy of the law is the letter of the law. In drawing up their proposed operational areas, Peel Ports have been concerned solely with navigation law. They are the authority for this for the estuary, nothing else, they own no land/water, their considered legal opinion is that the issue of prohibiting aircraft from flying operations over an area of bird conservation is a matter for government and the Civil Aviation Authority, as outside their jurisdiction. Put simply, they can't apply any letter of the law.
What protection is in place?
I will break down into the chunks as I understand them- firstly, legal protection for breeding birds.
On their own website the RSPB explain the legal situation as complex and advises people to look at the Act itself. They pare it down to, under this Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981, all birds, their nests and eggs are protected by law (with certain exceptions). We birders get excited, thinking that is a be all and end all- it isn't. There is an awful lot of use of the word 'intentionally' within that act. However, some species have been recognised as needing more protection. They are on Schedule One.
Put simply, it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule One while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs of young, or disturb the young of such a bird. The maximum fine in respect of a single bird, nest or egg- is a fine of up to £5,000, and/or six months' imprisonment.
One of the problems with Schedule One records is they have to be treated like the elephant in the room; too much publicity for sites brings about risks of intentional disturbance (theft of eggs, destruction of nests, disturbance by over-keen bird photographers), too little publicity risks an individual claiming ignorance. I will come back to the elephant in a later post, but for now I wish to establish a ground rule for this blogpost; how much I'm going to say/hint at. The Rare Breeding Birds Panel, which collates data at a national level, provides an annual report which refrains from naming individual sites- "Bird X': Kent- Y sites; site A, blah blah, site B blah blah". You cannot get specifics from it. Over the years the annual county reports, produced by the Kent Ornithological Society have named certain species as breeding within the Medway complex, and have, from time to time, named the specific islands involved. Knowing where is not rocket science.
For many birdwatchers, this always sounds amazingly insane- they in the main know what birds are involved, and where they breed. For the layman, the secrecy is a nightmare. How do you know if you have a rare breeding bird in an area you own? On an area you visit for recreation? Well, bodies usually liaise with landowners. In the case of the Medway estuary, there is a jigsaw ownership pattern, making things that little bit harder.What if you have people using an area where a colony of rare birds is nesting? Again, bodies usually liaise, and find ways of advising users. And how do you then get the general public to appreciate matters?
So, please bear with me, I will be trying to tread a middle ground between RBBP and KOS. An unsatisfactory situation for the layperson, but hopefully enough to start to appreciate the concerns.
My starting point is simple; from the incidents I witnessed last past year, seaplane disturbance to nesting birds can be substantial, especially where a colony or part of a colony is close to the area in which a seaplane is operating; fright caused by the noise, fright caused by the silhouette overhead.
What is not clear from the map of suggested operational areas is how low seaplanes can operate when approaching agreed areas, what height they might be at when switching between the two operational areas (especially where breeding islands are close, or even overflown). I have been informed by Peel Ports that, legally, they can still fly wherever they want at whatever height, over public waters.
During the breeding season, a colony of gulls or terns is susceptible to disturbance. Colonies can and do give up. This can be mostly during the re-establishment of a colony (time to set up somewhere else) or may lead to birds just not returning the following year. Some nesting birds are already arriving back on the Medway. They start with short visits to their colony (usually in the morning), then spend periods away either feeding or loafing. Simplistically, they are cautiously reconfirming breeding site safe, feeding grounds safe, and seeing if the rest of the colony thinks the same. Only then do they fully reclaim their nest site and refurbish in preparation for egg-laying.
During this time, and in the early part of nesting, the colonies on each island are prone to 'dreading'; all rising up as one, as if something has spooked the entire colony. Sometimes there is a cause, sometimes not, the science is not understood fully. But too man-made dreads/flushes, birds desert. Once eggs are laid, this happens much less, but the birds will still rise up as one in response to a perceived threat, and too long off the nests leaves the eggs exposed to predators, such as rats.
This is the crux of the matter. A seaplane appears as a great threat to the colonies. A large object above a bird (some way to the side as well as directly overhead) worries a colony because it senses possible attack. This is why a seaplane being allowed to operate too low and too close to a colony, will, from my experience, cause what could be considered reckless disturbance.
I'd like to talk in general terms about the Mediterranean Gull, a Schedule One species named in print in the past as breeding on many of the islands. To avoid specific breeding details here, I'll write about my observations on feeding behaviour and flightlines over the past three summers.
