Southern Inshore and Conservation Authority Ian Jones - Chief Executive ______

Unit 3 Holes Bay Park Sterte Avenue West Poole BH15 2AA Tel/Fax 01202 721373

10 March 2021

Dear Member

MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY – 18 MARCH 2021

A virtual meeting of the Authority will be held on Thursday 18 March 2021 at 14:00, to discuss the business on the under mentioned Agenda.

This meeting will take place via remote access. Login details will be forwarded to Members next week. Members of the public can request a guest dial-in code from [email protected]

Yours sincerely Debbie Vivian Finance and Administration

AGENDA

1. Apologies To receive apologies for absence.

2. Declaration of Interest All Members who believe they have a personal or prejudicial interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting must declare their interest and consider whether to leave the meeting whilst the matter is discussed.

3. Minutes To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 December 2020 (marked A).

4. Chairman’s Announcements To receive any updates from the Chairman.

5. Sub-Committees To receive the Minutes of the following Sub-Committees and to consider the adoption of the recommendations contained therein: -

a. Executive Committee held on 10 December 2020 (marked B, Members only). b. Technical Advisory Committee held on 4 February 2021 (marked C)

6. Progress Report on Outstanding Matters To consider a progress report on matters outstanding.

a. Chief Officer reports To receive verbal updates from the CO i. EU Exit & Covid 19 ii.Anchoring in MPAs

b. Netting Update To receive a verbal report from Dr Jensen.

ITEMS FOR DECISION

7. Budget Control Statement To consider the summary of progress of the Committees accounts (marked D)

OMD/IFCA/Agenda/AM/Mar21 1

8. Potting Review To consider the report from IFCO Smith (marked E)

9. Draft Annual Plan and Team Strategies To consider the report from the Chief Officer (marked F)

10. Solent Code of Conduct To consider the report from IFCO Cooper and DCO Bateman (marked G)

11. Dredge Permit HRA 2021 To consider the Habitat Regulation Assessment from IFCO Birchenough (marked H)

ITEMS FOR INFORMATION ONLY

12. Poole and Partnership Project To receive a report from DCO Bateman (marked J)

13. MCRS Evidence Review 2020 To receive a presentation from IFCO Small

14. Southern IFCA Website Launch To receive a presentation from IFCO Smith (marked K)

15. Compliance Risk Register To receive a report from DCO Richardson (marked L)

16. Compliance and Enforcement To receive the report from DCO Richardson (marked M)

17. Quarterly Report To receive the report from officers for the period November 2020 to January 2021 (marked N).

18. South Coast Fishermen's Council To receive the Minutes of the 349th Meeting held on 16 December 2020 and the 350th Meeting held on 10 February 2021 (marked P).

19. Date of Next Meeting – 10 June 2021 To confirm the date of the next Authority meeting on 10 June 2021 to be held virtually.

Note: Item Nod 20 below will involve the consideration of information which is exempt by virtue of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and therefore the public may be excluded during consideration of this item.

20. Poole Harbour Fishery Order 2015 – Transfer of Lease To consider a verbal report from DCO Richardson

21. Election of Chairman To elect Chairman for remainder of the 2020-2021 session.

OMD/IFCA/Agenda/AM/Mar21 2 Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority AUTHORITY – 10 DECEMBER 2020

Minutes of the Quarterly Meeting of the Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation ITEM A Authority held by remote conference at 1400 on Thursday 10 December 2020

Present Prof J Humphreys (Chairman, MMO Appointee) Cllr Mrs A McEvoy (Vice Chairman, HCC)

Cllr Mr S Hastings (IOW Council) Cllr Mr R Hughes (Dorset Council) Cllr Mr P Miles (BCP Council) Cllr Mr M Roberts (Dorset Council) Cllr Mr M Winnington (Portsmouth City Council)

Dr S Cripps (MMO Appointee) Dr A Jensen (MMO Appointee) Mr N Fisher (MMO Appointee) Mr T Legg (MMO Appointee) Ms L MacCallum (MMO Appointee) Mr R Stride (MMO Appointee) Mr G Wordsworth (MMO Appointee Ms R Irish (MMO) Dr R Morgan (Natural ) Dr K Sims (Environment Agency)

The Chief Officer, Deputy Chief Officers Bateman and Richardson, the Treasurer, the Finance and Administration Officer and IFCOs Birchenough, Cooper and Pengelly attended. Cllr Mr J Hobart (IOW) and Mr T Ferrero (H&IOWWT) attended in the public gallery.

Apologies 64. Apologies for absence were received from: Cllr Mr J Savage (Southampton) and Cllr Mr M White (Hampshire)

Declaration of Interests 65. Members then declared their pecuniary interest in the following Minutes: Mr Wordsworth (89).

Minutes 66. Members considered the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2020.The Minutes were confirmed and would be signed at a later date.

Chairman’s Announcements 67. The Chairman explained to Members that a policy and procedures for continuation of Authority meetings adhering to COVID-19 government guidance would be drafted and options for face to face and virtual meetings would be explored. Dr Cripps asked if other providers of web conferencing could be considered. The Chief Officer would take options to the next Executive committee meeting for discussion.

OMD/IFCA/Minutes/AMDec20 1

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority AUTHORITY – 10 DECEMBER 2020

68. The Chairman introduced new Members. Cllr Steve Hastings had replaced Cllr John Hobart, representing Isle of Wight Council. Cllr Hastings thanked the Chairman and told Members he had briefly been appointed to the Authority when he was a Councillor for Portsmouth. Since moving to the island he was happy to be appointed as the elected Member. The Chairman introduced Nick Fisher who had been appointed by the MMO as a general member along with Lyle Stantiford who was unable to attend this meeting. Mr Fisher explained his background and experience the south coast as a commercial and charter fisher.

Executive Committee 69. Members considered the Minutes of the Executive Committees held on 24 September 2020.

Resolved 70. That the Minutes of the Executive Committees held on 24 September 2020 were received and the recommendations contained therein be adopted.

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) 71. Members considered the Minutes of the Technical Advisory Committee held on 5 November 2020. Dr Cripps asked for an amendment and Dr Jensen agreed this would be updated at the next TAC meeting.

Resolved 72. That the Minutes of the TAC held on 5 November 2020 be received and the recommendations contained therein be adopted.

Progress Report on Outstanding Matters 73. a. Published journal article. IFCO Birchenough reported to Members that the article titled Vessel Monitoring Systems as a tool for mapping fishing effort for a small inshore fishery operating within a Marine Protected Area had been published, the authors being IFCO Cooper, Dr Jensen and herself. She offered to send Members a link to the published article which was available on Science Direct. The funding to carry out the work had been provided by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) Fisheries Challenge Fund (Project FES 286) and the European Fisheries Fund (Project number FEF 1629) administered by the MMO.

b. COVID - 19. The Chief Officer updated Members on procedures being carried out to ensure IFCA staff were safe, and duties were being performed following government guidance, including weekly national updates. Officers were working in two bubbles to allow greater flexibility and were following risk assessed protocols for land and sea patrols. The office was closed to visitors but staffed for administration. He thanked officers for their continued professional attitude and flexibility taking on new practises and changes at short notice.

c. Marine and Fisheries Chief Officers – DEFRA monthly meeting. The Chief Officer explained to Members the remit for this group. Meetings had been postponed until February 2021. The IFCA Chief Officers group were still active with weekly meetings in the lead up to exiting the EU and consideration of the Fisheries Bill. The MMO are in the process of cross warranting IFCO officers who were available for deployment when required. Cllr Winnington asked what would be expected from the IFCA for the EU exit and asked to be kept informed of any updates as the councils were also being tasked with responsibilities. The Chief Officer explained that IFCAs had not been given specific duties

OMD/IFCA/Minutes/AMDec20 2

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority AUTHORITY – 10 DECEMBER 2020 or responsibilities as yet, but it would include deployment of the patrol vessels. Officers have been assisting other government departments providing the fishing sector with information ahead of the end of the transitional period, including the export of shellfish.

Resolved 74. That the reports be noted.

Budget Control Statement 75. Mr Ratsey explained to Members the figures in the Budget Control Statement. He presented the budget statement for the first 7 months of the year. He reported that he was satisfied with the budget and that it was on track. It was a year like no other however COVID-19 conditions had not impacted too strongly so far on the finances of the Authority. Cllr McEvoy reported to Members that the project to purchase a new patrol vessel for the authority would impact on the reserve funds. She asked if some of the savings made this year due to the pandemic could be identified as savings that could be continued. The Chief Officer reported that a reserve policy would be tabled at the next Executive meeting in March. The Chairman thanked Mr Ratsey for the details in the statement and he asked Members to agree the reports under general consent. All Members agreed.

Resolved 76. a. That the Budget Control Statement to date 31 October 2020, as set out in Annex “A” to these minutes, be approved.

Revenue Estimates – 2021 Levy 77. The Chairman explained to Members the need of continued funding for the statutory duties of the Authority. He appreciated that local government was facing continued cut- backs but he hoped the report would help Members in debating the budget for 2021. Mr Ratsey reported to Members that he and the Chief Officer had calculated the budget for the following year. He asked Members for a 1% increase to the current levy. Members of the Executive had discussed the draft budget and levy in detail. Cllr McEvoy started the discussions by explaining she greatly valued the work of the Authority and appreciated how the Chief Officer and Mr Ratsey were able to construct a detailed budget with the 1% increase, but she was unable to support any increase this year as Hampshire, as with the other councils would be struggling to provide for essential services. She asked that a standstill budget be considered with the deficit being taken from reserves and she would like to propose a 0% increase to the budget; the councils asked to contribute the same levies as last year. Cllr Winnington thanked Cllr McEvoy for her strong reasoning. He was prepared to support the 1% as he felt that the IFCA was not sufficiently funded under the New Burdens grant and that they would not be able to discharge their statutory duties without an increase. Cllr Miles agreed that the Authority was very prudent regarding finances and therefore should have the increase if it was required to run the service. Cllr Roberts said he could only support a standstill budget for 2021. Cllr Hastings added if it had not been for the pandemic, he would have supported the increase but would now only support the standstill budget. Cllr McEvoy proposed a change to the recommendation; that the budget remain as last year and the councils be levied for those figures. Cllr Roberts seconded her proposals. All Members present agreed the budget. The Chairman asked Members to agree that the relevant local authorities be asked for the same levy totals as last year as stated in table 1 of the report. 6 Members agreed the proposal and 12 Members abstained.

OMD/IFCA/Minutes/AMDec20 3

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority AUTHORITY – 10 DECEMBER 2020

Resolved 78. a. That the Budget for the year 2021-22, as set out in Annexe ‘B’ to these Minutes, be approved and the recommendations contained therein be adopted.

b. That the Chief Officer issue Levies on the constituent Councils to a total of £789,409 as set out in table 1 of the report Annexe ‘B’.

Marine Asset Review 79. The Chief Officer explained to Members a two phased approach to the review which had been debated by the working group (WG). The WG had agreed one of three options for review of the marine assets. He asked Members to agree the chosen option to refit and maintain existing vessels in phase one and procurement of an appropriate vessel with capabilities for enforcement and scientific roles in phase two when the outcomes of EU Exit and any additional burdens on the IFCA were clarified. Cllr McEvoy thanked Dr Jensen for his involvement and mediation whilst the Authority was engaged with Southampton University Ocean and Earth Science (OES) department in the joint venture to purchase a vessel. Dr Jensen reported that both parties had reviewed their requirements and mutually agreed to withdraw from the contract as it no longer met the needs of the University or of the IFCA. The Chief Officer asked Members to consider the third recommendation as reported in the appendix, giving details of the capabilities and costs of the drone equipment and how it would be deployed within the Authority district. IFCO Dell gave Members a brief presentation and film of practical use of the equipment over Poole Harbour. He outlined the proposals for the drone procurement that would support operational activity for compliance and research purposes. He explained that two officers would be trained to use the equipment; as well as the practical aspects, relevant legislation on privacy, restricted areas and altitude allowance. Use of a commercial drone would require permission from the Civil Aviation Authority. The drone would be used by the Fisheries Protection Team for monitoring vessels, vehicles and areas of interest; positional data could be used for evidence in a prosecution case. The and Policy Team would use this resource for monitoring activities in MPAs, obtaining fishing effort data and surveys. Ms MacCallum stated that the district included areas of naval and military zones and would the drone be permitted to fly over these areas? IFCO Dell explained that there were already good working relationships with these military facilities and if necessary, permissions would be sought, however the drones’ technical equipment does not allow to navigate over restricted areas. Members asked for examples of when the equipment would be used. Mr Fisher asked if the equipment could be promoted as a tool for enhancing conservation. Dr Morgan explained that current sighting data was not always accurate and this tool would be an asset for MPA assessments. Cllr Hughes offered details of a drone instructor.

Mr Ferrero and Mr Legg left and took no further part in the meeting.

The Chairman and Members thanked IFCO Dell for the detailed report, presentation and video example. Members agreed the three recommendations under General Consent.

Resolved 80. a. That the Authority approve the 2 phased approach to the Marine Asset Review.

b. That the Authority withdraw from the vessel Joint Purchase Agreement with Southampton OES.

OMD/IFCA/Minutes/AMDec20 4

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority AUTHORITY – 10 DECEMBER 2020

c. That the Authority continue the procurement of a drone.

Compliance and Enforcement 81. DCO Richardson reported to Members the activities over the months of August to October 2020. He explained recent court cases and working with partner organisations. Officers had continued with socially distanced inspections when restrictions had been lifted. Mr Fisher asked how legislation and regulations were promoted as recreational fishers found it hard to find the information. DCO Richardson reported that many patrols were used to educate all fishers, information was displayed on piers noticeboards and social media platforms. Educational talks were given to clubs and a Recreational Angling Sector group was formed in 2015 by the Authority to engage with that sector. Their meetings were hosted, attended by and administered by SIFCA officers. The Chairman requested that with Mr Fishers media experience he might be able to enhance the Authority’s reach out programmes. Cllr Miles asked if verbal warnings (VW) were time limited? If a VW was given in one season was it still relevant for the following season? DCO Richardson confirmed that was correct and VW’s were used when deciding enforcement.

Dr Cripps left the meeting and took no further part in the discussions.

Resolved 82. That the report be received.

SIFCA Quarterly Report 83. Members considered the latest report which covered proceedings from August to October 2020. The Chairman thanked the officers for the reports that illustrated some of their varied daily activities.

Resolved 84. That the report be received.

Cllr Hughes left the meeting and took no further part in the discussions.

South Coast Fishermen’s Council (FMC) 85. Members considered the Minutes of the South Coast Fishermen’s Council meeting held in in the last quarter. Mr Stride worked through some of the items including an update on the steering group.

Cllr Hastings left the meeting and took no further part in the discussions.

Resolved 86. That the Minutes of the 346th meetings held on 22 September, the 347th meeting held on 14 October and the 348th meeting held on 4 November of the South Coast Fishermen’s Council be received.

Date of Next Meeting –18 March 2021 87. The next meetings of the Full Authority would be held on 18 March 2021.

OMD/IFCA/Minutes/AMDec20 5

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority AUTHORITY – 10 DECEMBER 2020

Exclusion of the Public Resolved 88. That under section 100(A)(7) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Para 7 part 1 of the Schedule 12 (A) of the said Act.

There were no members of the public present. Mr Wordsworth left the meeting as he had declared an interest in this item.

Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Entitlements 89. IFCO Birchenough explained to Members that a Poole Harbour Dredge Permit (PHDP) holder had requested to change his registered vessel partway through the season. The Access Policy sets out the criteria for change of vessel partway through the season. As the engine power of the new vessel was greater than the existing permitted vessel permission from the Committee was required. She asked Members having read the circumstances involved, if they would agree the proposal. Members were happy to agree the proposal under General Consent.

Resolved 90. That the permit for ‘Little Oscar’ PE11 be cancelled and a new permit be awarded to ‘Rachels Way’ PE1 for the remainder of the PHDP season 2020-2021.

91. There being no further business the meeting closed at 17.15.

Chairman: Date:

OMD/IFCA/Minutes/AMDec20 6

BUDGET CONTROL STATEMENT Date Oct20 Oct20 Oct20 NOTE Year to Mar21 Year to Mar20 Year to Mar20 Months 7 77 CURRENT LAST YRS LAST YRS Actual Budget £ Variance BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET

ADMINISTRATION 5010-100 Salaries and other labour costs 320,665 305,046 (15,619) 1 522,942 519,505 540,529 5020-100 L govmt pension scheme 41,893 39,711 (2,182) 1 68,074 95,190 99,974 5040-100 Protective clothing 749 2,331 1,582 2 4,000 4,098 4,000 5050-100 Office expenditure Ashley Rd 267 (267) 7,309 5,750 5052-100 Office expenditure Unit 3 12,201 12,831 630 22,000 16,713 17,250 5055-100 Office Move Expenses 0 7,773 0 5060-100 Communications 3,232 2,926 (306) 5,012 5,193 4,000 5070-100 Office insurance 13,630 21,000 7,370 3 21,000 16,451 21,000 5075-100 Unit 3 Holes Bay Park Rates 9,097 9,373 276 16,065 17,006 31,500 5076‐100 Covid 19 Expenses 3,219 (3,219) 4 5080-100 Subscriptions 2,749 2,527 (222) 4,329 4,269 4,000 5090-100 Prosecution costs 8,750 8,750 0 15,000 25,000 5095-100 Legal costs 974 2,919 1,945 5 5,000 15,901 6,000 5100-100 Training 8,750 8,750 (0) 15,000 7,902 6,000 5105-100 Authority meetings 0 705 0 5110-100 Misc expenditure 809 2,919 2,110 6 5,000 4,372 5,000 5115‐100 Authority meetings 581 581 1,000 5130-100 Audit costs 1,500 2,044 544 3,500 4,510 4,000 5140-100 Adverts - audit/byelaws (contra NL4700) 4,904 3,268 (1,636) 7 3,500 1,829 4,000 5150-100 Adverts - recruitment 150 (150) 300 500 5160-100 AIFCA 12,079 12,000 (79) 12,000 12,000 12,000 5200-100 Evidence and Research Budg (contra 4880) 3,445 5,831 2,386 8 10,000 12,736 15,000 5230-100 Poole Harbour RFS&MSC proj 3,685 4,600 915 6,000 6,075 0 5233-100 Enforcement projects 1,651 1,169 (482) 2,000 2,096 4,000 5282-100 IOW project 0 2,400 4,000 5283-100 FLAG 0 20,000 5300-100 AIFCA MPA Project costs 314 (314) 5,905 0 5500-100 Poole Order Proj legal & consultancy 1,750 1,750 9 3,000 16,000 5505‐100 Jersey project 350 350 600 5510‐100 Boarding and pacing training 1,169 1,169 9 2,000 5680-100 Bank charges 516 574 58 983 891 1,000 ADMIN EXPENDITURE 455,229 452,419 (2,810) 748,005 771,129 850,504

PATROL VESSELS 6000-100 PV fuel 4,287 6,419 2,132 10 11,000 7,721 8,000 6015-100 PV Endeavour maint 2,266 4,669 2,403 11 8,000 9,587 8,000 6045-100 PV Stella Barbara maint 2,549 3,500 951 11 6,000 5,726 5,000 6055-100 PV Protector maintenance 5,912 3,206 (2,706) 11 5,500 6,252 4,500 6065-100 PV Tenacity maint 0 2,501 5,000 6070-100 Marine insurance 3,644 6,500 2,856 12 6,500 8,485 5,332 PV EXPENDITURE 18,658 24,294 5,636 37,000 40,271 35,832

VEHICLES & TRAVEL 7010-100 CEO expenses 2,331 2,331 13 4,000 3,252 4,000 7015-100 DCEO Expenses 262 1,169 907 2,000 2,027 2,000 7016-100 DCEO (Pia) 147 147 250 204 1,000 7025-100 IFCO CO1 expenses 0 201 150 7035-100 IFCO SCO3 expenses 8 8 18 281 100 7045-100 IFCO EO2 expenses 141 546 405 937 515 1,500 7055-100 IFCO EO1 expenses 35 77 42 132 165 200 7065-100 IFCO CO2 expenses 8 14 6 25 12 300 7075-100 IFCO EO3 expenses 12 14 2 29 14 0 7085-100 IFCO SCO1 expenses 5 35 30 57 30 50 7095-100 IFCO SCO2 expenses 4 (4) 7103-100 VWl HF18 UHC Fuel 464 469 5 800 916 0 7104-100 VW HF18 UHD Fuel 191 469 278 800 541 0 7105-100 IFCO SEO1 expenses 21 21 38 7 250 7106-100 HN62 BOJ fuel 0 800 7107-100 HV61 YYE fuel 0 800 7108-100 HN62 FGX fuel 469 469 800 833 800 7109-100 HV11 KXG fuel 287 (287) 341 800 7110-100 HJ66 XRY VW fuel 242 469 227 800 759 800 7111-100 HV61 YYG fuel 0 52 800 7112-100 HF17 YXS fuel 470 1,169 699 2,000 2,217 1,750 7113-100 HV61 YYF fuel 0 738 800 7114-100 HG65 BXA running costs 0 800 7116-100 WF61 GBE LRover Fuel 0 184 0 7117-100 HF17 YXS Hilux Fuel 627 (627) 1,500 7118-100 HN58 XCY fuel 1,169 1,169 14 2,000 800

Item A Annex Budget Control Statement (20) Oct20.xlsx 1 of 3 BUDGET CONTROL STATEMENT Date Oct20 Oct20 Oct20 NOTE Year to Mar21 Year to Mar20 Year to Mar20 Months 7 77 CURRENT LAST YRS LAST YRS Actual Budget £ Variance BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET

7119‐100 HJ70 GXZ VW Fuel 53 (53) 7120-100 Other travel and accomm 703 441 (262) 753 535 500 7130-100 Chairman's fund 581 581 1,000 1,000 7140-100 MMO appointee expenses 3,769 3,500 (269) 6,000 7,936 6,000 7150-100 Vehicle roadside assistance 186 301 115 510 430 500 7160-100 Vehicle maintenance 2,587 2,625 38 4,500 5,492 7,500 7170-100 Vehicle road tax 359 854 495 1,467 2,091 2,441 7180-100 Insurance - vehicles 4,516 6,000 1,484 15 6,000 6,554 8,105 VEH & TRAVEL EXPENDITURE 14,921 22,878 7,957 34,916 36,328 46,046

CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 8010-100 Small items of equip (<£500) 2,681 2,919 238 5,000 3,000 9120-100 Depn - premises 2,859 2,947 88 5,055 5,536 4,839 9140-100 Depn - equipment 3,963 2,919 (1,044) 16 5,000 6,974 7,929 9160-100 Depn - PV's 7,589 13,389 5,800 17 35,600 14,756 15,520 9180-100 Depn - vehicles 7,627 7,651 24 14,062 11,976 15,081 EQUIPMENT EXPENDITURE 24,719 29,825 5,106 64,717 39,242 46,369

INCOME 4190-100 Bank interest receivable 771 231 540 400 2,369 400 4210-100 Levy - Hants 318,921 318,921 0 318,921 312,668 312,668 4220-100 Levy - IOW 113,280 113,280 0 113,280 111,059 111,059 4230-100 Levy - Dorset 195,667 195,667 0 195,667 215,540 215,540 4240-100 Levy - Poole 0 34,363 34,363 4250‐100 Levy ‐ BCP 87,968 87,968 0 87,968 28,171 28,171 4260-100 Levy - Southampton 33,945 33,945 0 33,945 33,279 33,279 4270-100 Levy - Portsmouth 39,628 39,628 0 39,628 38,851 38,851 4600-100 Court costs recovered 1,345 1,169 176 2,000 5,439 3,000 4700-100 Byelaw tfr ex Marine Act Res (Contra NL514 4,904 3,268 1,636 7 3,500 2,375 4,000 4845-100 Poole dredge permits 27,000 27,000 0 27,000 27,000 22,500 4846‐100 Solent shellfish permits 2,150 (2,150) 18 2,150 4850-100 Rents - Poole leases 4,656 14,180 (9,524) 19 28,360 27,803 28,901 4866-100 Evidence officer MPA cont 0 5,945 0 4871‐100 Jersey project 931 (931) 1,600 4872‐100 ETP project 4,081 (4,081) 18 7,000 4873‐100 Boarding and pacing training 2,331 (2,331) 18 4,000 4880‐100 Marine Act Research (contraNL5200) 3,362 5,831 (2,469) 8 10,000 12,263 15,000 4881-100 StudlandPortland CSI Survey 0 10,152 4882-100 FLAG 0 20,984 20,000 4885-100 AIFCA MPA project 3,540 3,540 1 36,248 0 4886-100 EMFF iVMS funding 0 1,184 0 4887‐100 Fuel rebate 581 (581) 1,000 4888-100 General research (inc salaries contra) 17,070 17,070 1 4890-100 Misc income (including DEFRA refunds) 661 661 9,132 0 4895-100 Poole Coun shellfish sample 950 1,050 (100) 1,800 1,800 1,800 4896-100 Mitigation Project (Contra NL5232) 0 4,938 0 4897-100 Poole Harb RFS&MSC proj inc 0 10,001 0 4898-100 MMO partnership 0 4,000 4899-100 EA Survey 0 2,388 0 5170-100 (Profit)/loss equip sale 1,383 (1,383) 20 1,383 192,782 98,301 TOTAL INCOME 853,669 853,595 74 879,602 1,146,734 971,832

EXPENDITURE SUMMARY Administration 455,229 452,419 (2,810) 748,005 771,129 850,504 Patrol Vessels 18,658 24,294 5,636 37,000 40,271 35,832 Vehicles & Travel 14,921 22,878 7,957 34,916 36,328 46,046 New Equipment 24,719 29,825 5,106 64,717 39,242 46,369 TOTAL EXPENDITURE 513,527 529,416 15,889 884,638 886,970 978,750

TOTAL INCOME 853,669 853,595 74 879,602 1,146,734 971,832

EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPEND 340,142 324,179 15,963 (5,036) 259,765 (6,918)

Item A Annex Budget Control Statement (20) Oct20.xlsx 2 of 3 BUDGET CONTROL STATEMENT Date Oct20 Oct20 Oct20 NOTE Year to Mar21 Year to Mar20 Year to Mar20 Months 7 77 CURRENT LAST YRS LAST YRS Actual Budget £ Variance BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET

Comments £ Variance This column has been designed such that "positive" variances indicate either actual expenditure LESS than budget or actual income MORE than budget. In other words, negative variances, shown in (brackets), indicate possible causes for concern. Excess of income over expenditure This is the "bottom line" and indicates whether, at this stage of the financial year, SIFCA has income in excess of expenditure. The overall variance shows whether we are ahead or (behind) where we expected to be at this time.

MOVEMENT ON RESERVES 01Apr20 Movements Oct20 Brought fwd year to date Carried fwd

Actual Actual Actual Capital finance reserve 600,616 0 600,616 Patrol vessel renewal reserve 443,479 0 443,479 Marine Act Reserve 10,087 (7,801) 2,286 Research Reserve 42,677 (17,070) 25,607 General reserve b/f Poole reserve 97,237 0 97,237 Balance 371,963 Excess income over expenditure 340,142 General reserve c/f 712,105 TOTAL RESERVES 1,566,060 315,270 1,881,330 Comments This section is designed to summarise the overall movement in the total assets of the Authority. At the beginning of the financial year (1 April 2020) reserves totalled £1,566,060 At the end of Oct20 reserves totalled £1,881,330 During the year to date reserves have therefore increased /(decreased if in brackets) by £315,270 And before a release/(increase) of the Research Reserve has been made of £17,070 And before a release/(increase) of the Poole Reserve has been made of £0 And before a release/(increase) of the Marine Act Reserve has been made of £7,801 Resulting in an excess / (deficit if in brackets) of income over expenditure of £340,142 The budget anticipated an increase in total reserves at this stage of the year of £324,179 We are therefore ahead of/ (behind if in brackets) budget by £15,963 NOTES The following notes refer to variances in excess of £1,000 1 One employee should have finished on 31Mar. However, it was decided to extend their contract, the adverse variance relates to this unbudgeted salary. However, these excess costs have been matched by a transfer from reserves specially set up to cover such costs (see NL codes 4885 and 4888) 2 Underspend to date partly Covid related 3 Budget over pessimistic 4 Protective measures clearly not foreseen when budget set! 5 A general contingency, always difficult to estimate accurately. 6 Covid effect 7 Contra NL4700 8 See 4880 - small error these should contra exactly 9 No expenditure to date 10 Reduced activity generally due to Covid restrictions 11 Taken together PV mainteance broadly as expected 12 Significant saving due to disposal of PV last year 13 Obviously a very frugal previous CEO 14 Total vehicle running costs almost £2k less than budget due to Covid restrictions 15 Less vehicles this year 16 £9.7k capital expenditure to date on equipment - budget had £Nil 17 Budget anticipated joint venture PV with Southampton University would have been commissioned by Sep20 18 Project delayed 19 Leaseholdersd given time to pay because of Covid. 20 Budgeted sale of van completed prior to beginning of current year

Item A Annex Budget Control Statement (20) Oct20.xlsx 3 of 3 BUDGET 2021-22 DRAFT APPENDIX TO BUDGET PAPER Inflation Apr20-Mar21 Apr20-Mar21 Apr21-Mar22 COMMENT 2.0% 12 mths 12 mths 12 mths 12 mths 12 mths ESTIMATE Budget NEW BUDGET £New-£old bud £New bud-£Est

ADMINISTRATION 5010-100 Salaries and employers NI 548,849 522,942 565,359 42,417 16,510 Individual incs in SCP's a/r plus 1% inflation increase 5020-100 L govmt pension scheme 71,711 68,074 73,977 5,903 2,267 No change in main parameters 5040-100 Protective clothing 2,992 4,000 3,738 (262) 746 As advised by DCEO 5052-100 Office expenditure Unit 3 19,866 22,000 20,263 (1,737) 397 Complete refurb for hot desking/asset housing 5060-100 Communications 5,785 5,012 8,397 3,385 2,612 Inflation & Mobile app licence 5070-100 Combined insurance 13,630 21,000 13,903 (7,097) 273 2% inflation increase on current estimate 5075-100 Rates 15,594 16,065 15,906 (159) 312 2% inflation increase on current estimate 5076-100 Covid 19 Expenses 4,068 2,000 2,000 (2,068) Contingency 5080-100 Subscriptions 2,749 4,329 2,804 (1,525) 55 2% inflation increase on current estimate 5090-100 Prosecution costs 10,000 15,000 15,000 0 5,000 No change from current budget 5095-100 Legal costs 2,474 5,000 3,000 (2,000) 526 Reduction in line with current estimate 5100-100 Training 13,135 15,000 15,000 0 1,865 Additional cost due to National Training post 5110-100 Misc expenditure 1,562 5,000 4,000 (1,000) 2,438 Reduction in line with 2019*20 expenditure 5115-100 Authority meetings 0 1,000 1,000 0 1,000 Contingency 5130-100 Audit and accountancy 3,600 3,500 3,672 172 72 2% inflation increase, no extra work beyond audit 5140-100 Adverts - audit/byelaws 3,140 3,500 4,500 1,000 1,360 Best estimate for pending byelaw 5150-100 Adverts - recruitment 300 300 300 0 Part time permit and admin officer 5160-100 AIFCA 12,079 12,000 12,320 320 242 2% inflation increase on current estimate 5200-100 Evidence and research budget 5,554 10,000 13,053 3,053 7,499 Best estimate 5230-100 Poole Harbour RFS and MSC Proj 3,685 6,000 5,000 (1,000) 1,315 Best estimate cost certification 5233-100 Enforcement projects (NEW) 3,803 2,000 2,000 0 (1,803) Best estimate 5300-100 AIFCA MPA Project costs 314 0 0 (314) Project complete 5500-100 Poole Order Proj legal & consultancy 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0 Annual contingency 5505-100 Jersey project 0 600 0 (600) 0 Postponed due to Covid 5510-100 Boarding and pacing training 0 2,000 0 (2,000) 0 Unlikely with Covid and postponed for 2020/21 5680-100 Bank charges 918 983 936 (47) 18 2% inflation increase on current estimate

ADMIN EXPENDITURE 748,808 748,005 789,129 41,124 40,321

PATROL VESSELS 6000-100 PV fuel 7,401 11,000 11,000 0 3,599 Best estimate 6015-100 PV Endeavour maint 4,004 8,000 9,829 1,829 5,825 Best estimate 6045-100 Stella Barbara maint 4,180 6,000 7,130 1,130 2,950 Best estimate 6055-100 PV Protector maint 8,591 5,500 6,430 930 (2,161) Best estimate 6066-Drone running costs 2,000 2,000 2,000 Best estimate 6070-100 Marine insurance 3,644 6,500 5,650 (850) 2,006 Includes drone insurance PV EXPENDITURE 27,820 37,000 42,039 5,039 14,219

VEHICLES & TRAVEL 7010-100 CEO expenses 1,000 4,000 2,500 (1,500) 1,500 Best estimate - reduction due to virtual meetings 7015-100 DCEO expenses 524 2,000 1,000 (1,000) 476 Best estimate - reduction due to virtual meetings 7016-100 DCEO expenses 0 250 255 5 255 Best estimate - reduction due to virtual meetings 7035-100 IFCO SCO3 expenses 0 18 18 0 18 ) 7045-100 IFCO EO2 expenses 282 937 956 19 673 ) 7055-100 IFCO EO1 expenses 70 132 135 3 65 ) 7065-100 IFCO CO2 expenses 3 25 26 1 22 ) 7075-100 IFCO EO3 expenses 25 29 30 1 5 ) Overall 2% increase 7085-100 IFCO SCO1 expenses 9 57 58 1 49 ) 7095-100 IFCO SCO2 expenses 7 0 0 (7) ) 7103-100 VWl HF18 UHC Fuel 826 800 816 16 (10) ) 7104-100 VW HF18 UHD Fuel 289 800 816 16 527 ) 7105-100 IFCO SE01 expenses 0 38 39 1 39 ) 7108-100 HN62 FGX fuel 0 800 0 (800) 0 Van sold 7109-100 HV11 KXG fuel 574 0 0 (574) Van sold 7110-100 HJ66 XRY fuel 484 800 816 16 332 2% inflation increase on current budget 7112-100 HF17 YXS Toyota HiLux fuel 831 2,000 2,040 40 1,209 2% inflation increase on current budget 7117-100 Van fuel 800 0 0 (800) Van sold 7118-100 New Toyota HiLux 800 2,000 2,040 40 1,240 2% inflation increase on current budget 7120-100 Other travel and accommodation 1,405 753 768 15 (637) 2% inflation increase on current budget 7130-100 Chairman's fund 1,000 1,000 1,020 20 20 2% inflation increase on current budget 7140-100 MMO appointee expenses 6,849 6,000 6,120 120 (729) 2% inflation increase on current budget 7150-100 Vehicle roadside assistance 500 510 520 10 20 2% inflation increase on current budget 7160-100 Vehicle maintenance 5,020 4,500 4,590 90 (430) 2% inflation increase on current budget 7170-100 Vehicle road tax 1,465 1,467 1,496 29 32 2% inflation increase on current budget 7180-100 Insurance - vehicles 4,516 6,000 6,120 120 1,604 2% inflation increase on current budget VEH & TRAVEL EXPENDITURE 27,281 34,916 32,178 (2,738) 4,897

CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 8010-100 IT equipment 3,000 5,000 5,000 0 2,000 Includes 10 body cameras at £220ea 9120-100 Depn - premises 4,959 5,055 5,162 107 203 Agrees fixed asset register 9140-100 Depn - equipment 7,399 5,000 11,721 6,721 4,321 Agrees fixed asset register 9160-100 Depn - PV's 14,180 35,600 16,022 (19,578) 1,842 Agrees fixed asset register (new JV PV depn from Sep20) 9180-100 Depn - vehicles 14,357 14,062 13,847 (215) (509) Agrees fixed asset register 9220-100 Capital chgs - buildings 0 0 0 0 0 Year end adjustment 9260-100 Capital chgs - PV's 0 0 0 0 0 Year end adjustment 9270-100 Capital chgs - vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 Year end adjustment 9280-100 Capital chgs - equipment 0 0 0 0 0 Year end adjustment EQUIPMENT EXPENDITURE 43,895 64,717 51,752 (12,965) 7,857 APPOPRIATIONS 4910-100 PVR fund 0 0 0 0 0 PVR deemed adequate APPROPRIATIONS 0 0 0 0 0

INCOME 4190-100 Bank interest receivable 1,520 400 1,520 1,120 0 Same as this year 4210-100 Levy - Hants 318,921 318,921 322,111 3,190 3,190 Assumes local authorities accept 1% increase 4220-100 Levy - IOW 113,280 113,280 114,413 1,133 1,133 Assumes local authorities accept 1% increase 4230-100 Levy - Dorset 195,667 195,667 197,624 1,957 1,957 Assumes local authorities accept 1% increase 4250-100 Levy - BCP 87,968 87,968 88,848 880 880 Assumes local authorities accept 1% increase 4260-100 Levy - Southampton 33,945 33,945 34,285 340 340 Assumes local authorities accept 1% increase 4270-100 Levy - Portsmouth 39,628 39,628 40,024 396 396 Assumes local authorities accept 1% increase 4600-100 Court costs awarded 2,543 2,000 2,000 0 (543) In line with current budget 4700-100 Byelaw tfr from Marine Act Res 3,140 3,500 (3,500) (3,140) Contra admin expend on bye laws 4845-100 Poole clam lic/new permits 25,800 27,000 27,000 0 1,200 45 permits at £600 4846-100 Solent shellfish permits 0 2,150 2,150 0 2,150 10 permits at £215 4850-100 Rents - Poole leases 28,360 28,360 28,927 567 567 2% inflation increase on current estimate 4871-100 Jersey project 2,493 1,600 0 (1,600) (2,493) Project will not happen 4872-100 ETP project 0 7,000 7,500 500 7,500 As advised by DCEO 4873-100 Boarding and pacing training 0 4,000 0 (4,000) 0 No income expected 4880-100 Evidence & Res budget ex Res 5,554 10,000 0 (10,000) (5,554) Reserveno longer availabvle to cover 4885-100 AIFCA MPA project 7,080 0 0 (7,080) Project complete 4887-100 Fuel rebate 0 1,000 1,000 0 1,000 Best estimate 4888-100 General research (inc salaries contra) 31,285 35,668 35,668 4,383 IFCO's contract extended, essential research project 4890-100 Misc income (including DEFRA refunds) 661 0 0 (661) No anticipated income 4895-100 BCP council shellfish sample 950 1,800 2,000 200 1,050 12 sampling trips@ £166.66 5170-100 Profit/(loss) on equip sale 2,876 1,383 1,191 (192) (1,685) See fixed asset register TOTAL INCOME 901,671 879,602 906,260 26,658 4,588

EXPENDITURE SUMMARY Administration 748,808 748,005 789,129 41,124 40,321 Patrol Vessels 27,820 37,000 42,039 5,039 14,219 Vehicles & Travel 27,281 34,916 32,178 (2,738) 4,897 Capital Equipment 43,895 64,717 51,752 (12,965) 7,857 Appropriations 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURE 847,804 884,638 915,098 30,460 67,294

TOTAL INCOME 901,671 879,602 906,260 26,658 4,588

EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPEND 53,867 (5,036) (8,839) (3,803) (62,706) SOUTHERN INSHORE FISHERIES AND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE – 4 FEBRUARY 2021 Item C Minutes of the Technical Advisory Committee held by remote conference at 1400 on Thursday 4 February 2021. Present Dr A Jensen (Chairman, MMO Appointee) Mr R Stride (Vice Chairman, MMO Appointee)

Dr S Cripps (MMO Appointee) Mr N Fisher (MMO Appointee) Prof J Humphreys (MMO Appointee) Mr T Legg (MMO Appointee) Mr L Stantiford (MMO Appointee) Mr G Wordsworth (MMO Appointee) Dr R Morgan (Natural England) Mr P Rudd (Environment Agency)

The Chief Officer, Deputy Chief Officers Bateman and Richardson, Finance and Administration Officer, Research Officer Small and IFCOs Birchenough, Cooper, Parry, Pengelly and Smith were also present. Members of the public in attendance were Mr A Deeming, Mr T Ferrero (HIOWWT), Mr R Murphy (Commercial Fisher), Mr D Rodmell (NFFO), Ms L Henly (PhD Student).

Apologies 1. Apologies were received from: Ms L MacCallum (MMO Appointee), Ms R Irish (MMO).

The Chairman introduced and welcomed new General Members to the Technical Advisory Committee; Mr Stantiford and Mr Fisher and from the Environment Agency to replace Dr Sims, Mr Rudd who had similar responsibilities but for the Wessex area. The Chairman wished Dr Sims good luck in her new position within the EA. He thanked her for all the hard work, her positive attitude and her contributions towards the recent netting review.

The Chairman mentioned the high volume of paperwork accompanying the agenda for this meeting and asked Members to recognise the huge amount of work the officers undertook to complete reports and assessments required as necessary to comply with the legislative processes that have to be undertaken before new management measures are introduced.

Declarations of interest 2. Members declared non-pecuniary interest in the following Minutes: Mr Wordsworth (7, 14) Mr Stride (7, 10) Mr Rudd (7)

Minutes 3. Members considered the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 November 2020 which were agreed. The Chairman confirmed the Minutes would be signed in due course.

Progress Report 4. a. COVID 19. The Chief Officer reported to Members that as already established, officers were working within the current government guidelines. They would be supporting industry and conducting limited boarding operations unless there was an essential need for more involvement. The officers were continuing shoreside patrols and providing intelligence to DEFRA.

b. EU Exit. The Chief Officer explained that the MMO had started to issue licences for EU vessels fishing between the 6-12nm limits in UK waters for vessels with a proven track record. An adjustment period of 5½ years for fleets on both EU and UK vessels to adapt to new arrangements had been agreed. EU vessels would have to abide by licence conditions, any variations made to them, and applicable UK law, guidance for which would be updated in due course. UK vessels fishing in EU waters, including the 6-12nm zone would need to comply with EU requirements.

OMD/IFCA/TACMinsFeb21 1 SOUTHERN INSHORE FISHERIES AND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE – 4 FEBRUARY 2021 Authority patrol vessels had been operating in the 6-12nm under a cost recovery agreement with the MMO. Further patrols were planned. c. Fisheries Act 2020. The Chief Officer explained that the Fisheries Act introduced the requirement to produce Joint Fisheries Statements (JFS) that must be published and set out the authority’s fisheries policy for achieving or contributing to the fisheries objectives and how they would propose to make Fisheries Management Plans (FMP). FMPs would be prepared and published under the Act designed to restore one or more stocks of sea fish to, or maintain them at sustainable levels and the JFS must contain a list of existing FMPs. DEFRA had established national groups to develop and issue guidance. The AIFCA have direct involvement in this process and were representing the IFCAs. This JFS and proposed FMPs must be published by the end of 2022. The Chief Officer reported that he would keep Members updated and he expected involvement in producing the documents would increase the workload of officers and the Authority.

d. Export of Live Bivalve Molluscs. The Chief Officer explained the recent issues regarding shellfish exportation. DEFRA were preparing a legal package to be sent to the EU arguing their case as last week the EU prohibited undepurated live bivalve molluscs from being imported into the EU originating from third countries (as the UK now is). He explained that this would have ramifications for the shellfish industry in this country. e. South Dorset MCZ. The Chief Officer reported that the MMO were undertaking a consultation for the MCZ with a regard to a proposed prohibition of bottom towed fishing gear. A very small part of the MCZ was in the SIFCA District and this could impact on some of the district stakeholders. Closing date for comments on the consultation was 28 March 2021. f. Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs). The Chief Officer updated Members on the progress of proposals. Ministers would now respond to the Benyon Review findings by spring 2021 and a consultation would follow this to identify pilot HPMAs. Further details would be passed on when they became available.

Resolved 5. That the reports be noted.