The Med Gull, like any bird, needs safe nesting and feeding for successful breeding. This is sometimes termed a 'core area'. Med Gulls prefer short turf feeding, and head north and south of the estuary to suitable locations, some several miles away inland. Over time, routine flightlines between the areas become clear.
Please excuse the oversimplified map of pre-nesting flightlines to loafing areas on the mudflats and onward to (more generally marked) inland feeding areas. These flightlines are never as narrow and precise as the yellow lines I've marked, the birds are spread out. Nor are the flightlines as straight; seabirds often follow the channels, at low tide when readily apparent and at high tide, being able to creeks from subtle water colour changes and wave patterns from depth/flow; in reality, if Med Gulls finally choose to nest on one of these islands in the map then adults bringing nesting material back at the start of the season, parents bringing food back during the season would over the course of the season create a spaghetti pattern of usage throughout those areas a seaplane might be operating.
It must be appreciated birds are much happier flying over shipping, they are much less happy passing under/by a 'threat' that is in the sky with them. Parts of the colony can and do operate through the airspace on offer. Would a seaplane, if operating similar to last year, say flying for between 40 minutes and an hour over the area, cause reckless disturbance to the nests and to the transiting parents? By making up to eight or more landings/take-offs in a period of up to about an hour close to one of the chosen islands? By flying outside the corridors to carry out turning movements, including re-positioning outside of these allocated 'landing strips'?
I hope the simplistic map starts to explain there are larger, complex patterns of disturbance that have to be considered. Reckless disturbance of Schedule One birds is against the law.
And there are other Schedule One species breeding around the estuary. Plus many other species whose nests will be at risk from disturbance during the breeding season.
Of course, by concentrating on the legalities of Schedule One in this post, 'loopholes' are apparent; what protection is there for the other breeders and all of the birds outside of the breeding season?
This is where the existing international recognition comes into play. The UK is signed up to various agreements to protect our estuaries. Ramsar. Natura2000. All leading to the Medway's designation as an SPA- a Special Protection Area under the EC Birds Directive, to help our scarcer birds, including those on migration and wintering; in the next post I will detail upon how such species utilise the areas in and around the proposed operational areas, and also detail the level of disturbance I witnessed caused by take-offs/landings and banking/turning at one of these proposed sites last year.
What protection is in place?
I will break down into the chunks as I understand them- firstly, legal protection for breeding birds.
On their own website the RSPB explain the legal situation as complex and advises people to look at the Act itself. They pare it down to, under this Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981, all birds, their nests and eggs are protected by law (with certain exceptions). We birders get excited, thinking that is a be all and end all- it isn't. There is an awful lot of use of the word 'intentionally' within that act. However, some species have been recognised as needing more protection. They are on Schedule One.
Put simply, it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule One while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs of young, or disturb the young of such a bird. The maximum fine in respect of a single bird, nest or egg- is a fine of up to £5,000, and/or six months' imprisonment.
One of the problems with Schedule One records is they have to be treated like the elephant in the room; too much publicity for sites brings about risks of intentional disturbance (theft of eggs, destruction of nests, disturbance by over-keen bird photographers), too little publicity risks an individual claiming ignorance. I will come back to the elephant in a later post, but for now I wish to establish a ground rule for this blogpost; how much I'm going to say/hint at. The Rare Breeding Birds Panel, which collates data at a national level, provides an annual report which refrains from naming individual sites- "Bird X': Kent- Y sites; site A, blah blah, site B blah blah". You cannot get specifics from it. Over the years the annual county reports, produced by the Kent Ornithological Society have named certain species as breeding within the Medway complex, and have, from time to time, named the specific islands involved. Knowing where is not rocket science.
For many birdwatchers, this always sounds amazingly insane- they in the main know what birds are involved, and where they breed. For the layman, the secrecy is a nightmare. How do you know if you have a rare breeding bird in an area you own? On an area you visit for recreation? Well, bodies usually liaise with landowners. In the case of the Medway estuary, there is a jigsaw ownership pattern, making things that little bit harder.What if you have people using an area where a colony of rare birds is nesting? Again, bodies usually liaise, and find ways of advising users. And how do you then get the general public to appreciate matters?
So, please bear with me, I will be trying to tread a middle ground between RBBP and KOS. An unsatisfactory situation for the layperson, but hopefully enough to start to appreciate the concerns.
My starting point is simple; from the incidents I witnessed last past year, seaplane disturbance to nesting birds can be substantial, especially where a colony or part of a colony is close to the area in which a seaplane is operating; fright caused by the noise, fright caused by the silhouette overhead.