Public Participation 6. The Chairman welcomed Mr Russell Murphy who had requested to address the TAC Members regarding his concerns of proposed changes to the net fishery within Christchurch Harbour. Mr Murphy explained that he had been a stakeholder and commercial , based at Mudeford for nearly twenty years. He had a number of concerns that included the economic impact on local net fishermen and the evidence provided by the Environment Agency (EA) which was used to identify areas to be closed to , some of which he felt was incorrect. He explained that the methods used by fishermen in Christchurch Harbour meant the nets were usually only down for a short period of time and they were never left unattended. The Chairman asked for his comments on the draft measures. Prof Humphreys asked if the EA could provide the original evidence of salmon bycatch or give more detail of how this evidence had been collected. Mr Rudd said that the details would have come from EA enforcement officers, in pocket notebooks, as part of gathering evidence of offences. Mr Stride added that at the beginning of the netting review the EA review of protection measures had been quoted and used as evidence for the proposals but the comments received on this report have never been circulated. Mr Murphy also took issue with evidence of salmon caught at the mouth of the River Mude as he had never caught a salmon there. Mr Rudd confirmed that there was evidence of juvenile salmon and sea trout using the Mude. Mr Stride asked if there were aerial photographs of the area that could be annotated. Mr Stantiford observed that there seems to be a big difference between where

OMD/IFCA/TACMinsFeb21 2 SOUTHERN INSHORE FISHERIES AND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE – 4 FEBRUARY 2021 Mr Murphy said the fish were and where the maps showed the fish. He felt that the information the Authority used had to be factually correct. Mr Murphy asked why other potentially destructive activities around the River Mude had been allowed. Mr Stride added that the habitat had been devastated by excavation activities and he had mentioned it to EA officers. Prof Humphreys explained that though other activities were outside of the Authority’s remit, he would not like to see management measures introduced by SIFCA to protect species undermined by other activities, including the quality of the water. The Chairman said that reports of this kind of activity would have to be formally reported to the EA so they would be able to investigate through their enforcement channels. Mr Murphy had technical questions regarding entitlement to permits, costs, conditions attached to permits and the Chairman explained that these details would to be discussed and confirmed at a future working group; the finer details had not been considered yet. He thanked Mr Murphy for presenting his concerns to the Members.

Netting Review 7. IFCO Pengelly explained for Members the details of the report. Members were invited to consider the draft management intentions specific to the net fishery, which had been discussed and developed by the Netting Working Group on a number of occasions to date. Following analysis of the outcomes of the Working Group discussions, IFCO Pengelly invited Members of the TAC to consider a recommendation for Members to revisit the management intentions proposed for the southern boundary of the River Hamble, in the context of the Authority’s legislative responsibilities. IFCO Pengelly provided an overview of the options and proposals presented in the paper. The Chairman thanked IFCO Pengelly for the presentation and summarised the recommendations.

Mr Legg said he approved of the amendment but asked why an amendment had been possible for this area but not elsewhere like the subtidal areas of the River Itchen. IFCO Pengelly explained these areas had been examined in great detail during Working Groups and that the SAC Designation for the River Itchen in this case had to be considered. IFCO Pengelly explained that area in question had a direct link with the Atlantic salmon feature of the River Itchen SAC, more so than the River Hamble. Mr Rudd said he could not agree with the amendment as this was a potential feeding and foraging site for sea trout. Mr Wordsworth supported the amendment. Mr Stride said he supported the amendment but he was disappointed that the evidence being used for the netting review included old EA statistics rather than actual credible fishing evidence from fishermen. Dr Morgan said he would defer to the expertise of the EA when it came to Atlantic salmon and could not support the amendment. Dr Cripps said he was not in favour of changing the boundary. Members voted on the first recommendation to amend the boundary on the River Hamble. 6 Members agreed the recommendation, 3 Members opposed, and one Member abstained the recommendation.

Members continued to debate the second proposal to progress the work required to make a draft net fishing byelaw. Members discussed the issues brought up by Mr Murphy; the lack of recent evidence of salmonoids interaction and the inaccurate maps. The Chairman said that the working group had discussed these issues many times and had tried to strike a balance. The paperwork in front of Members was the outcome of these discussions. Mr Stride was disappointed that more effort had not been made to include the fishermen in gathering fishing activity evidence. They were not casual observers but experts with 100% consistency. He felt there was no credible evidence in the reports that showed interaction with nets and so he would not support the recommendation. Mr Stantiford said it was a shock that the EA had not been able to provide the evidence requested. Dr Cripps said he agreed there was not enough evidence but he would support the scientific evidence over verbal fisher evidence.

IFCO Pengelly reported that Natural England (NE) and the EA had both been consulted for management options for Christchurch Harbour and Southampton Water. Because of the links to the SAC, officers had to demonstrate no adverse effects. He continued that gathering evidence would fall within the monitoring and control plans incorporated within a byelaw and the restrictions

OMD/IFCA/TACMinsFeb21 3 SOUTHERN INSHORE FISHERIES AND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE – 4 FEBRUARY 2021 were to manage the habitat, nursery areas and ecology for a range of species, not only salmon and sea trout. 4 Members agreed the recommendation, 5 Members opposed, and 1 Member abstained the recommendation. The Chief Officer asked Members to clarify if their only objections were specific to the measures proposed for Christchurch Harbour? As this was not the case, the Chairman offered to compile a summary of the specific issues which would require a further working group debate. It was decided that Members should contact the Chairman direct. The Chief Officer asked Members to consider all the papers tabled today and in particular the site assessments before they report back to the Chairman.

Resolved 8. a. the southern boundary of the River Hamble Net Prohibition Area be altered.

b. that the Chairman establish the next measures for the netting review.

Netting Review Assessments 9. This item was removed for consideration at a later date.

There followed a 5 minute comfort break. Mr Murphy left the meeting.

Potting Review 10. IFCO Smith reported to Members that the potting consultation had been completed and she asked them to consider the summary of responses from a range of stakeholders including recreational, commercial and conservation groups. She worked through some of the views and opinions received and asked Members to agree a working group to progress the Potting Review. Mr Legg reported that he had been seeing positive stocks as a good sign of replenishment but he felt that management would still be useful for the recovery. The Chairman reported that in Southampton Water more small had been seen. Mr Stride was pleased with the results of the consultation; good quality input from stakeholders who were receptive to management of this fishery. Mr Wordsworth asked how gear limitations would be enforced and the Chief Officer said he had been involved in the introduction of similar measures in Sussex. The pots were tagged, pots counted on boarding’s and that working with industry to develop management measures was key to high percentages of voluntary compliance. The Chairman thanked IFCO Smith for the hard work producing a comprehensive consultation under pandemic conditions. Members agreed the recommendations under General Consent.

Resolved 11. a. that the report be published and disseminated.

b. for officers to begin developing draft management measures and supporting documentation for the attention of a Pot Fisheries working group

Solent Scallop Fishery Management 12. IFCO Cooper updated Members on the progress of the review. Following the call for information at the end of 2020 a working group had convened and a refreshed timeline and a draft code of conduct had been produced. He explained that the majority of commercial fishers consulted had agreed with the introduction of the code of conduct. Officers would continue to work with stakeholders to help them comply. The Chief Officer added that this was another exciting opportunity to work with industry to develop management measures. The Chairman asked Members to agree the recommendations under General Consent.

Resolved 13. a. that the report be published and disseminated.

b. that the timeline for the Solent Scallop review be agreed.

OMD/IFCA/TACMinsFeb21 4 SOUTHERN INSHORE FISHERIES AND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE – 4 FEBRUARY 2021 c. that the draft code of conduct be recommended to the Authority.

Portland Seed Fishery 14. IFCO Pengelly reported that following the receipt of an application to remove seed from an area within the Studland to Portland Special Area of Conservation (SAC) he was asking Members to consider whether an Appropriate Assessment should be undertaken of the proposed fishery. The applicant would be required to provide the necessary evidence for the Authority to undertake the assessment. Dr Morgan reported that the applicant had already contacted NE for details of what was required. He explained that the activity would be classed as a SAC red risk as the removal of seed mussel would use bottom towed fishing gear. Dr Cripps remembered this fishery had been worked outside of the SAC. Did we know why they wanted to move into the protected area? He asked if there were other gear types that could be used for this fishery as would not be sustainable. IFCO Pengelly explained that the applicant did not consider there to be enough resource available from outside the SAC boundary. Mr Wordsworth explained that in times past the seed mussel had thrived around Portland. Following storms in 2014 the fishery had been decimated. He did not feel that a dredge would cause any more damage than natural conditions in this high impact area, on hard rock. Prof Humphreys asked if the IFCA had a duty to provide this service when the activity may not be given permissions once the reports have been completed. Dr Morgan explained that although the mussels were not a feature of the SAC they would be classed as a notable community on this site and the applicant would have to show that features and community were maintained with no adverse effects. Mr Stantiford explained that dredging would be the only way to collect the mussels in that area. He added that the population would not be affected by fishing as the mussels repopulate very quickly, but allowing this to happen in a SAC could open the floodgates. Dr Cripps asked that if the Authority would not consider allowing this activity in principle, was it not inappropriate to ask the applicant to undertake expensive assessments? Members were uncertain whether the IFCA was obliged to carry out this work when asked. IFCO Pengelly explained that the decision as to whether to allow access would rest with the Authority, regardless of the conclusion of the assessment. The Chairman asked IFCO Pengelly to go back to the applicant with the concerns raised, the fact that it was unlikely NE would grant permission. The Chief Officer would check the legal opinion on obligation to carry out request for an assessment. The Chairman asked Members of they would agree these proposals and they were approved under General Consent.

Resolved 15. That officers seek further information.

2021/2022 Survey and Stock Assessment 16. IFCO Cooper updated Members on the proposals for the forthcoming year. Following the last TAC meeting he had developed new ways of working to progress the monitoring plan for 2021- 22. Successful delivery of the programme will be subject to Covid Government guidelines and will remain under review throughout the year. He worked through the projects that would continue; some with amendments to methodology and some with ongoing review. Members discussed the usefulness of small fish surveys (SFS), whether they could be carried out less frequently, maybe to be considered next year. IFCO Pengelly explained for Members that data gathered during SFS had been used when considering Marine Licence Applications, fed into the understanding of how juveniles use harbours and estuaries and the surveys continued to develop close working relationships with local communities as in most years local groups had been able to contribute. Over time this would be a valuable dataset of evidence for future management measures. Members agreed the recommendation under General Consent, however they thought SFS should be reviewed for the following year.

Resolved 17. That the survey proposals for 2021/22 be agreed.

Mr Legg left the meeting and took no further part in the discussions.

OMD/IFCA/TACMinsFeb21 5 SOUTHERN INSHORE FISHERIES AND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE – 4 FEBRUARY 2021

Minimum Conservation Reference Size Literature Review 18. Conservation and Research Officer Jamie Small reported that the literature review of species profiles to gather evidence ahead of the review of minimum size byelaws scheduled for 2021-2023 was progressing. She asked Members to consider reports on skates, plaice, turbot and black bream. These were live documents that would be updated or amended when required. She reported that three Plymouth University students would undertake research projects that would use the mullet collected by officers last year. However, samples of thick lipped mullet were proving difficult to source. Mr Stride offered to pass on the details to local fishermen who may be able to help with collecting samples. Mr Fisher reported that he had been involved in CEFAS ray surveys in Lyme Bay and would be happy to pass on contact details. The Chairman thanked Jamie for continuing to provide interesting reports.

Resolved 19. That the report be noted.

Live Wrasse Fishery 20. IFCO Smith updated Members on the performance of the wrasse fishery in 2020 against the triggers for assessment identified in the monitoring and control plan. She reported that none of the triggers had been activated however species-specific data would be required in future monitoring and the Wrasse Fishery Guidance for 2021 would be updated to include this and a requirement to submit catch return data by a specified date. She thanked PhD student Lauren Henly for her advice during the data analysis and production of the report. Members were interested in the possible decline within mixed wrasse species and IFCO Smith reported that when comparing only two years data it is not possible to attribute declines to fishing activity. Further monitoring throughout the coming year would provide more evidence for the status of the wrasse fishery.

Resolved 21. That the report be noted.

Date of Next Meeting 22. That the next meeting of the TAC would be held on 6 May 2021 at 1300 remotely via video conferencing.

Mr T Ferrero left the meeting.

Prof Humphreys told Members this was his last TAC meeting as he would be stepping down at the Authority meeting in March. The Chairman thanked him for his years of contribution to the TAC. All Members agreed with this sentiment.

23. There being no further business the meeting closed at 17.51.

Chairman: Date:

OMD/IFCA/TACMinsFeb21 6 Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

OFFICER’S REPORT Item D BUDGET CONTROL STATEMENT

Report by Accountant Mike Ratsey

A. Purpose of the Report To provide Members with a summary of the Authority’s accounts so far for the financial year 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021.

B. Recommendation

That the report be received.

1. Background

1.1 It is normal procedure for the accounts to be presented for consideration by the Full Authority.

2. Financial Year 2020 -21

2.1 Figures for the period indicate that expenditure in most cost centres has kept within the budget with a few exceptions.

3. Payment of Amounts Exceeding £5000

3.1 Standing Order 55b requires amounts of expenditure, outside the Treasurer’s control, exceeding £5000 to be reported to the Committee.

3.2 Recent amounts paid over £5K (EX VAT) are as follows:

Individual Invoice (EMFF) 2 Vessel Camera £14468.98 Individual Invoice DJI Matrice Drone £19581.67

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985 List of Background Papers

1. Budget Control Statement to 28 February 2021. BUDGET CONTROL STATEMENT Date Feb21 Feb21 Feb21 NOTE Year to Mar21 Year to Mar20 Year to Mar20 Months 7 77CURRENT LAST YRS LAST YRS Actual Budget £ Variance BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET

ADMINISTRATION 5010-100 Salaries and other labour costs 507,263 479,358 (27,905) 1 522,942 519,505 540,529 5020-100 L govmt pension scheme 66,268 62,403 (3,865) 1 68,074 95,190 99,974 5040-100 Protective clothing 2,436 3,663 1,227 2 4,000 4,098 4,000 5050-100 Office expenditure Ashley Rd 0 7,309 5,750 5052-100 Office expenditure Unit 3 20,683 20,163 (520) 22,000 16,713 17,250 5055-100 Office Move Expenses 0 7,773 0 5060-100 Communications 5,353 4,598 (755) 5,012 5,193 4,000 5070-100 Office insurance 13,630 21,000 7,370 3 21,000 16,451 21,000 5075-100 Unit 3 Holes Bay Park Rates 14,294 14,729 435 16,065 17,006 31,500 5076-100 Covid 19 Expenses 3,610 (3,610) 4 5080-100 Subscriptions 3,304 3,971 667 4,329 4,269 4,000 5090-100 Prosecution costs 17,199 13,750 (3,449) 5 15,000 25,000 5095-100 Legal costs 1,536 4,587 3,051 6 5,000 15,901 6,000 5100-100 Training 13,313 13,750 437 15,000 7,902 6,000 5105-100 Authority meetings 0 705 0 5110-100 Misc expenditure 1,309 4,587 3,278 7 5,000 4,372 5,000 5115-100 Authority meetings 913 913 1,000 5130-100 Audit costs 2,700 3,212 512 3,500 4,510 4,000 5140-100 Adverts - audit/byelaws (contra NL4700) 4,904 3,452 (1,452) 8 3,500 1,829 4,000 5150-100 Adverts - recruitment 150 (150) 300 500 5160-100 AIFCA 12,579 12,000 (579) 12,000 12,000 12,000 5200-100 Evidence and Research Budg (contra 4880 4,630 9,163 4,533 9 10,000 12,736 15,000 5230-100 Poole Harbour RFS&MSC proj 3,685 5,700 2,015 10 6,000 6,075 0 5233-100 Enforcement projects 2,686 1,837 (849) 2,000 2,096 4,000 5282-100 IOW project 0 2,400 4,000 5283-100 FLAG 0 20,000 5300-100 AIFCA MPA Project costs 314 (314) 5,905 0 5500-100 Poole Order Proj legal & consultancy 2,750 2,750 11 3,000 16,000 5505-100 Jersey project 550 550 600 5510-100 Boarding and pacing training 1,837 1,837 12 2,000 5680-100 Bank charges 733 902 169 983 891 1,000 ADMIN EXPENDITURE 702,580 688,875 (13,705) 748,005 771,129 850,504

MARINE ASSETS 6000-100 PV fuel 6,403 10,087 3,684 13 11,000 7,721 8,000 6015-100 PV Endeavour maint 5,500 7,337 1,837 14 8,000 9,587 8,000 6045-100 PV Stella Barbara maint 4,708 5,500 792 14 6,000 5,726 5,000 6055-100 PV Protector maintenance 7,030 5,038 (1,992) 14 5,500 6,252 4,500 6065-100 PV Tenacity maint 0 2,501 5,000 6070-100 Marine insurance 3,644 6,500 2,856 15 6,500 8,485 5,332 PV EXPENDITURE 27,286 34,462 7,176 37,000 40,271 35,832

VEHICLES & TRAVEL 7010-100 CEO expenses 215 3,663 3,448 16 4,000 3,252 4,000 7015-100 DCEO Expenses 272 1,837 1,565 17 2,000 2,027 2,000 7016-100 DCEO (Pia) 231 231 250 204 1,000 7025-100 IFCO CO1 expenses 0 201 150 7035-100 IFCO SCO3 expenses 9 16 7 18 281 100 7045-100 IFCO EO2 expenses 197 858 661 937 515 1,500 7055-100 IFCO EO1 expenses 35 121 86 132 165 200 7065-100 IFCO CO2 expenses 8 22 14 25 12 300 7075-100 IFCO EO3 expenses 12 22 10 29 14 0 7085-100 IFCO SCO1 expenses 22 55 33 57 30 50 7095-100 IFCO SCO2 expenses 4 (4) 7103-100 VWl HF18 UHC Fuel 686 737 51 800 916 0 7104-100 VW HF18 UHD Fuel 351 737 386 800 541 0 7105-100 IFCO SEO1 expenses 90 33 (57) 38 7 250 7106-100 HN62 BOJ fuel 0 800 7107-100 HV61 YYE fuel 0 800 7108-100 HN62 FGX fuel 737 737 800 833 800 7109-100 HV11 KXG fuel 398 (398) 341 800 7110-100 HJ66 XRY VW fuel 411 737 326 800 759 800 7111-100 HV61 YYG fuel 0 52 800 7112-100 HF17 YXS fuel 751 1,837 1,086 18 2,000 2,217 1,750 7113-100 HV61 YYF fuel 0 738 800 7114-100 HG65 BXA running costs 0 800 7116-100 WF61 GBE LRover Fuel 0 184 0 7117-100 HF17 YXS Hilux Fuel 959 (959) 1,500 7118-100 HN58 XCY fuel 1,837 1,837 18 2,000 800

Item D Budget Control Statement (21) Feb21.xlsx 1 of 3 BUDGET CONTROL STATEMENT Date Feb21 Feb21 Feb21 NOTE Year to Mar21 Year to Mar20 Year to Mar20 Months 7 77CURRENT LAST YRS LAST YRS Actual Budget £ Variance BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET

7119-100 HJ70 GXZ VW Fuel 197 (197) 7120-100 Other travel and accomm 709 693 (16) 753 535 500 7130-100 Chairman's fund 64 913 849 1,000 1,000 7140-100 MMO appointee expenses 6,388 5,500 (888) 6,000 7,936 6,000 7150-100 Vehicle roadside assistance 186 473 287 510 430 500 7160-100 Vehicle maintenance 4,467 4,125 (342) 4,500 5,492 7,500 7170-100 Vehicle road tax 1,429 1,342 (87) 1,467 2,091 2,441 7180-100 Insurance - vehicles 4,516 6,000 1,484 19 6,000 6,554 8,105 VEH & TRAVEL EXPENDITURE 22,377 32,526 10,149 34,916 36,328 46,046

CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 8010-100 Small items of equip (<£500) 2,681 4,587 1,906 20 5,000 3,000 9120-100 Depn - premises 4,521 4,631 110 5,055 5,536 4,839 9140-100 Depn - equipment 6,557 4,587 (1,970) 21 5,000 6,974 7,929 9160-100 Depn - PV's 12,436 31,157 18,721 22 35,600 14,756 15,520 9180-100 Depn - vehicles 13,061 12,783 (278) 14,062 11,976 15,081 EQUIPMENT EXPENDITURE 39,256 57,745 18,489 64,717 39,242 46,369

INCOME 4190-100 Bank interest receivable 811 363 (448) 400 2,369 400 4210-100 Levy - Hants 318,921 318,921 0 318,921 312,668 312,668 4220-100 Levy - IOW 113,280 113,280 0 113,280 111,059 111,059 4230-100 Levy - Dorset 195,667 195,667 0 195,667 215,540 215,540 4240-100 Levy - Poole 0 34,363 34,363 4250-100 Levy - BCP 87,968 87,968 0 87,968 28,171 28,171 4260-100 Levy - Southampton 33,945 33,945 0 33,945 33,279 33,279 4270-100 Levy - Portsmouth 39,628 39,628 0 39,628 38,851 38,851 4600-100 Court costs recovered 2,351 1,837 (514) 2,000 5,439 3,000 4700-100 Byelaw tfr ex Marine Act Res (Contra NL51 4,904 3,452 (1,452) 8 3,500 2,375 4,000 4845-100 Poole dredge permits 27,050 27,000 (50) 27,000 27,000 22,500 4846-100 Solent shellfish permits 2,150 2,150 23 2,150 4850-100 Rents - Poole leases 29,713 28,360 (1,353) 24 28,360 27,803 28,901 4866-100 Evidence officer MPA cont 0 5,945 0 4871-100 Jersey project 1,463 1,463 25 1,600 4872-100 ETP project 6,413 6,413 26 7,000 4873-100 Boarding and pacing training 3,663 3,663 27 4,000 4880-100 Marine Act Research (contraNL5200) 4,630 9,163 4,533 9 10,000 12,263 15,000 4881-100 StudlandPortland CSI Survey 0 10,152 4882-100 FLAG 0 20,984 20,000 4884-100 EMFF PV grant 813 (813) 4885-100 AIFCA MPA project 3,540 (3,540) 1 36,248 0 4886-100 EMFF iVMS funding 0 1,184 0 4887-100 Fuel rebate 913 913 1,000 4888-100 General research (inc salaries contra) 28,511 (28,511) 1 4890-100 Misc income (including DEFRA refunds) 5,108 (5,108) 28 9,132 0 4895-100 Poole Coun shellfish sample 1,425 1,650 225 1,800 1,800 1,800 4896-100 Oyster Mitigation Project (Contra NL5232) 0 4,938 0 4897-100 Poole Harb RFS&MSC proj inc 0 10,001 0 4898-100 MMO partnership 0 4,000 4899-100 EA Survey 0 2,388 0 5170-100 (Profit)/loss equip sale 1,383 1,383 29 1,383 192,782 98,301 TOTAL INCOME 898,265 877,219 (21,046) 879,602 1,146,734 971,832

EXPENDITURE SUMMARY Administration 702,580 688,875 (13,705) 748,005 771,129 850,504 Marine assets 27,286 34,462 7,176 37,000 40,271 35,832 Vehicles & Travel 22,377 32,526 10,149 34,916 36,328 46,046 New Equipment 39,256 57,745 18,489 64,717 39,242 46,369 TOTAL EXPENDITURE 791,499 813,608 22,109 884,638 886,970 978,750

TOTAL INCOME 898,265 877,219 21,046 879,602 1,146,734 971,832

EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPEND 106,766 63,611 43,155 (5,036) 259,765 (6,918)

Comments £ Variance This column has been designed such that "positive" variances indicate either actual expenditure LESS than budget or actual income MORE than budget. In other words, negative variances, shown in (brackets), indicate possible causes for concern. Excess of income over expenditure This is the "bottom line" and indicates whether, at this stage of the financial year,

Item D Budget Control Statement (21) Feb21.xlsx 2 of 3 BUDGET CONTROL STATEMENT Date Feb21 Feb21 Feb21 NOTE Year to Mar21 Year to Mar20 Year to Mar20 Months 7 77CURRENT LAST YRS LAST YRS Actual Budget £ Variance BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET

SIFCA has income in excess of expenditure. The overall variance shows whether we are ahead or (behind) where we expected to be at this time.

MOVEMENT ON RESERVES 01Apr20 Movements Feb21 Brought fwd year to date Carried fwd

Actual Actual Actual Capital finance reserve 600,616 0 600,616 Patrol vessel renewal reserve 443,479 0 443,479 Marine Act Reserve 10,087 (9,070) 1,017 Research Reserve 42,677 (28,511) 14,166 General reserve b/f Poole reserve 97,237 0 97,237 Balance 371,963 Excess income over expenditure 106,766 General reserve c/f 478,730 TOTAL RESERVES 1,566,060 69,186 1,635,245 Comments This section is designed to summarise the overall movement in the total assets of the Authority. At the beginning of the financial year (1 April 2020) reserves totalled £1,566,060 At the end of Feb21 reserves totalled £1,635,245 During the year to date reserves have therefore increased /(decreased if in brackets) b £69,186 And before a release/(increase) of the Research Reserve has been made of £28,511 And before a release/(increase) of the Poole Reserve has been made of £0 And before a release/(increase) of the Marine Act Reserve has been made of £9,070 Resulting in an excess / (deficit if in brackets) of income over expenditure of £106,766 The budget anticipated an increase in total reserves at this stage of the year of £63,611 We are therefore ahead of/ (behind if in brackets) budget by £43,155 NOTES The following notes refer to variances in excess of £1,000 1 One employee should have finished on 31Mar. However, it was decided to extend their contract, the adverse variancelargely relates to this unbudgeted salary. However, these excess costs have been matched by a transfer from reserves specially set up to cover such costs (see NL codes 4885 and 4888). Budget allowed for a 2% national pay award. Actual pay award was 2.5% 2 Underspend to date partly Covid related 3 Budget over pessimistic 4 Protective measures clearly not foreseen when budget set! 5 Includes a provision of £13.8k to cover expected costs not yet invoiced 6 A general contingency, always difficult to estimate accurately. 7 Covid effect 8 Contra NL4700 9 Contra NL4880 10 Project behind schedule, therefore less costs to date 11 No expenditure to date - project delayed due to Covid 12 No expenditure to date - project delayed due to Covid 13 Reduced activity generally due to Covid restrictions 14 Taken together PV mainteance broadly as expected 15 Significant saving due to disposal of PV last year 16 Minimal travel this year due to Covid restictions 17 Minimal travel this year due to Covid restictions 18 Taken together officers expenses & fuel £4.1k aganst budget of £7.7k, Again, largely due to Covid rerstrictions Again, largely due to Covid rerstrictions 19 Less vehicles this year 20 This saving partly offset by purchases of equiment over £500 which appear in fixed asset additions 21 £9.6k of unbudgeted equip bought this year (principally 3 x thermal imaging cameras) therefore higher depreciation 22 Budget anticipated joint venture PV with Southampton University would have been commissioned by Sep20 23 Project delayed 24 More leases sold than expected 25 Project delayed 26 Project delayed 27 Training delayed due to Covid 28 £4.4k from MMO surveillance patrols 29 Budgeted sale of van completed prior to beginning of current year

Item D Budget Control Statement (21) Feb21.xlsx 3 of 3 Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

ITEM FOR DECISION

DEVELOPING MANAGEMENT MEASURES: INSHORE POTTING REVIEW ITEM E Report by IFCO Smith and DCO Bateman

A. Purpose of the report To provide Members of the Authority with an update on the Inshore Potting Review.

B. Recommendation 1. That, upon the recommendation of the Technical Advisory Group in February 2021, Members formally progress the Inshore Potting Review to Stage 3 in the development of management interventions process.

C. Annex

1. Developing Management Interventions: Process Map. 2. Summary of Responses 2021: Salient Points

1. The Inshore Potting Review: overview to date To be read in conjunction with Annex 1: Developing Management Interventions: Process Map Stage 1: Evidence Gathering

1.1 In April 2018 Southern IFCA hosted a ‘Call for Information’. The objectives of which were to (1) engage with the local community to further Southern IFCAs understanding of the Districts pot fisheries; (2) seek views from the community on existing management measures within the District’s pot fisheries; (3) seek views from the community on suggested approaches to support the sustainable harvesting of shellfish stocks which could support and further enhance the District’s pot fisheries.

1.2 In response to the ‘Call for Information’ the majority of stakeholders felt that there was a need to review the existing management measures in both the recreational and commercial shellfish fisheries. A Summary of Responses to the ‘Call for information’ was prepared in December 2018.

1.3 In July 2019, a Working Group (WG) was convened in order to consider the Summary of Responses alongside all other scientific and economic evidence. Following this WG, it was agreed at the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in August 2019, that draft management measures (to include both voluntary and statutory) were to be further developed in the following areas: (1) recreational pot fisheries, (2) commercial whelk fisheries, (3) commercial cuttlefish fisheries. This decision was ratified at the Meeting of the Authority in September 2019.

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

ITEM FOR DECISION Stage 2: Draft Measures

2.1 A further three WGs were held between October 2019 and February 2020 where Members considered a number of Evidence Packages specific to the pot fisheries in order to build a picture of the fishery under review. This information included quantitative information based on current effort data, literature reviews providing details of species ecology, details of local fishing practice (social and economic) as well as information on gear types and methods. In addition, up to date and historic stock assessments were also analysed in order to map the fishery over time.

2.2 It was the intention to invite Members to proceed with a public consultation in March 2020 at the meeting of the Authority. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, this meeting was cancelled.

2.3 Following a COVID-19 workstream review, it was decided at the virtual meeting of the TAC on the 7th May 2020 that the pending public consultation was to be temporarily placed on hold due to (1) a need to prioritise other areas of work which could be achieved via remote delivery and (2) with consideration of the challenges presented in delivery of public consultation under the Government guidelines (specifically the ability of the Authority to deliver work from a remote location, as well as complying with social distancing measures).

2.4 During Summer 2020 and with specific consideration of limitations presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, Officers re-examined the way in which public consultations had been delivered to date. Following a refined approach to engagement, designed specifically to enable the Inshore Potting Review public consultation to proceed, it was agreed at the November 2020 TAC for the Consultation with the Community to proceed.

2.5 The 10-week period of public consultation concluded on the 15th January 2021.

2.6 A Summary of Responses document was presented to the TAC in February 2021 where, following consideration by the Members, it was approved for publication on the Authority’s website (Consultations: Southern IFCA (southern-ifca.gov.uk). For the ease of Members, Annex 2 of this paper provides an overview of the key points highlighted in the Summary of Responses document.

2.7 It was determined at the meeting of the TAC in February 2021 that, at the Meeting of the Authority on the 18th March 2021, Members would be invited to proceed to Stage 3 in the Management Intervention Process.

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

ITEM FOR DECISION

Annex 1: Developing Management Interventions: Process Map

WG: Working Group, TAC: Technical Advisory Committee, NFA: No Further Action, BWG: Byelaw Working Group, MMO: Marine Management Organsiation, SoS: Secretary of State.

Annex 2: Summary of Responses: Salient Points

Responses: A total of 110 responses were received, eighty-eight were from commercial fishers, thirteen were from recreational fishers, three were from fishing associations, three were from conservation Non-Governmental Organisations. One was from a fish merchant and two additional responses were received from other stakeholders

Crab and Lobster: The majority of stakeholders felt that escape gaps should be required as either a voluntary or mandatory measure in the crab and lobster fishery. However, when additional management measures were considered, despite the majority (72 percent) indicating that they believe additional measures are required, no clear individual measure was preferred.

Whelk: There is a dominant feeling within respondents that additional management measures are required in the District’s whelk fishery. The most popular measure was a raise in minimum landing size, however, this combined with a closed season was also preferred. Similarly, eighty-five precent of respondents support the introduction of a pot limit which is preferred to be a universal limit throughout the District. Of those who were in favour of whelk pot limits, the most common suggestion was 600 pots per vessel.

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

ITEM FOR DECISION Cuttlefish: Sixty-eight out of nighty-nine respondents felt that cuttlefish pot limits should be introduced as either a mandatory or voluntary measure. Whilst an exact number was not preferred by a majority, most of those in favour felt a limit of 200 or less traps per vessel would be appropriate. It was also clear however, that immature cuttlefish are targeted both inside and outside of the district by trawlers, and are therefore removed before they enter the trap fishery population. This is believed to be diminishing cuttlefish stocks.

Recreational: The large majority of respondents to the consultation are in favour of the introduction of management measures in the recreational pot fishery. Of the thirteen recreational fishers which responded to the consultation, seven supported the introduction of management, whilst six did not. Overall, respondents favoured the introduction of both pot and catch limits, although no specific number of pots was preferred. The majority voted for the suggested two lobsters/crawfish per day and three crabs per day, although a number suggested that crawfish not be permitted due to its stock status level. However, no clear daily catch limit for whelks was identified despite the majority being in favour of a whelk catch limit.

Additional Comments: A number of other themes were found in the more general comments regarding the District’s pot fisheries. Gear marking was raised as a concern regarding both safety and the ability of a gear marking requirement to aid general enforcement within the fishery. Similarly, the ability to enforce pot limits was a concern for many respondents, despite the overall support for this management measure. Multiple responses expressed worry that large vessels are fishing inside 3 or 6nm with over 1000 pots and that this should be prohibited. A reoccurring suggestion throughout responses was that management should be aligned with neighbouring management authorities, to prevent increased effort at management borders and the targeting of areas with less restrictions. Finally, some general concerns were raised regarding the overall effect of the pot fisheries on the marine environment including; affects to benthic habitats, pollution and bait species.

List of Background Papers

Developing Fisheries Management Interventions – Process Document. Developing-Fisheries- Management-Interventions.pdf (toolkitfiles.co.uk)

Southern IFCA Public Consultation of a District Wide Review of Management Measures in the Inshore Pot Fisheries. 6th November 2020 to 15th January 2021. 2020. Consultations: Southern IFCA (southern- ifca.gov.uk)

‘Call for Information’: a review of the Southern IFCA inshore pot fisheries. Summary of Responses. January 2019. 1 PottingSummaryResponsesJan2019.pdf (toolkitfiles.co.uk) Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

OFFICER’S REPORT ITEM F

2021-2022 ANNUAL PLAN AND TEAM STRATEGIES

Report by the Chief Executive

A. Purpose of the Report To consider the Annual Plan for 2021 to 2022 (electronic copy).

To consider the Fisheries Management and Policy (FMP) Team Strategy for the period 2021 to 2022 (electronic copy).

B. Recommendation

1. That Members adopt the Annual Plan. 2. That Members note the FMP Team Strategy, which feed directly from the Delivery Priorities identified in the Annual Plan.

1. Background

1.1 Section 177 of The Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009 under the title Annual Plan requires (1) Before the beginning of each financial year every IFC authority must make and publish a plan setting out the authority's main objectives and priorities for the year. (2) The IFC authority must send a copy of its plan to the Secretary of State.

1.2 The draft plan, appended to this report, consolidates the main work streams of the IFCA in the 2021/22. Members are asked to provide comment on the Plan in particular as it relates to priorities, prior to the plan being adopted in accordance with the duty placed upon the Authority in the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009.

1.3 The FMP and FP Team Strategies set out the priorities for each team for the period April 2021- March 2022, feeding directly from the Delivery Priorities identified in the Annual Plan for 2021 to 2022. These strategies seek to translate the Annual Plan Delivery Priorities into clear, outcome focussed objectives for the FMP and FP Teams.

1.4 The FMP Strategy is attached to this report. The FP Team Strategy is in final development and will be available by 31 March 2021 and will be disseminated to Members and together with the Annual plan and FMP Team Strategy will be available on the Southern IFCA website.

Ian Jones Chief Executive

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985 List of Background Papers 1. Draft Annual Plan 2021 -22 2. Draft FMP Team Strategy 2021 -22

Annual Plan April 2021 to March 2022

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

Contents

Coronavirus Statement ...... 3 1. Introduction ...... 4 1.1 Background...... 4 1.2 Duties ...... 4 2. Overview ...... 5 3. Our Vision, High Level Objectives and Success Criteria ...... 6 3.1 The National IFCA Vision ...... 6 3.2 National IFCA High Level Objectives and Success Criterion ...... 6 3.2 Focus and priorities for 2021/22 ...... 6 4. Success Criteria ...... 7 4.1 Success Criterion 1 ...... 7 4.2 Success Criterion 1 – Delivery and key priorities ...... 8 4.3 Success Criterion 2 ...... 10 4.4 Success Criterion 2 – Delivery and key priorities ...... 11 4.5 Success Criterion 3 ...... 13 4.6 Success Criterion 3 – Delivery and key priorities ...... 15 4.7 Success Criterion 4 ...... 17 4.8 Success Criterion 4 – Delivery and key priorities ...... 19 4.9 Success Criterion 5 ...... 20 4.10 Success Criterion 5 – Delivery and key priorities ...... 21 5. Governance and Committee membership ...... 22 6. Organisational Structure ...... 23 7. Risk Management Strategy ...... 24 8. Southern IFCA working with partners ...... 25 9. Southern IFCA – Budget 2021/22 ...... 26 10. Feedback ...... 27 11. Glossary of abbreviations ...... 27

2

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

Coronavirus Statement This Annual Plan has been prepared at the time of the UK’s exposure to the Coronavirus pandemic. As such a number of sections have been modified to reflect the changing nature of the situation.

The impact of the restrictions put in place to reduce the effect of the Coronavirus outbreak has caused significant delays to the 2020/21 Annual Plan and is likely to continue to cause delays in a number of core processes and priorities for Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (IFCA) in this planned year. At the time of writing, it is anticipated that this may delay areas such as surveys, operational compliance and the impact of virtual meetings.

In addition, it is certain that a number of the workstreams will be delayed or maybe unachievable. These areas will be reported on in the 2021/22 Annual Report. Southern IFCAs website and social media pages will be kept up to date during any lockdown period or as the situation changes to keep stakeholders informed.

This document also contains a Risk Management Section. This has been reviewed in light of the Coronavirus situation. However, the direct implications of the Coronavirus pandemic will be managed through a live Coronavirus Risk Assessment, separate to this document.

3

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

1. Introduction The Southern IFCA Annual Plan for 2021 to 2022 sets out our focus and priorities for the forthcoming financial year. The plan identifies the key resources and activities of the IFCA and is in response to the many opportunities that exist to support the sustainable management of the coastal waters of our District.

1.1 Background Southern IFCA has clearly defined duties to manage sustainable fisheries and conserve the wider marine environment within the coastal waters of Hampshire, Dorset and the Isle of Wight. This Annual Plan outlines our intended actions over the year as an organisation; how we will continue to shape inshore management for the future in the District and contribute towards the Government’s Marine Policy Statement which includes the objectives of:

 Achieving a sustainable marine economy  Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society  Using sound science responsibly  Living within environmental limits  Promoting good governance

1.2 Duties Domestic Legislation The primary duties for Southern IFCA are set out within the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009 (MaCAA). In summary sections 153 and 154 require the IFCA to:

1) Manage the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in its district. In doing so it must:

a) seek to ensure that the exploitation of sea fisheries resources is carried out in a sustainable way b) seek to balance the social and economic benefits of exploiting the sea fisheries resources of the District with the need to protect the marine environment from, or promote its recovery from, the effects of such exploitation c) take any other steps which in the Authority’s opinion are necessary or expedient for the purpose of making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development d) seek to balance the different needs of persons engaged in the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the district

2) Seek to ensure that the conservation objectives of any Maine Conservation Zone (MCZ) in the District are furthered.

The Fisheries Act 2020 introduces a requirement for fisheries policy authorities to produce a Joint Fisheries Statement (JFS) that will contain the development of Fisheries Management Plans (FMP). The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is currently exploring key issues across the four Fisheries Administrations and will provide guidance on how this will apply to IFCAs. This guidance is anticipated during the life of this Annual Plan.

European Legislation As defined as a ‘Competent and Relevant Authority’ the Southern IFCA is required to perform its duties in regard to a number of European Regulations as they implement, amongst others; The ‘Habitats Directive’ and ‘Wild Birds Directive’ and the ‘Water Framework Directive’. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) are one of the pieces of domestic law that transposed the land and marine aspects of the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and certain elements of the Wild Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC) (known as the Nature Directives).

4

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

2. Overview The Southern IFCA District extends from the Devon/Dorset border in the West to the Hampshire/Sussex border in the East. The District covers the combined areas of the relevant councils as well as the entire Dorset, Hampshire and Isle of Wight coastline out to 6 nautical miles from baselines and includes the rivers and estuaries up to tidal limits. The extent of the District and its neighbouring IFCAs are shown in Figure 1.

The fisheries within the Southern IFCA District are very important contributors to the local economy and the character of the coast in the region. There are approximately 350 registered vessels in the District and it is estimated that there are 150 craft operating as angling/diving charter vessels. In addition, there are countless private recreational angling craft operating throughout the area, whilst the beaches, marinas and piers along the coastline are nationally important for sea angling. The commercial and recreational fisheries are vital to coastal communities within the District.

Map of the District

Figure 1: Extent of Southern IFCA District

5

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

3. Our Vision, High Level Objectives and Success Criteria 3.1 The National IFCA Vision “Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities will lead, champion and manage a sustainable marine environment and inshore fisheries, by successfully securing the right balance between social, environmental and economic benefits to ensure healthy seas, sustainable fisheries and a viable industry”

3.2 National IFCA High Level Objectives and Success Criterion High Level Objectives (HLOs) and Success Criterion (SC) (Figure 2) were developed nationally to support attainment of the IFCA Vision and to reflect the developing programme of work delivered by IFCAs nationally and to demonstrate the IFCAs contribution to the delivery of the UK Marine Policy Statement.

Figure 2: High Level Objectives & Success Criterion

3.2 Focus and priorities for 2021/22 This financial year will see an ambitious work programme to progress and develop Fisheries Management Plans as well as individual management options for various fisheries within the District. It will require considerable officer time to develop legislation, compile and conduct research activities, alongside managing and running consultations. With fisheries protection work often relying upon remote monitoring of fishing activities and the acquisition of data from other authorities, investigations into serious breaches of legislation are often complex and time consuming. An outline of the delivery and key priority work areas anticipated for the 2021-22 financial year is set out below under each Success Criterion.

6

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

4. Success Criteria 4.1 Success Criterion 1

Success Criterion 1: IFCAs are recognised and heard, balancing the economic needs of the fishery whilst working in partnership and engaging with stakeholders Definition: IFCAs will be visible, respected and trusted regulators within coastal communities and will maintain and deliver a strategy to communicate their vision and duties effectively. IFCAs will engage with policy makers, industry, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), recreational and commercial users; and other regulators. They will work jointly and collaboratively with partner organisations across boundaries; will participate and contribute to the development and implementation of regional and national marine policy, including the marine planning regime; will take long-term strategic decisions and manage risks effectively. IFCAs may maintain a national body to co-ordinate the activities of authorities that are party to arrangements. Outcomes Performance Indicators • The IFCA will maintain and implement an The IFCA will maintain a database of stakeholder contacts that will have been reviewed and effective communication strategy. SC1A updated by 31 March each year. • The IFCA will maintain its website, ensuring public access to current fisheries and The IFCA will have completed a review of its communication strategy and implementation plan conservation information for the District, SC1B including management requirements and by 31 March each year. byelaws. Non-reserved IFCA Committee papers will be published. SC1C The IFCA will have reviewed its website by the last working day of each month. • The IFCA will contribute to co-ordinated activity at a national level. The IFCA will have reviewed its website and ensured it meets the objectives of its SC1D • The IFCA and its principal partners will have a communication strategy, by 31 March each year. clear understanding of roles and responsibilities. Memoranda of Understanding with the MMO, Natural England, Environment The IFCA will have reviewed all of its Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) by 31 March each Agency and Cefas will be maintained. SC1E year. There will be a clear plan in place to update MoUs where necessary, to an agreed Opportunities for greater efficiencies, effective timescale. joint working and collaboration will be explored By 31 March each year, the IFCA will have participated appropriately, proportionately and at the and implemented when feasible. SC1F right level of delegation, in regional and national fisheries and conservation activity identified in the annual plan.