What is not clear from the map of suggested operational areas is how low seaplanes can operate when approaching agreed areas, what height they might be at when switching between the two operational areas (especially where breeding islands are close, or even overflown). I have been informed by Peel Ports that, legally, they can still fly wherever they want at whatever height, over public waters.
During the breeding season, a colony of gulls or terns is susceptible to disturbance. Colonies can and do give up. This can be mostly during the re-establishment of a colony (time to set up somewhere else) or may lead to birds just not returning the following year. Some nesting birds are already arriving back on the Medway. They start with short visits to their colony (usually in the morning), then spend periods away either feeding or loafing. Simplistically, they are cautiously reconfirming breeding site safe, feeding grounds safe, and seeing if the rest of the colony thinks the same. Only then do they fully reclaim their nest site and refurbish in preparation for egg-laying.
During this time, and in the early part of nesting, the colonies on each island are prone to 'dreading'; all rising up as one, as if something has spooked the entire colony. Sometimes there is a cause, sometimes not, the science is not understood fully. But too man-made dreads/flushes, birds desert. Once eggs are laid, this happens much less, but the birds will still rise up as one in response to a perceived threat, and too long off the nests leaves the eggs exposed to predators, such as rats.
 |
| A part of the gull colony on Bishop saltings, 8/7/15 |
I'd like to talk in general terms about the Mediterranean Gull, a Schedule One species named in print in the past as breeding on many of the islands. To avoid specific breeding details here, I'll write about my observations on feeding behaviour and flightlines over the past three summers.
The Med Gull, like any bird, needs safe nesting and feeding for successful breeding. This is sometimes termed a 'core area'. Med Gulls prefer short turf feeding, and head north and south of the estuary to suitable locations, some several miles away inland. Over time, routine flightlines between the areas become clear.
 |
| Mediterranean Gulls, feeding inland some 3 km south of nearest colony, May 2015 |
It must be appreciated birds are much happier flying over shipping, they are much less happy passing under/by a 'threat' that is in the sky with them. Parts of the colony can and do operate through the airspace on offer. Would a seaplane, if operating similar to last year, say flying for between 40 minutes and an hour over the area, cause reckless disturbance to the nests and to the transiting parents? By making up to eight or more landings/take-offs in a period of up to about an hour close to one of the chosen islands? By flying outside the corridors to carry out turning movements, including re-positioning outside of these allocated 'landing strips'?
And there are other Schedule One species breeding around the estuary. Plus many other species whose nests will be at risk from disturbance during the breeding season.
Of course, by concentrating on the legalities of Schedule One in this post, 'loopholes' are apparent; what protection is there for the other breeders and all of the birds outside of the breeding season?
This is where the existing international recognition comes into play. The UK is signed up to various agreements to protect our estuaries. Ramsar. Natura2000. All leading to the Medway's designation as an SPA- a Special Protection Area under the EC Birds Directive, to help our scarcer birds, including those on migration and wintering; in the next post I will detail upon how such species utilise the areas in and around the proposed operational areas, and also detail the level of disturbance I witnessed caused by take-offs/landings and banking/turning at one of these proposed sites last year.
Monday, 15 February 2016
Boris Waters?
The pressures on our estuaries are immense.
On the website of the Medway Swale Estuary Partnership which, among many, includes as partners the local Councils, the RSPB, Kent Wildlife Trust and Natural England, a short notice popped up last week concerning a routine administrative requirement by Peel Ports, another partner and the Authority charged with administering the Estuary.
A consultation document had come out as a code of practice for operational requirements for Seaplanes on the Medway.
The document is short and to the point. Routine seaplane operations are to take place in one of the most important areas for wildlife in the estuary.
It seems that the Authority has to provide for legal operations. They can limit areas of operations, but must be fair to any would-be user of an estuary. To date there have been no restrictions and a seaplane can, legally, operate wherever the pilot sees fit (unless waters are private). The fun with a seaplane is they operate best in shallow waters- which meant that last year, as this local commercial enterprise started to grow, the pilot was setting down in many of the creeks adjacent to the breeding colonies as well as clearing large swathes of mudflat of feeding/resting waders.
Peel Ports have simply done what is required of them. The issue of prohibiting an aircraft from flying over an area of bird conservation appears to their legal department, to be outside their jurisdiction.
One has to hope that the environmental bodies I have listed as partners within our MSEP will be looking at the matters of disturbance within this Ramsar site very carefully indeed. And the impact of such craft being allowed to operate adjacent to important breeding colonies.