7

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

4.2 Success Criterion 1 – Delivery and key priorities

No Delivery priority Key Action Communication & To review the current Communication Plan and amalgamate outcomes into the development and implementation of a 1 Engagement Strategy Southern IFCA Communication and Engagement Strategy by March 2022. Launching the redesigned website on the 1 April 2021 will seek to improve stakeholder engagement and accessibility to 2 Website information. Social media posts will continue to be a key platform upon which updates the work of Southern IFCA. An updated Social 3 Social Media Media Policy will be included in the SIFCA Communication and Engagement Strategy. Southern IFCA will develop ‘key communication messages’ to disseminate across a variety of engagement platforms 4 Communication Messages (website, social media, when conducting coastal patrols) to ensure consistency in engagement across the District. 5 Data requests Southern IFCA will respond to DSA, FOI and EIR requests in line with the GDPR and Government ICO guidelines. To utilise the shared interpretation trailer (partners NE & DWT) at community events. As part of the Communication and Engagement Strategy Review Southern IFCA will undertake an evaluation of community engagement to ensure that 6 Community Events attendance is balanced across all sectors of the community and is of specific relevance to our duties and responsibilities. Delivery of this priority will be subject to COVID-19 restrictions. Southern IFCA will host an annual internship programme through an open and competitive process to enable transfer of skills in the organisation. Delivery of this priority will be subject to COVID-19 restrictions. We will continue to work with 7 Educational Outreach Southampton University ( monitoring), Exeter University (wrasse PhD) and Plymouth University (mullet sampling) and will explore further opportunities for collaboration with these and other relevant institutions. Southern IFCA endeavour to attend a range of stakeholder groups across the District. As part of the Communication and Community Representation Engagement Strategy Review, Southern IFCA will undertake an evaluation of its current community engagement & 8 at Meetings publicise this to ensure that representation across the District is balanced across all sectors of the community and is of specific relevance to its duties and responsibilities. Southern IFCA will continue to attend the South Coast Fishermen’s Council, the Recreational Sea Angling Group and the 9 District Sector Groups South Conservation Marine Environment Group to facilitate two-way engagement. Southern IFCA, as a consultee on marine licenses will continue to respond to licence applications which are relevant to 10 Marine Licensing the functions of the IFCA. Natural England To work with NE to develop a local MoU in order to develop a streamlined and consistent approach in the delivery of 11 Memorandum of HRAs. Understanding (a) Association of IFCAs (AIFCA): Southern IFCA will continue to contribute to the effective running and functioning of the AIFCA. The Association is an important national body that allows IFCAs to speak with one voice at a national level on key 12 National Groups topics. (b) Chief Officers Group (COG): The Southern IFCA Chief Officer will support the development of national IFCA policy and the delivery of IFCA operations through collaboration and cooperation between IFCAs and partner organisations.

8

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

(c) Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Southern IFCA will actively participate and support the delivery for the improvement, quality and extent of fisheries management information through better coordination and dissemination of fisheries related scientific research; define and apply best practice relating to the scientific & technical functions and responsibilities of IFCAs. The Senior IFCO FMP will attend the TAG as the designated representative for Southern IFCA, will report all outcomes to the Chief Officer. The involvement with TAG will be reported in the following year’s Annual Report. (d) National Inshore Marine Enforcement Group (NIMEG): Senior IFCO (Operations) will Chair the group 2021/22 which is established to develop and support joint working and consistency; identify and share best practice; and to promote professionalism and competence and report outcomes to the Chief Officer. The involvement of NIMEG will be reported in the following year’s Annual Report. (a) Southern IFCA will proactively engage with national forums to support the development of policy in sustainable inshore management, in particular DEFRA and the DEFRA family in the development and implementation of The Fisheries Act 2020 & the 25 Year Environment Plan. 14 National Policy (b) To support the delivery of an EU Exit Plan, to include supporting the Fish Health Inspectorate (CEFAS) in disseminating information regarding import and export of live aquatic animals for and depuration following departure from EU. (c) We will work with national partners in the development of JFS and guidance for FMPs

9

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

4.3 Success Criterion 2

Success Criterion 2: IFCAs implement a fair, effective and proportionate enforcement regime

Definition: The IFCA enforcement regime is risk-based, makes appropriate use of intelligence, meets legislative standards and complies with the Regulators Code. It should make effective use of the resources available to regulators; complement and align, if possible, with the regimes in adjacent IFC Districts and management by other organisations including the MMO and Environment Agency. Consistency and fairness are important. Regulatory compliance is promoted. Enforcement action is carried out by trained, professional officers working to clear standards of conduct. Outcomes Indicators • The IFCA will publish its Enforcement Risk Register and Strategy, clearly setting out its The IFCA will ensure its Enforcement Risk Register and Strategy are published and available SC2A approach to achieving regulatory compliance on its website from 1 April each year. and potential sanctions that may be applied for infringements and/or offences. The IFCA will demonstrate in its Annual Report how it has worked with other regulators to SC2B • The IFCA will have developed consistency in achieve consistent quality, application and enforcement of management measures. regulations (byelaws) with other organisations

• The IFCA will manage operational activity (e.g., The IFCA will compile records of enforcement activity in a standard format; provide them to SC2C through a Tasking & Co-ordination Group) and the National Inshore Marine Enforcement Group (NIMEG) and publish them on its website. capture, record, evaluate and disseminate intelligence that is compatible with partner organisations. It is engaged in joint working The IFCA will adopt the national Code of Conduct for IFCOs, which will be reviewed annually SC2D with partner organisations. and published on its website by 1 April.

• Warranted Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Officers will be trained and accredited to The Code of Conduct for IFCOs is reflected in work objectives and annual appraisals for all SC2E nationally agreed standards. They will maintain Warranted Officers. professionalism and make appropriate interventions to deliver efficient, effective enforcement activity Warranted Officers attain accreditation. All undertake Continuing Professional Development SC2F (CPD)

10

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

4.4 Success Criterion 2 – Delivery and key priorities

No Delivery priority Key Action To set out the Fisheries Protection Team (FPT) priorities for the period April 2021-2022 feeding directly from the Annual Plans’ delivery priorities and the Compliance and Enforcement Framework. The Plan will identify resources and timelines 1 FP Team Strategy to ensure that the Annual Plan delivery priorities are met (to publish 1 April 2021). A review of achievements under the FP Team Strategy will be included in the Southern IFCA Annual Report. Compliance & Enforcement To annually review and update the Compliance and Enforcement Strategy and publish on the Authority’s website (to 2 Strategy Review publish by April 2021). Quarterly Compliance To report to the Authority on a quarterly basis on outcomes of inspections, illegal activity, marine asset patrols, case file 3 Report progress and outcomes to include verbal, written, Financial Administration Penalties (FAP) and prosecution outcomes. (a) To maintain an intelligence led, risk-based approach to enforcement, steered by fortnightly TCGs. To share best practice to develop consistency between partner regulatory bodies in the use of standardised inspection and enforcement Intelligence led risk-based 4 procedures both on shore and at sea. enforcement (b) To monitor and maintain operations in line with the latest Government Guidance on COVID-19, to include patrol planning and inspections, joint work, FIPs, SOPs and RAs maintaining liaison with NIMEG and DEFRA. Intelligence reporting & To continue working in line with National intelligence reporting frameworks and requirements to ensure a strategic 5 analysis approach to intelligence gathering and analysis through the CIU, MMO and NIMEG (a) To support the introduction of all new IFCA management interventions:  Solent SCE Code of Conduct April – November 2021  Prepare for implementation of SDPB on the 1 November 2021 with focussed re-engagement with industry during Communication packages spring & summer 2021 6 & Compliance Directions  MCRS Byelaw  Inshore Netting Byelaw  Potting Byelaw (b) To support the management of seasonal fisheries & compliance with existing byelaws. a) Southern IFCA will continue to work with the Police, MMO, HSE Local Authorities, EA, NE, Border Force, Harbour Authorities, FSA crime unit, EHOs, CEFAS and rural crime teams in order to address areas of shared risk. Bi monthly 7 Working in partnership external TCGs will be held with partners. (b) Southern IFCA will continue to work with EHOs from the BCP Council to assist in the monitoring of water quality in Poole Harbour. (a) To achieve compliance with Biosecurity requirements, to include the Aquatic Animal Health (England and Wales) Regulations 2009 8 Biosecurity (b) To update the Poole Harbour Biosecurity Management Plan (c) ‘Live’ document updates (AAH1 Import documents) to be submitted to CEFAS on import.

11

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

(a) All investigatory work to be conducted in line with PACE & CPIA 9 Investigations (b) Case file management will be in accordance with guidelines and practice. Investigation outcomes to be shared with NIMEG and media channels To grant dispensations for the purposes specified in Southern IFCA byelaws in line with the IFCA dispensation policy 10 Dispensations and guidance. (a) Southern IFCA will evaluate its marine operation delivery via a marine asset review, which will consider the efficiency and effectiveness of current marine assets and make recommendations for future service provision. Marine Assets and asset 11 (b) Southern IFCA will explore the use of a drone to support the monitoring, surveillance and control of inshore fisheries management and MPAs. (c) Maintenance of vessels and vehicles used for the purposes for land based and sea-based compliance and enforcement

To support the national roll out of the inshore VMS during 2021-2022. To sit on a working group to support this area of 12 Inshore VMS work.

Southern IFCA will support the NLTO role and officers will work towards gaining accreditation for the National Marine 13 Training Enforcement Qualification and national internal awards.

12

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

4.5 Success Criterion 3

Success Criterion 3: IFCAs use evidence based and appropriate measures to manage the sustainable exploitation of sea fisheries resources and deliver marine environmental protection within their districts Definition: The IFCAs were created as statutory inshore regulators by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. They are relevant authorities for implementing international environmental commitments including the Birds, Habitats, Water and Marine Strategy Framework Directives and make an important contribution to securing a network of well managed marine protected areas, including European Marine Sites and Marine Conservation Zones. Fisheries Management Plans identify local management measures which should be based on evidence; be timely; subject to appropriate consultation and in step with national initiatives and priorities. An IFCA should balance the social and economic benefits of exploiting sea fisheries resources with the need to protect the environment. It should make a contribution to sustainable development. Outcomes Performance Indicators  The IFCA will identify issues likely to affect sustainable management of the marine The IFCA will record site-specific management considerations for Marine Protected Areas and SC3A environment in the District; undertake risk report progress to the Authority assessments and gap analysis; review appropriateness of existing measures; evaluate management options and develop and implement proportionate marine The IFCA will publish data analysis and evidence supporting new management measures, on SC3B management solutions. its website

 The IFCA will support implementation of a well-managed network of marine protected Management information (e.g., sampling and/or survey results) will be collected periodically after areas by: developing a range of criteria-based SC3C new management measures have been implemented, to demonstrate the extent of management options; implementing effectiveness of the intervention management measures to ensure that inshore fisheries activities comply with the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the revised The IFCA will have developed a range of criteria-based management options that are explained SC3D approach to managing commercial fisheries in to stakeholders through the IFCA website, and reviewed by 31 March each year European Marine Sites; and that local management contributes to delivery of targets for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Water Framework Directive and Marine Plans. New IFCA management measures selected for development and implementation are delivered SC3E within agreed timescales

13

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

 The IFCA will develop Fisheries Management Plans for priority species where appropriate. Shared objectives will be developed with The IFCA will include shared agreed objectives and actions from Fisheries Management Plans SC3F identified partners; actions identified and best in its own Annual Plan, which will be published by 31 March each year. practice reflected so that management makes a contribution to sustainable development.

14

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

4.6 Success Criterion 3 – Delivery and key priorities

No Delivery priority Key Action The Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy will set out the priorities for the FMP Team for the period April 2021- 2022 feeding directly from the Annual Plan as well as with consideration of the IFCA’s Five Year Legislative Forecast 1 FMP Team Strategy (2019-2023). This document will include the Southern IFCA Monitoring Programme for 2021-2022. A review of achievements under the FMP Team Strategy will be included in the Southern IFCA Annual Report. This is a significant area of work that began in 2017 in response to the outcomes of the Southern IFCA Review of Management Measures. The workstream has remained a priority for delivery under the Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2 Inshore Netting Review priorities for years 2017-2021. It is the intention of the Authority to seek confirmation of a Net Fishing Byelaw in 2021 following the outcomes of formal consultation. This review began in 2018 in response to the Southern IFCA Review of Management Measures. During 2019-2020 a 3 Inshore Potting Review number of WGs were held. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic this workstream was put on hold between March and November 2020. It is the intention of the Authority to seek confirmation of a Potting Byelaw in late 2021/early 2022. A third tranche of MCZs were designated in May 2019. Of these, six new sites fell within the Southern IFCA District as well as additional features being added to two existing sites. The Authority continues to assess the potential impact of fishing activities within the designated sites via a risk-based approach. It is the intention of the Authority to convene WGs T3 MCZs & MPA Spatial 4 in spring 2021 in order to consider the potential options for management intervention where necessary. This work is being Management Review carried out in conjunction with a wider review of existing spatial boundaries under the District’s BTFG and IHG Byelaws. Southern IFCA will continue to support partners in the provision of data collection to inform the understanding of location and extent of black bream nesting sites within the T3 MCZs. Since April 2020 SIFCA have been reviewing existing evidence, undertaking primary research & developing evidence 5 MCRS Review packages which identify the biological characteristics of key fish and shellfish species within the District which are subject to fishing pressures. This will feed directly into the formal review of MCRS which will begin in 2021. Byelaw Review: Prohibition IFCA byelaw making guidance states that IFCAs should continually monitor the effectiveness of their byelaws. The of Gathering (Sea Fisheries Authority will undertake a scheduled review of the IHG Byelaw in line with commitments under the Southern IFCA Five- 6 Resources) in Seagrass Year Legislative Forecast and the review periods identified within the Byelaw. It is the intention that this work will be carried Beds out in conjunction with the MPA Spatial Management Review. (a) A decision was made in March 2021 for the Authority to pursue the development of management measures in the Solent scallop fishery during 2021. (b) Following the pending implementation of the Solent Dredge Permit Byelaw (SDPB) on the 1 November 2021, the Permit Condition Reviews: 7 Authority will be working with the to develop an evidence base to support and explore the potential SDPB reintroduction of a pump scoop fishery in the Solent. In order to achieve this Southern IFCA will continue to work with DEFRA to seek revocation of Statutory Instrument No. 2696 The Solent European Marine Site (Prohibition of Method of Dredging) Order 2004. To annually review measures in this fishery under the M&C Plan & continue to build an evidence base to inform any 8 Wrasse Fishery potential future management as determined by the Authority.

15

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

(a) Southern IFCA will continue to promote its role in sustainable aquaculture development via attendance at the Dorset Strategy Governance Group 9 Aquaculture (b) Under the Poole Harbour Fishery Order 2015, Southern IFCA will continue to develop, manage & support aquaculture practice within Poole Harbour & undertake an annual review of the Management Plan before 1 July 2021 Southern IFCA will work with partners at the PDFA and the DWT to promote further innovation in the Poole Harbour Clam Poole and Cockle 10 and Cockle MSC certified fishery with regard to ETP species and develop a blue print of co-management which Partnership Project demonstrates effective fisheries management within an MPA (funded project running Apr 21-March 22). (a) Southern IFCA will continue to manage inshore fisheries in line with the following FMPs: (i) Poole Harbour Several Order Management Plan, (ii) Poole Harbour Shellfish Dredging Management Plan, (iii) Wrasse Monitoring and Control Plan, (iv) Angling Strategy, (v) Solent Dredge Permit Byelaw Management Intentions Document Fisheries Management (b) Southern IFCA will review all its existing FMPs in order to develop a framework for best practice. 11 Plans (c) Southern IFCA will continue to work in partnership with and contribute to the Solent European Marine Site Single Scheme Management Plan, The Poole Aquatic Management Plan, The Solent Oyster Restoration Plan. (d) Following guidance in relation to the Fisheries Act 2020 Southern IFCA will publish its proposed FMPs in line with a JFS objectives. Southern IFCA will develop a policy document which will provide stakeholders with guidance when applying to 12 Emerging Fisheries Policy undertake harvesting of emerging fisheries/innovative fisheries practice within MPAs.

16

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

4.7 Success Criterion 4

Success Criterion 4: IFCAs have appropriate governance in place and staff are trained and professional

Definition: IFCAs are statutory authorities and sit within the local government family. Authority members may be either general members or local councillors. They comply with Codes of Conduct and the Standing Orders that apply to meetings of local government committees. General members are appointed on merit, through open competition and for a term. They are subject to an annual performance appraisal. An IFCA is funded by levy, charged to its member councils. Funding originates in local taxation. An IFCA is accountable for its use of public resources and should ensure that a proper auditing regime provides confidence in its commitment and spend of public money. It should make effective use of its resources, including staff and assets. An IFCA has a statutory obligation to prepare and publish Annual Plans and Annual Reports. Outcomes Performance Indicators  The IFCA will demonstrate its long-term strategic approach to sustainable marine The IFCA will publish a Plan on its website by 31 March, setting out the main objectives and SC4A management by having appropriate plan- priorities for the next financial year. A copy will be sent to the Secretary of State. making, review, update and amendment procedures in place. The IFCA will record its performance against corporate outcomes and After the end of each financial year, the IFCA will publish a Report on its website describing its indicators as soon as practically possible SC4B activities, performance and a summary of audited financial information in that year, by 30 following the end of the financial year. November. A copy will be sent to the Secretary of State.  Staff performance management systems will be in place that link to the IFCA success criteria. There will be an induction procedure IFCA staff will have annual performance management plans in place. Annual appraisals for all for new joiners. Staff training and SC4C development needs will be identified. staff will have been completed by 31 March each year. Performance will be managed and, where necessary, improvement procedures will be followed. An efficient secretariat of IFCA staff support IFCA Authority meetings which are held quarterly SC4D  The IFCA Committee will be supported by an and are quorate. Meeting documentation will meet Standing Orders. organised, efficient and effective secretariat. New members will receive an induction pack and briefing from the Authority. There will be a The IFCA will have demonstrated, in its Annual Report, how marine, land and water rolling twelve-month schedule of quarterly SC4E management mechanisms in the Inshore Fisheries & Conservation District have worked Authority meetings. Notices of meetings and responsively and effectively together.

17

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

documentation will be made available in line with Standing Orders.  IFCA Committee meetings will be held in

public unless material is either confidential, or exempt within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1972

18

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

4.8 Success Criterion 4 – Delivery and key priorities

No Delivery priority Key Action

To undertake a review of all existing Southern IFCA HR Policies by March 2022 (a) Staff Handbook (to amalgamate Review of Southern IFCA 1 Policies and Procedures Conflict of Interest Policy, Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy and Whistleblowing Policy) (b) Employee Codes of Conduct (c) Grievance Procedure and Policy (d) Capability Procedure and Policy, (e) Disciplinary Procedure and Policy To ensure the Policy remains robust and reactive. To report Incidents, Near Misses or Accidents to the Executive 2 Health and Safety Committee and include updated risk assessments for Covid 19. Southern IFCA will be implementing a part time permitting officer from July 2021 to assist with the increasing administration 3 Recruitment from pending and existing permit byelaws. This officer will keep records, issue permits and record catch returns and report anomalies to the FP team for follow investigations. That all new officer’s complete induction training as part of their probation and progress CPD and the internal competent 4 Induction Training officer award through the NLTO. Individual officer training plans will be developed by the NLTO. Southern IFCA will continue to support national training through the NLTO and will play an active role in the delivery of 5 National Training Position the national training project, including providing support for training. In line with the Performance Appraisal Policy all staff will have personalised Personal Work Plan (PWP) which is directly 5 Personal Work Plans linked to the FMP or FP Team Strategies. Personal Development 6 In line with the Performance Appraisal Policy all staff will identify Development Targets (DT) to support their PWP delivery. Targets In line with the Performance Appraisal, all staff will be appraised on their operational delivery in the context of the relevant 7 Performance Appraisals Team Strategy, PWPs and DTs and adherence to contractual requirements and Southern IFCA policies, procedures and Codes of Conduct. We will conduct a ‘light touch’ system of performance monitoring and appraisal for general members of the Authority and 8 Members Appraisals provide training for members on their roles and responsibilities. Members Satisfaction We will consult the IFCA membership upon their views on their role and the function of the Authority. We will report on 9 Survey the findings of the survey and implement measures to ensure continuing development. The Southern IFCA operates a three stage complaints process to ensure complaints are dealt with impartially, objectively 10 Customer complaints and professionally. We will ensure that any complaints are dealt with in accordance with our Customer Complaint Procedure

19

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

4.9 Success Criterion 5

Success Criterion 5: IFCAs make the use of evidence to deliver their objectives

Definition: IFCAs are statutory regulators for their Inshore Fisheries and Conservation District. Decision-making should be based on evidence. All IFCAs are supported by officers who pool their expertise and share best practice as a Technical Advisory Group (TAG). A programme of research activity and monitoring is planned, developed and updated in consultation with partners. The programme informs management decisions and supports justification for additional research and evidence gathering.

Outcomes Performance Indicators  A strategic research plan that contributes to greater understanding of the marine The IFCA will demonstrate progress that has been made towards identifying its evidence needs environment and delivery of cost-effective SC5A management of sea fisheries resources by publishing a research plan each year

 Standard Operating Procedures describe how data is captured and shared with principal partners The IFCA will publish a research report annually that demonstrates how evidence has supported SC5B decision making  A list of research databases held by the IFCA and the frequency of their review

 Non-confidential meta-data collected through The IFCA’s contribution to TAG and progress that has made towards a national evidence needs SC5C the IFCA research programme should be programme will be recorded in the IFCA’s Annual Report recorded in a database available to the marine research community

20

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

4.10 Success Criterion 5 – Delivery and key priorities

No Delivery priority Key Action Southern IFCA will undertake surveys in order to underpin active management interventions and to ensure that we are continually developing our knowledge of the fisheries throughout the District using the best available evidence. Where IFCA led surveys and stock 1 possible we will deliver in collaboration with partners as well as the fishing industry. Please note that the 2021-2022 assessments Monitoring Programme will be under constant review and subject to the latest Government guidelines in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and will remain subject to change due to changing priorities and weather patterns. To inform management of the Poole clam and cockle fisheries under the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw. It is the a Poole Bivalve Survey intention for this survey to proceed in April 2021 with amendments to methodology as a result of the COVID-19 Government guidelines. Monitoring reports produced and published To inform management under the Poole Harbour lease beds (aquaculture) under the Poole Several Order 2015 b Pacific Oyster Survey Management Plan (2020 Revision) with monitoring reports produced and published. Solent Scallop Stock To inform the management of in the Solent under either a Code of Conduct/or permit conditions under the Solent c Assessment Dredge Permit Byelaw. To be conducted April 2021 with monitoring reports produced and published To inform management of the native under the Solent Dredge Permit Byelaw. To be conducted July 2021 with Solent Oyster Stock d monitoring reports produced and published. Delivery of this will remain under constant review in response to the COVID- Assessment 19 pandemic. To inform management of clams and cockles under the Solent Dredge Permit Byelaw. To be conducted October 2021 Solent Bivalve Stock e and March 2022 with monitoring reports produced and published. Delivery of this will remain under constant review in Assessment response to the COVID-19 pandemic. f Thick Lipped Mullet Survey To inform the MCRS review. To be conducted November 2021- January 2022 g Gilt Head Bream Survey To inform the MCRS review. To be conducted November 2021-January 2022 h Whelk Survey To inform the MCRS and Potting reviews. To (1) provide understanding of estuaries for juvenile fish, (2) inform Marine Licence application responses, (3) promote i Small Fish Survey stakeholder engagement. Monitoring Programme To ensure outcomes of surveys and stock assessments are reported appropriately with data published on the Southern 2 Report IFCA website.

21

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

5. Governance and Committee membership

APPOINTED BY CONSTITUENT AUTHORTIES

Cllr Mr J Savage Southampton City Council Cllr M Winnington Portsmouth City Council Cllr Mrs A E McEvoy Bsc (Hons.) Hampshire County Council (Vice Chairman) Cllr Mr M White Hampshire County Council Cllr Mr R Hughes Dorset Council Cllr Mr M Roberts Dorset Council Cllr Mr S Hastings Isle of Wight Council Cllr Mr P Miles BCP Council Cllr Mr R Rocca BCP Council

APPOINTED BY THE MARINE MANAGEMENT ORGANSATION

TBA Chairman Dr A Jensen Chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee Mr R Stride Vice Chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee Dr S Cripps Mr N Fisher Mr L Stantiford Mr T Legg Ms L MacCallum Mr G Wordsworth

REPRESENTATIVES OF PARTNER AUTHORTIES

Mr P Rudd Environment Agency Dr R Morgan Natural England Ms R Irish Marine Management Organisation

22

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

6. Organisational Structure

23

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

7. Risk Management Strategy Southern IFCA recognises its responsibility to manage risk in order to successfully achieve the Authority’s objectives, maximise opportunity and minimise threats. This is also reflected in national guidance advice to Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities. Risk cannot always be eliminated and Southern IFCA has a risk management strategy to provide a structured approach to enable the Authority to identify, manage and monitor the most significant risks it faces. From an operational perspective it also provides a framework for applying a new ‘risk based’ approach to enforcement activities. The aim of the strategy is to manage risk and to successfully integrate risk management into existing business and management processes. Risk management is a key part of the Authority’s corporate governance arrangements.

The objectives of the risk management strategy are to:

 Embed risk management in the culture of IFCA including the Authority’s decision making, strategic planning, policy, project and service delivery arrangements  Manage risk in accordance with best practice, ensuring key strategic and operational risks are identified, monitored and controlled  Raise awareness of the need for risk management both within the Authority and with key partners and suppliers of goods and services  Enable the Authority to anticipate and respond to change  Prevent injury, damage and loss, thus reducing the cost of risk  Support a targeted risked based approach to operational activities

All Members and employees should have regard to risk when carrying out their duties. Risk management is part of all decisions at both manager and Member level and all Authority processes. The key roles within the risk management process are –

Southern IFCA To oversee the effective management of risk by Authority officers

Executive To consider and approve risk management policies and to monitor risk. Committee

Senior To ensure the Authority manages risk effectively through the Management development and implementation of the strategy. To identify, manage Team and monitor the strategic risks faced by the Authority.

IFC Officers To manage risk effectively in their particular areas of service delivery.

Treasurer / To support the Authority and its services in the effective development, internal auditor implementation and review of the risk management strategy

24

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

8. Southern IFCA working with partners Southern IFCA has worked in conjunction with the other IFCAs to develop Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with its key public authority stakeholders. The MoUs lay out in broad terms how Southern IFCA will work constructively with the Marine Management Organisation, Environment Agency, Natural England and Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science. As well as the detailed MoUs the MMO, EA and NE shared objectives have been included in our annual planning process which means that cooperation and coordination between agencies is hard wired into the system. Southern IFCA is looking to build on this relationship to establish protocols of how information will flow between organisations using this mechanism.

Association of Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (AIFCA) Southern IFCA will continue to play its part and contribute to the effective running and functioning of the AIFCA. The Association is an important national body that allows IFCAs to speak with one voice at a national level on key topics. Southern IFCA see that the Association can act as an important body in helping IFCAs coordinate their actions and resources efficiently.

IFCA Chief Officers Group (COG) In 2021/22 The Southern IFCA Chief Officer will represent Southern IFCA at COG to support the development of national IFCA policy under the direction of the AIFCA and support the delivery of IFCA operations through collaboration and cooperation between IFCAs and partner organisations.

Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Southern IFCA will continue to support and work through the Technical Advisory Group (TAG), wherever possible, to help it achieve its stated aims: to improve the quality and extent of fisheries management information through better coordination and dissemination of fisheries related scientific research; define and apply best practice relating to the scientific & technical functions and responsibilities of IFCAs.

National Inshore Marine Enforcement Group (NIMEG) The National Inshore Marine Enforcement Group (NIMEG) has been established as a group to bring together expertise in the field of regulation and enforcement within inshore fisheries and marine conservation in order to develop and support joint working and consistency; identify and share best practice; and to promote professionalism and competence. Southern IFCA will act as Chairman of NIMEG in the year.

Angling Liaison Group Southern IFCA will continue to host an independently chaired Angling Liaison Group. The purpose of the group is to enable Sea Angling representatives to effectively engage and communicate with the Southern IFCA so as to inform decisions made by the Authority and to enhance the sea angling experience in Hampshire, Dorset and the Isle of Wight.

South Coast Fishermen’s Council Southern IFCA will continue to attend the independently chaired South Coast Fishermen’s Council. The group’s membership is comprised of the commercial fishermen’s representatives from ports within the Southern IFCA District. The group enables effective communication between the authority and the fishing community.

South Coast Marine Environment Group Southern IFCA will develop the independently chaired South Coast Marine Environment Group to inform IFCA policy and decision making.

25

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

9. Southern IFCA – Budget 2021/22 Local Authorities are supported, in part, by an ‘area-based grant’, from DEFRA, of £329,425. This grant recognises the new burdens of the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009 and supports the fisheries and conservation functions of the Authority. At the time of the preparation of this annual plan, the outcome of a review with DEFRA in 2020/21 for this funding has not been finalised and there is an assumption that the ‘area-based grant’ will remain the same as previous years.

Levy on Local Authority 2020/21 2021/22 Hampshire 318,921 318,921 Isle of Wight 113,280 113,280 Dorset 195,667 195,667 BCP 87,968 87,968 Southampton 33,945 33,945 Portsmouth 39,628 39,628 TOTAL 789,409 789,409 Other income 90,192 108,591 879,601 898,000 Summary of Expenditure Administration 748,005 779,651 Patrol Vessels 37,000 42,039 Vehicles & Travel 34,916 32,178 New Equipment 64,717 49,752 Appropriations 0 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURE 884,638 903,620

DEFICIT OF INCOME OVER (5,036) (5,620) EXPENDITURE

26

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

10. Feedback We are committed to providing an exemplary service. If you are not satisfied with an aspect of our service, we encourage you to let us know and we will do our best to resolve the matter as quickly as possible. Full details of the complaint’s procedure are published on the IFCA website. http://www.southern-ifca.gov.uk/feedback

11. Glossary of abbreviations

BCP Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole ICO Information Commissioner’s Office BTFG Bottom Towed Fishing Gear IFCA Inshore Fisheries & Conservation Authority CEFAS Centre for Environment, Fisheries and IFCO Inshore Fisheries & Conservation Officer Aquaculture Science CIU Central Intelligence Unit IHG Inshore Hand Gathering CPD Continual Professional Development JFS Joint Fisheries Statement CPIA The Criminal Procedure and Investigations M&C Monitoring and Control Act 1996 DSA Data Sharing Agreement MCRS Minimum Conservation Reference Size DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and MCZ Marine Conservation Zone Rural Affairs DWT Dorset Wildlife Trust MMO Marine Management Organisation EA Environment Agency MPA Marine Protected Area EHO Environmental Health Officer NE Natural England EIR Environmental Information Regulations NLTO National Lead Training Officer ETP Endangered, Threatened & Protected PACE Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 FIP Fisheries Inspection Point PDFA Poole and District Fishermen’s Association FMP Fisheries Management & Policy Team RA Risk Assessment FOI Freedom of Information SCE Scallop Call for Evidence FPT Fisheries Protection Team SDPB Solent Dredge Permit Byelaw FSA Food Standards Agency SOP Standard Operating procedure GDPR General Data Protection Regulation TCG Tactical Coordination Group HRA Habitats Regulation Assessment VMS Vessel Monitoring System HSE Health & Safety Executive WG Working Group

27

Southern IFCA Annual Plan 2021/22

Further Copies

This document is available in electronic form from www.Southern-ifca.gov.uk

Alternatively, a hard copy can be requested from the Authority:

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority Unit 3, Holes Bay Park, Sterte Ave West, Poole BH15 2AA

28

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

Fisheries Management and Policy Team Strategy April 2021 – March 2022

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

Document Control

Fisheries Management and Policy Team Strategy April 2021-March Title 2022 Author Pia Bateman. Deputy Chief Officer March 2021 Ian Jones, Chief Officer March 2021 Approver(s) The Southern IFCA Authority pending Owner Southern IFCA

In Year Amendments:

Version Author Amendment Detail Date Approver

2

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 4 1.1 Legislative Drivers ...... 4 1.2 Community and Stakeholder Engagement ...... 5 1.3 The FMP Team Function ...... 6 1.3.1 Monitoring Inshore Fisheries ...... 6 1.3.2 Developing Fisheries Management Interventions ...... 7 1.4.3 Reviewing Fisheries Management Interventions ...... 8

2.0 The FMP Team Delivery Priorities 2021-2022 ...... 10 2.1 Monitoring Inshore Fisheries ...... 10 2.2 Developing Fisheries Management Interventions ...... 13 2.2.1 Inshore Netting Review Phase 1 ...... 14 2.2.2 Inshore Potting Review ...... 16 2.2.3 T3 MCZs and MPA Spatial Management Review ...... 18 2.2.4 Minimum Conservation Reference Size Review ...... 21 2.3 Reviewing Fisheries Management Interventions ...... 23 2.3.1 Fisheries MP: Wrasse Monitoring and Control ...... 24 2.3.2 Fisheries MP: Poole Harbour Several Order (2020 Revision) ...... 24 2.3.3 Fisheries MP: Poole Harbour Shellfish Dredging ...... 26 2.3.4 Byelaw Review: ‘Prohibition of Gathering (Sea Fisheries Resources) in Seagrass’ Byelaw . 27 2.3.3 Permit Condition Review: SDPB ...... 27 2.5 Delays to work due to COVID-19 ...... 30 2.5.1 Poole Harbour Expansion Programme ...... 30

Annex A: Acronyms ...... 31

3

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

1.0 Introduction Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (IFCA) conduct research and gather evidence and information in order to provide a sound evidence base to underpin the decision-making processes of the Authority. This ensures that the Authority fulfils its functions as described under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, ensuring successful and sustainable governance of the inshore marine environment.

This Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy (“FMP Team Strategy”) sets out the priorities for the team for the period April 2021- March 2022, feeding directly from the delivery priorities identified in Southern IFCA’s Annual Plan for 2021 to 2022.

In order to deliver the Southern IFCA objectives moving forward and fulfil the Authorities functions as a competent management body, the Southern IFCA recognise the need to align its work to a strategic vision. With many competing objectives, it is important the Authority maintain a strategic overview in their delivery. This proactive way of working, with the recognition of the need to maintain a capacity for reactive and emerging work and oncoming challenges, will provide a template for the Authority moving forward.

The strategic direction for the years 2020-2021, as presented in this report will enable the Authority to be more transparent with our delivery partners, through anticipation of shared goals and objectives, and seek to encourage and complement future funding and joint working opportunities 1.1 Legislative Drivers Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities were created under Section 150 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MaCAA)1 as designated statutory inshore regulators for the marine environment. The National IFCA Vision, High Level Objectives and Success Criteria set out the intentions of the IFCAs to sustainably manage inshore fisheries and conservation in line with these mechanisms and wider UK and EU Legislations.

The Southern IFCA has clearly defined duties and responsibilities to ensure that the marine environment within the District is conserved and maintained in a viable state. The main duties for the Southern IFCA are identified within the MaCAA, Part 6 (Sections 153 and 154). In performing its duties under this legislation Southern IFCA must:

(a) Seek to ensure that the exploitation of sea fisheries resources is carried out in a sustainable way;

(b) Seek to balance the social and economic benefits of exploiting the sea fisheries resources of the District with the need to protect the marine environment from, or promote its recovery from, the effects of such exploitation;

(c) Take any other steps which in the authority’s opinion are necessary or expedient for the purpose of making a contribution to the achievement of sustainable development, and…

(d) Seek to balance the different needs of persons engaged in the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the District;

(e) Seek to ensure that the conservation objectives of any Marine Conservation Zones in the District are furthered.

1 The Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009), HMSO, London, pp.346 https://www.legistlation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/23/contents

4

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

In addition to IFCA’s responsibilities under the MaCAA, under other legislative frameworks, IFCAs have a statutory duty to ensure that:

 fishing activity does not damage, disturb or have an adverse effect on the wildlife or habitats for which a European Marine Site (EMS) is legally protected (Article 6 of the Habitats Directive)  when carrying out its duties, consideration is given of any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) with marine components giving protection to species and habitats of national importance (Sections 28g and 28i of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981)

Duties under Regulation 63 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, require Southern IFCA, as a competent authority, to make appropriate assessments of a plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a EMS (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects).

1.2 Community and Stakeholder Engagement Fundamental to the successful delivery of the IFCA Vision is working in partnership with the local community, stakeholders and partner agencies in the management of inshore fisheries. The principles of collaboration and community participation are embedded across all aspects of the Southern IFCA model. With facilitation of public engagement and participation being at the heart of Southern IFCAs work, the Authority ensure diversity in the contribution of knowledge and experience from all relevant marine sections, which further enables a coordinated and sustainable approach when managing inshore fisheries.

On a quarterly basis a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting is held, which brings together technical experts from across the Southern IFCA District. The TAC membership comprises the general members of the Authority, as appointed by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), for their expertise in local fisheries and/or the marine environment, as well as members from the Marine Management Organsiation, The Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England (NE).

Underpinned by the ‘Evidence Based Marine Management Cycle’2 (guidance provided to the IFCA by Defra) the TAC ensures community engagement at all stages of the decision-making process. The use of this framework ensures consistency and transparency, ensuring that the IFCA are accountable to the stakeholder community at all stages of operational delivery (when defining the issue, when developing and appraising options, when implementing options and when evaluating and adapting options).

In turn, stakeholder participation seeks to empower the community and increase both responsibility and accountability, whilst also encouraging mutually beneficial shared understandings. It also supports the delivery of more effective, bespoke and tailored inshore fisheries management, promoting a holistic approach to the management of inshore fisheries.

Southern IFCA appreciates the need to work closely with a range of organisations including other IFCAs, Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and local authorities in the gathering of evidence and strives to develop joint projects and facilitate the sharing of ideas and resources. Partnership working is key to the delivery of many of the projects identified in this report and the involvement of many of the above-mentioned partners will ensure that robust evidence is gathered and any resultant management measures adopted are proportionate.

The FMP Team also host annual internships in partnership with local universities. Applications are invited through an open and competitive process.

2 http://www.association-ifca.org.uk/Upload/About/2011-ifca-guide-marine%20management.pdf

5

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

1.3 The FMP Team Function The Southern IFCA Fisheries Management & Policy Team (FMP) are tasked to facilitate the delivery of the Authorities’ legislative duties, and in doing so, seek to improve the sustainability of marine fisheries and the marine environment, whilst supporting local communities who are reliant upon these resources.

Working under the Chief Officer, the FMP Team is led by a Deputy Chief Officer. A Senior Fisheries Officer (Conservation and Research) provides line management to four Conservation and Research Specialists.

The FMP Team have three core functions:

 Monitoring inshore fisheries;  Developing inshore fisheries management interventions;  Reviewing fisheries management interventions.

The FMP Team operate in a consistent and methodical way, for example, where an issue is identified (e.g., compromised sustainability of a specific fishery), a vision will be set for that fishery moving forward, we will seek to gather evidence and begin to evolve and implement management measures (where necessary), with the aim to achieve an end goal which will draw numerous workstreams together to enable the delivery of a fisheries management plan.

Underpinning all of the work undertaken by the FMP Team is a data management capability and Geographic Information System (GIS) expertise. GIS enables Southern IFCA to visualise, analyse and interpret data collected in order to better understand trends and relationships on a spatial scale. GIS is a valuable resource which is used by Southern IFCA, for example, to support stakeholder engagement and consultations through the use of visual aids; to represent activity data (fishing effort); to map sensitive habitats and designated Marine Protected Area (MPA) features to inform management; to map byelaws and to help with the planning and undertaking of surveys.

As the FMP Team has increased its capability in the research field through the undertaking of increasingly complex surveys and collection of more data, an increased GIS capability has been essential, providing more detailed analysis and the opportunity to effectively deliver the work the evidence team has been undertaking

1.3.1 Monitoring Inshore Fisheries

Stock Assessments and surveys

One function of the FMP Team is to conduct stock assessments and surveys in order to contribute to the IFCAs understanding of the marine environment and fisheries resources therein. This data is used to complement and provide a sound evidence base to aid the Authority in its decision-making process necessary to achieve successful and sustainable management, whilst protecting the marine environment.

Surveys and stock assessments are either gathered on an annual basis to support existing management within the District, whilst others may be undertaken on a more ad hoc basis in order to support a particular evidence need.

6

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

Marine Assets

To facilitate in the undertaking of stock assessments and surveys, Southern IFCA seek to work with local fishermen through the chartering of fishing vessels for the purposes of undertaking survey work. This not only utilises local industry knowledge but also provides an important opportunity for stakeholders to play a key part in the collection of evidence for their fisheries.

The Authority also has access to a range of specialist survey equipment including underwater video cameras, side-scan sonar and sediment grabs. In addition to our own assets, Southern IFCA have established Memorandum of Understandings with local and national research institutions, allowing the use of additional survey equipment where necessary.

Southern IFCA has three Fisheries Protection Vessels located across the District. These vessels have a secondary role in survey work, with their main focus aligned with compliance and enforcement objectives.

1.3.2 Developing Fisheries Management Interventions

Byelaw Making Process

Section 155 of the MaCAA, describes how IFCAs have the power to make byelaws.

(1) For the purposes of performing the duty imposed by section 153 or the duty imposed by section 154, the authority for an IFC District may make byelaws for that District.

(2) Byelaws made under this section must be observed within the District for which they are made.

(3) A byelaw made under this section does not have effect until it is confirmed by the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State may confirm a byelaw without modification or with such modifications as are agreed to by the IFC authority that made the byelaw.

(5) Before confirming a byelaw, the Secretary of State may cause a local inquiry to be held.

IFCAs are responsible for producing byelaws within their Districts, which includes such part of the English inshore region lying six nautical miles from baselines. Byelaws must be compatible with and cannot be less stringent or inconsistent with National or Community legislation.

Policy Documents

In accordance with Section 153(3) of the MaCAA, Defra have issued IFCAs with best practice Guidance3 on making byelaws. IFCA must have regard to this guidance when carrying out their functions. The guidance outlines best practice for the delivery and implementation of byelaws, which must be based on sound evidence, follow particular decision-making routes and ensure undertaking of appropriate stakeholder consultations.

In addition to the Defra Guidance, Southern IFCA developed a Fisheries Management Interventions Process Document ‘(Process Document’) in 2019 (updated January 2021) to further promote

3 http://www.association-ifca.org.uk/Upload/About/ifca-byelaw-guidance.pdf

7

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk consistency and transparency in the delivery of management interventions and to clarify the stages of complex fisheries and MPA management development. It is important to note that this document does not replace the Statutory Guidance provided by Defra; rather it seeks to complement it, breaking down the evolution of management into five clear and distinct stages.

A Management Intervention Process Map (Figure 1) which sits within the Process Document further aims to demonstrate the roles and responsibilities of the Authority and its sub-committees in the decision-making process. This process map is not intended to be a binding document, rather it seeks to provide a useful tool, which provides context for the delivery of complex management relevant to the Southern IFCA Authority.

Figure 1: Management Intervention Process Map (see Annex for list of Acronyms)

Further information on the development of both statutory and non-statutory management interventions can be found in The Southern IFCA Fisheries Management Interventions Process Document4 1.4.3 Reviewing Fisheries Management Interventions Following the implementation of a management intervention within the District, Southern IFCA are committed to reviewing the performance of statutory and non-statutory measures to ensure that inshore fisheries management is underpinned by the latest and best available evidence in order to achieve sustainable fisheries management.

Monitoring of fisheries may take the form of either a Fisheries Management Plan (MP) or via a Byelaw and/or Permit Condition Review. Where relevant, fisheries monitoring and/or reviews are undertaken in conjunction with a review of existing Habitat Regulation Assessments (HRAs) to ensure that on-going compatibility between fishing activity and conservation objectives are achieved.

Fisheries Management Plans

4 Available at www.southern‐ifca.gov.uk

8

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

Fisheries MPs are designed to analyse the current situation within a particular fishery and identify objectives to help that fishery develop sustainably. The objectives of a Fisheries MP should consider sustainability, protection of the marine environment, socio economic aspects and balancing the needs of different stakeholders. The Fisheries MP outlines how these objectives can be achieved, which may include identifying that new management measures or a review of current management is required. Timelines and milestones for achieving these objectives are set within a Fisheries MP, along with a system for collation of best available evidence for the fishery in question, including identification of where further evidence gathering may need to be undertaken. For established fisheries a Fisheries MP may set out a system of monitoring and a framework for feedback and review to ensure that the objectives for the fishery continue to be met.

For note, the following documents all fall under the umbrella term of a Fisheries MP:

 Management Plans;  Monitoring and Control Plans;  Management Intentions Documents.