From personal observations in 2015, the disturbance is immense. As a seaplane banks and turns, the loud engine note changes greatly, putting much to flight. The silhouette of a seaplane low overhead causes as much panic as the microlights did from Hoo (why there was a flight minimum height restriction in place over the estuary for many years).
From a quick search on the plane identification code last summer I found details of a new business, training pilots to operate seaplanes, operating out of Rochester Airport. A commercial venture was taking off. (EDIT: see first comment below- Peel Ports have stated whilst aware of the commercial venture, the owner has said all flights in the estuary have been/will be simply his own personal use.)
So, my posts for the next few days will be about detailing how birds utilise those mudflats adjacent to the new operational areas as mapped in the Consultation document, both during the breeding season, during migration and throughout the winter, as based on my own observations these past three years.
What the partners in MSEP do remains to be seen.
For my part, I shall continue to observe the disturbance, as and when it occurs.
So, until my first post on the operational areas, here's a few pictures of the seaplane in question that I took last year, when the pilot was freely operating wherever he liked during the breeding season.
On the website of the Medway Swale Estuary Partnership which, among many, includes as partners the local Councils, the RSPB, Kent Wildlife Trust and Natural England, a short notice popped up last week concerning a routine administrative requirement by Peel Ports, another partner and the Authority charged with administering the Estuary.
A consultation document had come out as a code of practice for operational requirements for Seaplanes on the Medway.
The document is short and to the point. Routine seaplane operations are to take place in one of the most important areas for wildlife in the estuary.
It seems that the Authority has to provide for legal operations. They can limit areas of operations, but must be fair to any would-be user of an estuary. To date there have been no restrictions and a seaplane can, legally, operate wherever the pilot sees fit (unless waters are private). The fun with a seaplane is they operate best in shallow waters- which meant that last year, as this local commercial enterprise started to grow, the pilot was setting down in many of the creeks adjacent to the breeding colonies as well as clearing large swathes of mudflat of feeding/resting waders.
Peel Ports have simply done what is required of them. The issue of prohibiting an aircraft from flying over an area of bird conservation appears to their legal department, to be outside their jurisdiction.
One has to hope that the environmental bodies I have listed as partners within our MSEP will be looking at the matters of disturbance within this Ramsar site very carefully indeed. And the impact of such craft being allowed to operate adjacent to important breeding colonies.
From personal observations in 2015, the disturbance is immense. As a seaplane banks and turns, the loud engine note changes greatly, putting much to flight. The silhouette of a seaplane low overhead causes as much panic as the microlights did from Hoo (why there was a flight minimum height restriction in place over the estuary for many years).
From a quick search on the plane identification code last summer I found details of a new business, training pilots to operate seaplanes, operating out of Rochester Airport. A commercial venture was taking off. (EDIT: see first comment below- Peel Ports have stated whilst aware of the commercial venture, the owner has said all flights in the estuary have been/will be simply his own personal use.)
So, my posts for the next few days will be about detailing how birds utilise those mudflats adjacent to the new operational areas as mapped in the Consultation document, both during the breeding season, during migration and throughout the winter, as based on my own observations these past three years.
What the partners in MSEP do remains to be seen.
For my part, I shall continue to observe the disturbance, as and when it occurs.
So, until my first post on the operational areas, here's a few pictures of the seaplane in question that I took last year, when the pilot was freely operating wherever he liked during the breeding season.
 |
| 19/4/15, Kethole Reach, alongside Burntwick |
 |
| 17/5/15, alongside Greenborough, Schedule One birds rising from colony |
 |
| 16/7/15 Coming in low over Frog Farm, Upchurch over the Saxon Shoreway footpath... |
 |
| ...and continuing low over Twinney alongside the Millfordhope colonies, to take off and land from Stangate |
 |
| 18/7/15 turning over the breeding marshes of Chetney |
 |
| 18/7/15 between Barksore and Greenborough |
 |
| 18/7/15 Another run over Chetney |
 |
| 18/7/15 and another landing and take-off alongside Greenborough |
Sunday, 14 February 2016
A picture post, from February 2014
 |
| Teal, Rainham Creek |
 |
| Barksore Marshes |
 |
| Sheerness crew of RNLI, Bedlams |
 |
| Twinney on the high |
 |
| Otterham Creek |
 |
| Avocet raft roost |
 |
| Marking the Tern beach, Friar's Saltings |
 |
| Gulls to roost |
 |
| The Aberdeen |
 |
| Flight Pond, Motney |
 |
| Knot, Funton Creek |
 |
| Brent Geese |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)