Byelaw Reviews

IFCA byelaw making guidance states that IFCAs should continually monitor the effectiveness of their byelaws. When they are no longer effective, they should be repealed or modified. Section 158 of the MaCAA makes provision for byelaws to cease to have an effect after a specified period (i.e., a “sunset clause”). Where possible and in line with best practice, IFCA byelaws seek to include either a sunset clause or a specified review point within the conditions of the byelaws.

Permit Condition Reviews

A Permit Byelaw provides a mechanism under which the introduction of specific measures can be introduced via permit conditions in accordance with the procedure set out in the Permit Byelaw and supporting documents.

Having the ability to flexibly manage fishing activities under a Permit Byelaw, enables the Authority to introduce bespoke management as new and improved evidence becomes available. This is carried out in consultation with permit holders and any interested parties. This evidence may include improved knowledge of the impact of an activity covered by the Permit Byelaw, or a better understanding of the status of a stock or of the suitability of a gear type towards harvesting, or to manage the emergence of a new fishery.

Figure 2 attempts to provide a process map for undertaking a Permit Condition Review. This process map is not intended to be a binding, rather it seeks to provide a useful guide upon which Permit Condition reviews can be delivered.

9

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

Figure 2: Permit Condition Review: Process Map

2.0 The FMP Team Delivery Priorities 2021-2022 The FMP Team delivery priorities draw directly from those identified in the Southern IFCA Annual Plan for the period 2021-2022. This strategy translates these priorities into clear, outcome focussed objectives for the FMP Team in the context of the FMP Team’s key work areas.

More detailed objectives and timelines for each of the workstreams are provided in the body of each section. The overall aim of the work delivery is to provide a sound evidence base to aid the Authority in its decision-making process, in order to achieve successful and sustainable management, whilst protecting the marine environment.

2.1 Monitoring Inshore Fisheries Please note that due to Government restrictions as a direct result of the Covid-19 pandemic it was agreed at the meeting of the TAC on the 7th May 2020 that all survey work would be postponed until further notice and that where possible the Authority would continue to support ongoing evidence requirements.

This decision was founded on the following considerations:

 Social distancing requirements;  Prolonged exposure to stakeholders;  The number of IFCA staff required;  An increased reliance on stakeholders working independently from IFCA staff

In late 2020, updated risk assessments and methodologies were developed in order to support a return to data collection where possible. At the TAC on the 5th February 2021, it was agreed that the following surveys (as identified in column one of Table 1) would be able to proceed during the 2021-2022 reporting period, some of which would be subject to specific changes required in order to ensure that the surveys can take place in a safe manner, consistent with government guidance.

As such, it is the intention of the Authority to proceed with the following Monitoring Programme for the period April 2021-March 2022, however delivery of this timetable will remain subject to change in order to adhere to the latest Government guidelines (Table 1).

10

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

Table 1: Monitoring Programme: April 2021‐ March 2022

COVID Time Survey Lead Date Species Area Aim Outcomes STATUS series 2016 (1) Feed into time series; PROCEED Poole 2017 (1) To inform management of Poole Clam Clam and Poole (2) Collect CPUE data; with Bivalve SB Apr 2018 and Cockle Fishery under the PHDP Cockle Harbour (3) Collect biometric information amendments Survey 2019 Byelaw, (2) to support MSC certification on populations 2020 (1) Set a baseline for current (1) Informs management under Poole Pacific Pacific Poole levels of Pacific Oyster in Poole. PROCEED SB Apr NEW Several Order 2015 Management Plan Oyster oysters Harbour (2) Collect Biometric Information (aquaculture lease beds) on the species. Solent (1) support development of Code of scallop King (1) Improve understandings of Conduct PROCEED PC Apr Solent NEW Stock scallops emerging Fishery (2) Inform management under SDPB permit Ass. conditions (post Nov 2021) (1) Provide understanding of value 2016 (1) Engagement with stakeholders Poole, Small of estuaries for juvenile fish; 2017 (2) Development of a dataset highlighting Ongoing May Estuarine Newtown, Fish SP (2) Stakeholder engagement; 2018 the importance of estuaries to certain review /Jun Fish Species Yarmouth, Survey (3) Collect biometric information 2019 species. Fleet. on fish species. 2020 (3) Inform Marine Licence applications 2014 2015 Solent (1) Provide CPUE data 2016 Ongoing Oyster Jul Native PC Solent (2) Collect biometric information 2017 Inform management under the SDPB. review Stock /Aug Oyster on population 2018 Ass. 2019 2020 (1) provide a 5-year baseline of CPUE data Solent (1) Feed into time series; 2017 (2) Informs management under Solent Portsmouth Ongoing Bivalve Clam and (2) Collect CPUE data; 2018 Dredge Fishing Byelaw (pre-Nov 2021) PC Oct Langstone & Review Stock Cockle (3) Collect biometric information 2019 (3) Informs management under the SDPB S’ton Water Ass. on populations 2020 (post Nov 2021)

(1) Engagement with stakeholders Small Poole, 2016 Provide understanding of value of (2) Development of a dataset highlighting Ongoing Fish Estuarine Newtown, 2017 SP Oct Estuaries for juvenile fish; the importance of estuaries to certain review Survey Fish Species Yarmouth, 2018 Stakeholder engagement; species. Autumn Fleet. 2019 (3) Inform Marine Licence applications

11

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

20205 To provide a 5-year baseline of CPUE data Solent Feed into time series; 2017 to inform any future management in the Bivalve Portsmouth Collect CPUE data for clam and 2018 Solent bivalves fisheries. Authority have Ongoing Clam and Stock PC Mar Langstone & cockle species; 2019 committed to this under the SDPB Review Cockle Ass. S’ton Water Collect biometric information on 2020 Management Intentions Document. Informs (Spring) clam and cockle populations; 2021 management under Solent Dredge Fishing Byelaw and SDPB (pending) Grey and JS -Nov- Collection of samples direct from 2020 The evidence will feed directly into the PROCEED Mullet thick lipped District wide SP Jan industry. 2021 scheduled MCRS review. mullet Gilt Head JS Nov- Gilt head Collection of samples direct from The evidence will feed directly into the PROCEED District wide NEW Bream SP Jan bream industry. scheduled MCRS review. 4 sites Collect samples from industry to The evidence will feed directly into the JS PROCEED Whelk Jun Whelk across be analysed by a University to NEW scheduled MCRS review and the Potting SP District feed into SoM study Review.

5 Partially achieved due to Government Restrictions in place at the time of survey undertaking.

12

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

2.2 Developing Fisheries Management Interventions This section identifies the anticipated delivery priorities for the FMP Team in the context of the Management Intervention Process Map for the period April 2021- March 2022 (Section 1.3.2, Figure 1).

The priority areas of work will be:

 Inshore Netting Review Phase 1  Inshore Potting Review  Tranche 3 Marine Conservation Zones  Minimum Conservation Reference Size Review

Table 2: Developing Fisheries Management Interventions: Authority Meeting Timetable. To be read in conjunction with Management Intervention Process Map (Section 1.3.2, Figure 1)

Annual Plan Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Priorities 2021- Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2022 TAC AM TAC AM TAC AM TAC AM

Stage 4: Stage 4: Inshore Netting Stage 3 Stage 3 Make Approve Review: Phase 1 Byelaw Byelaw

Stage 4: Stage 4: agement Interventions Inshore Potting Stage 3 Make Approve Review Byelaw Byelaw

T3 MCZs/MPA Stage 1: Stage 2: Spatial Stage 2: Stage 1 Determine Stage 2 Determine Management SoR Actions Actions Review

Stage 1: Stage 2: Stage 2: MCRS Review Stage 1 Determine Stage 2 Determine SoR Actions Actions Developing Fisheries Man

13

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

2.2.1 Inshore Netting Review Phase 1 Coverage: District wide harbours and estuaries

Responsibilities: Lead Officer: SP, Supporting Officer: SB

This review began in 2017 in response to the outcomes of the Southern IFCA Review of Management Measures (2015). Southern IFCA have committed to delivering this work under both annual plan priorities (2018/2019 and 2019/2020) as well as the Southern IFCA Five-Year Legislative Forecast (2019-2023). This workstream also complements the wider work within DEFRA, with regard to a proposed review of Bass Nursey Areas.

Overview & Objectives

Following Authority consideration, Members identified their objectives to review and, if necessary, develop netting regulations to: i. Support the use of estuaries and harbours by bass and other fish populations as nursery and refuge areas; ii. Provide protection to migratory fish species as they transit through, and reside within our estuaries and harbours; iii. Balance the social and economic benefits and different needs of users in exploiting the fishery iv. To further the conservation objectives for Designated Sites.

Work to date

A Netting Review Working Group (WG) has been active since 2017. This WG has undertaken a phased approach to the review, focussing on (1) potential areas of Salmonid interactions within estuaries and harbours; (2) nursery species; (3) socio-economic impacts and (4) by-catch. Underpinned by the best available evidence, an 8-week ‘call for information’ concluded in December 2018. During this ‘call for information’ a series of public drop and user group focussed meetings were held across the District. Following receipt of 269 written and verbal responses a Summary of Responses document was prepared in January 2018. The WG analysed additional evidence received and, during 2019, drafted management proposals. These management proposals were subject to additional pre-consultation in early 2020. Between June and December 2020 remote WGs (due to COVID-19) met on 8 occasions to discuss the draft management measures in the context of the HRA and SSSI Assessments.

In February 2021 the TAC considered the proposed management interventions in the context of the informal advice received from NE and the draft Impact Assessment for the fisheries. A further WG was held in March to finalise the proposed management interventions.

Planned work for 2021-2022

It is the intention that a further WG is held in April 2021 to explore the proposed management intentions in the context of the Authority’s roles and responsibilities under both the MaCAA and The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Following this WG, it is anticipated that in May 2021, the Members of the TAC will be invited to finalise the proposed management interventions and the HRA documents, in order to enable Officers to begin finalising a draft Net Fishing Byelaw and all associated supporting documentation.

A further WG will be held prior to August 2021 in order to discuss the Access Policy.

14

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

At the meeting of the TAC in August, Members will be invited to consider the final draft of the Byelaw and supporting documentation. At this meeting, it will be recommended that the Members of the Authority are notified of the intention to make a Byelaw. Following this, the making of the Byelaw will be considered at the September Authority Meeting.

Figure 3: Inshore Netting Review: Planned Work 2021‐2022

15

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

2.2.2 Inshore Potting Review Coverage: District wide

Species: crustaceans (crabs and lobsters), gastropods (whelks) and cephalopods (cuttlefish)

Delivery: Lead Officer: SP, Supporting Officer: CS

This review began in 2018 in response to the outcomes of the Southern IFCA Review of Management Measures (2015) which identified Static Fishing Gear Management as one of five focus areas for the Authority following public consultation. Southern IFCA have committed to delivering this work under both annual plan priorities (2018/2019 and 2019/2020) as well as the Southern IFCA Five-Year Legislative Forecast (2019-2023).

Overview and Objectives

This review focusses on the sustainability of whelk, crab, lobster as well as cuttlefish in order to support coastal communities and the future sustainability of inshore pot fishing. These fisheries are widely distributed across the District and support valuable inshore fisheries and communities. Currently there are no local management initiatives focused on these fisheries.

Work to date

In April 2018 Southern IFCA hosted a ‘Call for Information’ as the first stage in the review of inshore pot fisheries. The objectives of the Call for Information were to: 1. engage with the local community to further Southern IFCAs understanding of the Districts pot fisheries; 2. seek views from the community on existing management measures within the District’s pot fisheries; 3. seek views from the community on suggested approaches to support the sustainable harvesting of shellfish stocks which could support and further enhance the District’s pot fisheries;

In response to the ‘Call for Information’ the majority of stakeholders felt that there was a need to review the existing management measures in both the recreational and commercial shellfish fisheries. A Summary of Responses to the ‘Call for information’ was prepared in December 2018.

In July 2019, Members of the Southern IFCA Authority attended a WG in order to consider the responses to the ‘Call for Information’ alongside other scientific and economic evidence. Following this Working Group, a recommendation was made to the TAC in August 2019, where it was agreed that draft management measures (to include both voluntary and statutory) were to be further developed in the following areas:

1. Recreational pot fisheries 2. Commercial whelk fisheries 3. Commercial Cuttlefish fisheries

In line with the recommendations made at the TAC in August 2019 a further three WGs were held between October 2019 and February 2020. During these, Members considered Evidence Packages specific to the pot fisheries in order to build a picture of the fishery under review. This information included quantitative information based on current effort data, literature reviews providing details of species ecology, details of local fishing practice (social and economic) as well as information on gear

16

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk types and methods. In addition, up to date and historic stock assessments were also analysed in order to map the fishery over time.

Following the WG in February 2020, it was the intention of the Authority to proceed to public consultation following approval at the meeting of the Authority in March 2020. In direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this meeting was cancelled. Following a COVID-19 workstream review, it was agreed at the meeting of the TAC on the 7th May 2020 that the planned public consultation with the community was to be temporarily put on hold due to (1) a need to prioritise other areas of work which could be achieved via remote delivery and (2) with consideration of the challenges presented in delivery of public consultation under the Government guidelines (specifically the ability of the Authority to deliver work from a remote location, as well as complying with social distancing measures).

COVID-19 contingency planning has remained under constant review since early 2020. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and with consideration of how the Authority have historically engaged with industry and all interested parties during public consultations, Southern IFCA considered a refined approach to engagement, designed specifically to enable the Inshore Potting Review public consultation to proceed, as agreed at the November 2020 TAC.

The period of public consultation concluded on the 15th January 2021 with a total of 110 responses received. A Summary of Responses document was presented to the TAC in February 2021. In March 2021 the Authority committed to the Potting Review entering Stage 3 of the Byelaw Making Process.

Planned work for 2021-2022

Figure 4: Inshore Potting Review: Planned Work 2021‐2022

17

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

2.2.3 T3 MCZs and MPA Spatial Management Review To incorporate:

1) Newly designated T3 MCZs: Yarmouth to Cowes, Bembridge, Southbourne Rough, Studland Bay, Purbeck Coast, South of Portland, were designated within the Southern District.

2) Additional features added to existing MCZs: Poole Rocks and Chesil Beach & Stennis Ledges.

3) Review of existing spatial management under 2016 BTFG and IHG Byelaws: EMS reef features (including Lyme Bay, Studland to Portland and South Wight SACs), EMS seagrass features (including Poole Harbour and Solent-based SPAs and SACs), Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges MCZ (additional features designated under T3), The Needles MCZ (additional seagrass data), Poole Harbour SSSI (Sabella pavonina).

Delivery: Lead Officer: SP, Supporting Officer: PC

Overview

The Authority has duties to manage fisheries within Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) and must seek to ensure that, in relation to fishing activity, the conservation objectives of any MCZ in the District are furthered. A third tranche of MCZs were designated on the 31st May 2019. Of these, six new sites were designated within the Southern District and additional features were added to two existing MCZs.

Southern IFCA undertake a staged approached when assessing the potential impact of fishing activities within MCZs:

 Stage 1: the initial screening of fishing activities within the MCZ to determine whether an activity occurs or is anticipated to occur. A risk matrix system is used to support this approach;  Stage 2: activities which are not screened out are subject to a Part A Assessment. This assessment seeks to identify pressures capable of significantly affecting designated features and their related processes;  Stage 3: fishing activities and their associated pressures are then subject to more detailed Part B Assessments. These assessments are undertaken on a gear type basis and seek to determine whether there is a significant risk of the activity hindering the conservation objectives of the MCZ

Given the number of designated features within the third tranche of MCZs, the Authority, in 2019 committed to adopt a risk-based, phased approach to the management of these sites, with assessments broken down into the following five broad categories:

 Priority 1: Bottom towed fishing gears (BTFG);  Priority 2: Intertidal hand gathering (IHG);  Priority 3: Static fishing gear:  Priority 4: Nets/Lines:  Priority 5: Diving.

Work to date

Priority 1: BTFG: All MCZ assessments (Stages 1-3 as above) for BTFG activity against features within the newly designated Tranche 3 MCZs were undertaken between November 2019 and February 2020. Following the TAC in February 2020, the Authority recommended that these assessments were sent to NE for formal comment. Formal comments were received in August 2020.

18

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

In addition, a scheduled review of the existing BTFG Byelaw 2016 has been incorporated into this area of work in order to assess the existing management measures in place under the 2016 Byelaw against the most recent and best available evidence. Since 2016, additional spatial and feature evidence has become available to the Authority. In some cases, this evidence can provide additional confidence in the existing geographical boundaries of the BTFG Byelaw which seek to protect MPA features and in others, realignment of boundaries may be necessary to either protect the MPA features within, or realign boundaries based upon a higher resolution of data regarding the feature location. Sensitive marine features that receive protection outside of the MPA network such as Sabella pavonina (Poole Harbour SSSI) or seagrass, would also be considered to be at potential risk to damage from BTFG activities and will therefore be considered for protection under this review. Southern IFCA have committed to delivering this work under the Southern IFCA Five-Year Legislative Forecast (2021-2023).

Priority 2: IHG: All MCZ assessments (Stages 1-3 as above) of IHG activities against features within the newly designated Tranche 3 MCZs were undertaken between Dec 2019 and April 2020. The assessments were presented to the TAC in May 2020 prior to being sent to NE for formal comment. Formal comments were received in January 2021, confirming that NE agrees with the conclusion of the Assessments.

In addition, a scheduled review of the existing Southern IFCA Byelaw Review: ‘Prohibition of Gathering (Sea Fisheries Resources) in Seagrass Byelaw (2016) has been incorporated into this area of work in order to assess the existing management measures in place under the 2016 Byelaw in the context of the most recent and best available evidence. The Southern IFCA ‘Prohibition of Gathering (Sea Fisheries Resources) in Seagrass Beds’ Byelaw was made in June 2013 and received Secretary of State confirmation on 20th December 2013. The byelaw was created to protect areas of European Marine Site seagrass features within the Southern IFCA District from damage caused through intertidal gathering activities. This byelaw underwent its first review in November 2016. Southern IFCA have committed to delivering this work under the Southern IFCA Five-Year Legislative Forecast (2021-2023).

Priority 3: Static fishing gear: MCZ Assessments (Stages 1-3 above) for static fishing gear activity against features within the newly designated Tranche 3 MCZs began in April 2020. Formal advice from NE on the Part A Assessments were received in January 2021.

Priorities 4 & 5: Nets, Lines & Diving: MCZ Assessments for Nets, Lines ad Diving against features within newly designated T3 sites began in August 2020.

Planned work for 2021-2022

Priority 1&2: BTFG & IHG It is the intention to hold a WG in April 2021 to discuss the formal advice received from NE on both the BTFG and IHG assessments, in order to determine whether there is a need to consider further spatial management options under each of the byelaws.

19

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

Figure 5: T3 MCZ and MPA Spatial Management Review: Planned Work 2021‐2022

Priority 3: Static fishing gear

It is the intention for Part B Assessments to be considered at the TAC in May 2021, prior to being sent to NE for formal advice.

Priorities 4 and 5: Nets, Lines and Diving

It is anticipated that the Part A Assessments for Nets, Lines and Diving will be sent to NE during spring 2021.

Some of the MCZs in Dorset include objectives with regards to the management of Black Bream. Any future management intervention in this fishery will be informed by data on the location and extent of bream within the MCZs. It is anticipated that Natural England will begin survey work in April 2021, in order to further understandings of the extent and location of Black Bream within the District. Southern IFCA will continue to work with local and national partners in order to support this process and maintain active engagement in the community throughout.

20

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

2.2.4 Minimum Conservation Reference Size Review Coverage: District Wide

Species: Crustaceans: crab (edible, velvet, spinous spider) lobster, crawfish, Bivalves: clam (Manila, American hard-shelled, grooved carpetshell, warty venus, surf, razor), scallop (King & Queen), Gastropods: whelk, Skates & Rays: , blonde ray, cuckoo ray, small-eyed ray, spotted ray, starry ray, thornback ray, undulate ray, sandy ray, shagreen ray, common stingray , Fin-fish: black seabream, gilthead seabream, European bass, pollack, grey mullet, red mullet, cod, whiting, conger eel, mackerel, horse mackerel, wrasse (ballan, corkwing, goldsinny, rock cook, cuckoo),Sharks: lesser spotted dogfish, starry smooth hound, common smooth hound, bull huss, spur dog, Flatfish: plaice, brill, turbot, flounder, Dover sole, lemon sole, dab, witch flounder. Additional species may also be considered.

Delivery: Lead Officer: SP, Supporting Officer: JS

Overview and Objectives

The majority of commercial species caught within the Southern IFCA District are subject to a Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) previously known as Minimum Landing Size or Minimum Legal Size. This measure prevents individuals below a set size from being removed from the fishery. The application of MCRS is an effective tool for the sustainable management of fisheries and enables the sustainable development of fisheries within the District.

Southern IFCA has committed under the Southern IFCA Five-Year Legislative Forecast to begin to review MCRS for key species in the District during the years 2021-2023.

Work to date

During 2020 Southern IFCA have been undertaking an extensive literature review based upon size of sexual maturity for commercial and recreational species in the District. The size at which 50% of a population reach maturity is known as the L₅₀. This measure is often used to help establish appropriate MCRS as it ensures individuals can reproduce at least once before capture.

In addition, the best available evidence on reproductive biology, life history and social and economic value of each species has been compiled to help inform our understandings.

Where the literature review has identified gaps in our understanding of maturity for specific species, primary research has been undertaken, this includes:

 Grey mullet working with Plymouth University to investigate the size of maturity for thin-lipped (Liza ramada), golden-grey (Liza aurata) and thick-lipped grey mullet (Chelon labrosus) in the Southern IFCA District.  Gilthead bream (Sparus aurata) We have begun a pilot study to collect data on the size of maturity for gilthead bream in the District.

Planned work for 2021-2022

In April 2021 the MCRS Review will begin in line with the stages identified in Figure 6. In addition, and to support this process, Southern IFCA will continue to undertake primary research (grey mullet and gilthead bream) in order to address any evidence gaps.

In addition, in 2021 the Authority will begin to gather primary data on whelks (). Previous studies have found whelk populations across the Southern IFCA District mature at different sizes. We intend to collect samples across multiple sites within the District in order to improve our understanding of whelk maturity across the District.

21

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

Further, during 2021 the Authority will pursue potential collaborations with other IFCAs and organisations (to include Seafish and Bangor University), in order to collect data for skate and ray minimum size research. Specifically, posterior edge measurements to help identify a suitable method for assigning detached wing minimum sizes for skates and rays.

Figure 6: MCRS Review: Planned Work 2021‐2022

22

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

2.3 Reviewing Fisheries Management Interventions This section identifies the delivery priorities for the FMP team for the period April 2021- March 2022 in respect of both the review of established Fishery MPs and the review of existing byelaws and permit conditions in accordance with pre-determined timelines. The priority areas of work will be:

Table 3: Reviewing Fisheries Management Interventions: Authority Meeting Timetable

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Annual Plan Priorities 2021-2022 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar TAC TAC TAC AM TAC

Wrasse Monitoring & Control TBD

2021 Poole Harbour Several Order Plan Management Plan update Fisheries Management Poole HRA Plans Harbour Shellfish MSC Audit Dredging Management Poole Clam & Mid‐ End Plan Cockle Fishery term term Partnership Project update update Byelaw Prohibition of Gathering (Sea Fish In line with timetables set under 'T3 MCZs and MPA Spatial Management Review ‐Section 2.2.3 Reviews Resources) in Seagrass Beds Determine Finalise SDPB: Scallops Permit Actions Actions Condition Review SDPB: Pump scoop S1

23

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

2.3.1 Fisheries MP: Wrasse Monitoring and Control Review Frequency: Annual

Existing Management tool: Wrasse Fishery Guidance

Delivery: Lead Officer: CS

Work to date

The development of handline and fisheries for wrasse within a portion of the Studland to Portland Special Area of Conservation (SAC) led to the Authority undertaking Habitat Regulations Assessments for the activities in 2017. As a part of the mitigation, to ensure the fishery does not significantly affect the SAC, both Wrasse Fishery Guidance and a Monitoring and Control Plan were implemented alongside these assessments.

The Monitoring and Control Plan describes ‘Triggers for Assessment’. If trigger points are reached then a review of the fishery is to be activated in line with the Monitoring and Control Plan.

Wrasse Fishery Guidance introduced precautionary management measures, by way of a code of conduct. The code includes spatial management and seasonal restrictions (to minimise fishing impacts during the spawning season). Minimum and maximum sizes are applied to ensure an appropriate size range and sex ratio of fish remain in the wild and effort limitations. Additionally, the Code requires the submission of catch and buyer data.

During 2020 the Authority consulted on transposing the non-statutory MCRSs for four wrasse species (ballan wrasse:18cm, rock cook wrasse: 12cm, goldsinny wrasse: 12cm and corkwing wrasse: 14cm into legislation. These statutory provisions are current pending statutory approval under the Southern IFCA MCRS Byelaw which was made by the Authority in September 2020.

Planned work for 2020-2021

The Authority are committed to continue to review current voluntary measures in this fishery under the Monitoring and Control Plan and will continue to build an evidence base to inform any potential future management as determined by the Authority.

2.3.2 Fisheries MP: Poole Harbour Several Order (2020 Revision) Review Frequency: by 1st July annually

Existing Management tool: Poole Harbour Fishery Order 2015 and Poole Leases

Delivery: Lead Officer: SB

Overview

Southern IFCA manage aquaculture activity within a defined area of Poole Harbour under the Poole Harbour Fishery Order 2015 (‘the Order’). This is the largest Several Order in the UK. In accordance with Section (1) of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967, the Order confers on Southern IFCA the right of a several fishery for the cultivation of shellfish of any kind for a period of twenty years from the 1st July 2015.

24

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

Under Section (3) of the Order, the Authority must manage the aquaculture in Poole Harbour in line with the Management Plan entitled Poole Harbour Several Order 2015 Management Plan (‘Management Plan’).

Under Section (4) of the Order, the Authority are required to undertake an annual review of the Management Plan. If, during this review any significant changes are made to the Management Plan, then the Authority must notify, in writing any interested parties of any proposed changes at least four weeks before the date of its annual publication (1st July). The Authority must, prior to publication of the updated Management Plan, take account of any representations it receives in writing from any interested party on the proposed changes.

The management of aquaculture within Poole Harbour must have specific regard to Southern IFCAs responsibilities:

 as defined in sections (153), (154) and (166) of the MaCAA;  In addition, Southern IFCA is a Relevant Authority in the management of EMS designated under the Habitats Directive and has a statutory responsibility to ensure that fishing activity does not damage, disturb or have an adverse effect on the wildlife or habitats for which a EMS has been designated. This includes the governance of the conservation interests of the Poole Harbour SPA;  Under sections (28G) and (28I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981, IFCAs are required to have consideration of any SSSI with marine components giving protection to species and habitats of national importance when carrying out its duties. This includes the governance of the conservation interests of the Poole Harbour SSSI.  The Management Plan also has regard to the Poole Harbour Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention.

In 2020, the original Poole Harbour Several Order 2015 Management Plan was updated in order to incorporate the following review drivers: a) The expiration of the first tranche of lease bed allocation on the 30th June 2020;

b) A reallocation of lease beds grounds (where relevant) under the second tranche of lease bed allocation, in order to reflect the changes in conservation designations in Poole Harbour, specifically with regard to the expansion of the Poole Harbour SSSI in 2018 and the extension of the Poole Harbour SPA in 2017;

c) A review and update of the conditions under the terms of lease allocation in line with advice received from NE regarding the farming of Pacific oysters in Poole Harbour

d) A review and update of the conditions under the terms of lease allocation in line with advice received from the Poole Harbour Commissioners (PHC) with regard to the leasing of grounds within a designated area for personal watercraft.

Planned work for 2021-2022

In line with the requirements under The Order, an annual review of the Management Plan will be undertaken in April 2021. If there are any changes made to the Management Plan then it will be presented to the TAC in May 2021. If the Authority deems these changes to be significant then the Management Plan will be subject to a period of formal consultation prior to publication before the 1st July 2021.

25

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

2.3.3 Fisheries MP: Poole Harbour Shellfish Dredging Frequency: Annual

Management tool: Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw

Delivery: Lead Officer: SB

The Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw (PHDPB), which was introduced in 2015, regulates dredging for shellfish in Poole Harbour. Under the PHDPB, the Authority issues a restricted number of permits annually, with accompanying conditions, which include catch restrictions and catch reporting, permitted gear types and construction and spatial and temporal restrictions.

(1) HRA

The fishery operates within the boundary of the Poole Harbour SPA, SSSI and Ramsar Site. As such, Southern IFCA are required to undertake an annual HRA prior to issuing of permits. The purpose of the HRA is to determine whether fishing methods are compatible with the conservation objectives of the site. The outcomes of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) annual audit (below) and the Poole Clam and Cockle Fishery Partnership Project (below) will feed into the annual review of the HRA and, where relevant be used to inform governance of the clam and cockle fishery under the Poole Harbour Shellfish Management Plan.

(2) MSC Audit

In March 2018 the Poole Harbour clam and cockle fishery was certified by the MSC as a , in addition to achieving recognition under the Responsible Fishing Scheme (RFS). This achievement of dual awards is a global first for any fishery and of particular significance given the MPA status of Poole Harbour. There are ongoing conditions associated with the certification of the fishery and Southern IFCA undertake an annual audit of the fishery to ensure that it maintains compatibility with the objectives of the MSC certification. In particular these conditions relate to Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species. The outcomes of the annual audit further inform the HRA.

(3) Poole Clam and Cockle Fishery Partnership Project

Following confirmation of funding from the Ocean Stewardship Fund (OSF) Program of the MSC in October 2020, Southern IFCA will work with partners (Dorset Wildlife Trust (DWT), Poole and District Fisherman’s Association (PDFA) and Noctiluca Marine Consulting) on the Poole Clam and Cockle Fishery Partnership Project. This project will begin in March 2021 through till February 2022.

The Poole Clam and Cockle Fishery Partnership Project aims to (1) establish, through a system of co- management via a partnership approach, a process by which fishers can minimise interactions with ETP species, (2) increase awareness of ETP species in Dorset and to promote the benefits of fishers as sentinels for the recording of ETP interactions via a voluntary approach rather than through the introduction of a fishing restriction, (3) demonstrate a model of best practice for MSC fisheries in the management of ETP interactions, and (4) provide a blue print approach to support the attainment of MSC certification in other fisheries within MPAs.

26

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

2.3.4 Byelaw Review: ‘Prohibition of Gathering (Sea Fisheries Resources) in Seagrass’ Byelaw Review Frequency: Due 2021

Existing Management tool: ‘Prohibition of Gathering (Sea Fisheries Resources) in Seagrass’ Byelaw (2016)

Delivery: Lead Officer: SP, Supporting Officer: PC

The Southern IFCA ‘Prohibition of Gathering (Sea Fisheries Resources) in Seagrass Beds’ Byelaw was made in June 2013 and received Secretary of State confirmation on 20th December 2013. The byelaw was created to protect areas of European Marine Site seagrass features within the Southern IFCA District from damage caused through intertidal gathering activities. This byelaw underwent its first review in November 2016 and is now due its second review in line with the commitments made under the Southern IFCA Five-Year Legislative Forecast (2021-2023).

The review of this Byelaw has been incorporated into the MPA Spatial Management Review work (Section 2.2.3).

2.3.3 Permit Condition Review: SDPB Management tool: Solent Dredge Permit Byelaw

Delivery: Lead Officer: PC

Overview of SDPB

The Solent Dredge Permit Byelaw (SDPB) is a single coherent management tool developed in order to govern fishing activities within the Solent bivalve fisheries, to allow for adaptive and flexible management, underpinned and directed by the best available evidence. Following ratification of the Permit Byelaw by the Secretary of State in October 2020, the SDPB is to be implemented in November 2021. The SDPB will regulate the harvesting of bivalves in the Solent though the annual issue of permits.

Part 1: Solent scallops

Over recent years a small-scale winter scallop (Pectin maximus) fishery emerged in the Solent. This has typically spanned from Osborne Bay on the North East of the Isle of Wight to No Man’s Land Fort further East near Seaview.

More recently this fishery has expanded over both a longer duration and geographical extent. During 2020 this fishery lasted approximately four months, targeted by six vessels at any one time from a larger pool of local boats. This fishery has provided an alternative focus for fishers who may have typically harvested native oysters or clams during the winter period, who have in more recent years been restricted due to temporary closures of shellfish beds and/or poor water quality impacting shellfish classifications in some areas.

A number of fishers in the Solent asked for Southern IFCA to consider management intervention in this emerging fishery to ensure its future sustainability. In response to this, Southern IFCA undertook an engagement and evidence gathering exercise in late 2020. This ‘Call for Information’ aimed to address any evidence gaps and gather any information relating to the fisheries in question.

27

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

Following a review of the responses, coupled with all other relevant evidence at a WG in January 2021, it was determined at the meetings of the TAC in February 2021 that the Authority would develop a Code of Conduct which was formalised at the Meeting of the Authority in March 2021.

Planned work for 2021-2022

It is the intention for a Code of Conduct to be implemented in April 2021, prior to a review of the non- statutory measures in November 2021. This review will be carried out with SDPB Permit Holders and any other interested party at a Solent Bivalve Community Forum. The Authority will then be in a position to consider, following the outcomes of the Community Forum, whether to transpose the Code of Conduct into Permit Conditions (under the SDPB) or to continue to manage the fishery under a Code of Conduct.

Figure 7: Solent scallops: Planned Work 2021‐2022

28

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

Part 2: Pump scoop fishery

The Authority are committed to improving their knowledge of the impacts of various methods of fishing and over time additional evidence may be developed to better inform management.

Following the pending implementation of the SDPB on the 1st November 2021, the Authority will be working with the fishing industry to develop an evidence base to support and explore the potential reintroduction of a pump scoop fishery in the Solent. In order to do this Southern IFCA will continue to work with Defra to seek revocation of Statutory Instrument No. 2696 The Solent European Marine Site (Prohibition of Method of Dredging) Order 2004.

Planned work for 2021-2022

Figure 8: Solent Pump Scoop Fishery: Planned Work 2021‐2022

29

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

2.5 Delays to work due to COVID-19

2.5.1 Poole Harbour Expansion Programme Coverage: Poole Harbour (within the footprint of the Several Order grounds)

Fishery: Aquaculture

Existing Management tool: Poole Harbour Fishery Order 2015

COVID-19 Contingency Planning: ON HOLD

Overview

Southern IFCA manage aquaculture activity within a defined area of Poole Harbour under the Poole Harbour Fishery Order 2015 (‘the Order’). This is the largest Several Order in the UK. In accordance with Section (1) of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967, the Order confers on Southern IFCA the right of a several fishery for the cultivation of shellfish of any kind for a period of twenty years from the 1st July 2015.

Work to date

Under the terms of the Lease of Right of Several Fishery of Shellfish Laying in Poole Harbour, the Tranche 1 leases, which began in July 2015 terminated on the 30th June 2020. Following the roll out of the 2020 Lease Bed Reallocation Programme, the second round of leases began on the 1st July 2020 and are due to expire on the 30th June 2025.

Allocation of Tranche 2 Leases in 2020 took into account the changes in Marine Nature Conservation designations, specifically the expansion of the Poole Harbour SSSI in 2018, which extended to include any subtidal estuarial waters and lower shore intertidal mudflats, which support important subtidal benthic habitats. Under the 2020 Lease Bed Reallocation Programme, seven of the Tranche 1 lease beds required either full closure and reallocation or part closure and reallocation as a result of interactions with the subtidal benthic habitats.

Following the successful rollout of the Poole Harbour Tranche 2 Lease Bed Reallocation Programme in July 2020 and in line with the Authority’s Five-Year Legislative Forecast, during 2020-2021 it was the intention for Southern IFCA to explore opportunities for expansion.

Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, at the meeting of the TAC in May 2020, it was agreed that the Poole Harbour Expansion Programme would be postponed, with the intention to reinstate following the lifting of Government Restrictions with consideration to work prioritisation.

Planned work for 2021-2022

The Poole Harbour Expansion Programme will remain ON HOLD for the year 2021-2022.

30

Southern IFCA: Fisheries Management & Policy Team Strategy 2021-2022 www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

Annex A: Acronyms

AM Authority Meeting BTFG Bottom Towed Fishing Gear BWG Byelaw Working Group CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort DWT Dorset Wildlife Trust EA Environment Agency EMS European Marine Site ETP Endangered, Threatened, Protected EU European Union FMP Fisheries Management and Policy GIS Geographic Information System HRA Habitats Regulation Assessment IFCA Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority IHG Intertidal Hand Gathering MaCAA Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 MCRS Minimum Conservation Reference Size MMO Marine Management Organsiation MP Management Plan MPA Marine Protected Area MSC Marine Stewardship Council NE Natural England NGO Non‐Governmental Organisation OSF Ocean Stewardship Fund PDFA Poole and District Fisherman’s Association PHC Poole Harbour Commissioners PHDP Poole Harbour Dredge Permit RFS Responsible Fishing Scheme SAC Special Area of Conservation SDPB Solent Dredge Permit Byelaw SoM Size of Maturity SoS Secretary of State SPA Special Protection Area SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest T3 Tranche 3 TAC Technical Advisory Committee TBD To Be Determined UK WG Working Group

31

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

OFFICER’S REPORT

Solent Scallop Fishery Code of Conduct ITEM G

Report by Deputy Chief Officer Bateman and IFCO Cooper

A. Purpose of the Report

In response to an emerging scallop (Pectin maximus) fishery in the Solent, the Authority has considered options for the sustainable management of this fishery. A Code of Conduct (Annex 1) has been developed as a first step in the management of this fishery, which introduces a seasonal closure and a restriction on the number of dredges a vessel may use.

This paper sets out the background to developing these measures as well as defining the next steps in the management process.

B. Recommendation

1. That the Members of the Authority formalise the Solent Scallop Fishery Code of Conduct; 2. That the Members of the Authority approve the implementation of the Solent Scallop Fishery Code of Conduct from the 1st of April 2021.

C. Annex

1. Solent Scallop Fishery Code of Conduct.

1. Background

1.1. Over recent years a small-scale winter scallop (Pectin maximus) fishery has emerged in the Solent. This has typically spanned from Osborne Bay on the North East of the Isle of Wight to No Man’s Land Fort further East near Seaview

1.2. More recently this fishery has expanded over both a longer duration and geographical extent. During 2020 this fishery lasted approximately four months, targeted by six vessels at any one time from a larger pool of local boats. This fishery has provided an alternative focus for fishers who may have typically harvested native oysters or clams during the winter period, who have in more recent years been restricted due to temporary closures of shellfish beds and/or poor water quality impacting shellfish classifications in some areas.

1.3 A number of fishers in the Solent asked for Southern IFCA to consider management intervention in this emerging fishery to ensure its future sustainability. In response to this, Southern IFCA undertook an engagement and evidence gathering exercise in late 2020. This ‘Call for Information’ aimed to address any evidence gaps and gather any information relating to the fisheries in question.

1.4 In January 2021, an Authority Working Group (WG) considered the Summary of Responses to the Call for Information. Members also considered further information on Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

OFFICER’S REPORT

interactions with MPAs, MMO landings and other relevant legislation.

1.5 Members of the WG unanimously agreed that the Solent Scallop fishery represented an important inshore fishery, of particular value to small towed gear vessels from the Solent. Having discussed various management options, Members tasked Officers with exploring:

 A closed season between 1st April and 31st October: with the aim of protecting the sustainability of the fishery through removing fishing effort whilst scallops are spawning and spat are settling;  A limit on the number of dredges used by fishing vessels to 2, in order to limit impact to the habitats and mitigate the risk of larger nomadic scallop vessels entering the fishery.

1.6 The WG considered how future measures could be incorporated into permit conditions following the implementation of the Solent Dredge Permit Byelaw, which is due to come into force on the 1st November 2021. Members with links to the fishing industry indicated that the local fishing community was keen to move quickly on this and encouraged officers to consider interim options, including voluntary measures, for the summer of 2021.

2 Technical Advisory Committee: February 2021

2.1 The Authority’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) received a report in February 2021 outlining the findings of the WG, together with a draft Code of Conduct (Annex 1) and a future management timeline (figure 1).

2.2 It was determined at the meeting of the TAC that the following recommendations would be made to the Authority in March 2021:

 For Members of the Authority to formalise the Solent Scallop Fishery Code of Conduct;  For Members of the Authority to approve the implementation of the Solent Scallop Fishery Code of Conduct from the 1st of April 2021.

3 Next Steps: April to November 2021

3.1 Following approval of the recommendations posed in this paper, Officers will begin a period of engagement with fishers in order to communicate the Code of Conduct. A Compliance Strategy will also be developed. Compliance with the Code of Conduct will be monitored between April and November, the outcomes of which will be used to inform the future management of this fishery. Figure 1 provides a timeline to support this area of work. Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

OFFICER’S REPORT

Figure 1: Future management implementation timeline.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985 List of Background Papers

Solent Scallop Fishery Call for Information: Solent-Scallop-CfI.pdf (toolkitfiles.co.uk) Solent Scallop Fishery Call for Information - Summary of Responses: Consultations: Southern IFCA (southern-ifca.gov.uk)

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

OFFICER’S REPORT

Annex 1

Solent Scallop Fishery Code of Conduct

In order to promote a sustainable scallop fishery, the following measures should be followed when fishing for scallops () in the Solent:  Seasonal closure: Between the 1st April and 31st October 2021, both days inclusive, no vessel should fish for scallops.

 Gear specification: Between 1st November 2021 and 31st March 2022, both days inclusive, a person must not use a vessel to operate more than 2 scallop dredges.

Definitions: “Solent” means that part of the District as lies below mean high water springs from the East of an imaginary straight line drawn from Hurst Point at (50° 42.430’N 001° 32.935’W); to Fort Victoria at (50° 41.973’N 001° 32.045’W); to the West of an imaginary straight line drawn due south from point (50° 46.631’N 0° 56.255’W); to its point of intersection with an imaginary straight line drawn due east from Culver Cliff (50° 40.034’N 1° 5.747’W).

------Explanatory Note

This Code of Conduct has been developed following concerns from industry regarding the sustainability of the Solent scallop fishery. The Code of Conduct aims to promote sustainability within the Solent scallop fishery:

 Via a seasonal closure, which seeks to protect the scallops during the spatting and settlement period;

 Via a gear restriction, which aims to mitigate impact on the seabed and promote safety across the fleet.

Southern IFCA will monitor vessels compliance with the Code of Conduct; the outcomes of which may be used to inform the future management of this fishery. All other byelaws and national measures still apply across this fishery. Scallop dredges used should conform with the Southern IFCA Scallop Fishing Byelaw and the Scallop Order 2012. Please refer to www.southern-IFCA.gov.uk for further details. Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

OFFICER’S REPORT

POOLE HARBOUR DREDGE PERMIT BYELAW ITEM H 2021-22 DREDGE PERMIT AND HRA

Report by IFCO Birchenough

A. Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is for Members to consider the Habitats Regulations Assessment and permit under the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw for the 2021-22 season.

B. Recommendation

1. That, based on the evidence provided in the Habitats Regulations Assessment, Members agree the issuing of 45 permits for the 2021-22 dredge season under the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw.

2. That Members authorise Officers to make any amendments to the HRA as required following feedback from Natural England.

C. Annex

i. Poole Harbour Dredge Permit 2021-22

ii. Poole Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA) Appropriate Assessment - Issue of Permits Under Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw (2021-22 Season)

1. Background

1.1 Under the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw, the Authority manages the use of dredges, principally for the fishing for shellfish, within Poole Harbour. Under this byelaw a restricted number of permits are issued each year by the Authority with accompanying conditions relating to catch restrictions and reporting, gear types, gear construction and restrictions, spatial and temporal restrictions and the fitting of specified equipment to vessels.

1.2 Duties under Regulation 65 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 require Southern IFCA, as a competent authority, to make an appropriate assessment of a plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects). The definition of a European site includes Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) which are now included as part of the Marine Site Network under The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

1.3 Poole Harbour is designated as an SPA, SSSI and Ramsar site. As per the Duties of the Southern IFCA, an annual appropriate assessment is undertaken for the issuing of permits under the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw. The purpose of assessment is to determine, whether or not in the view of Southern IFCA, the issuing of permits will hinder the achievement of the conservation objectives of the Poole Harbour SPA and lead to an adverse effect on site integrity.

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

OFFICER’S REPORT

1.4 A review of research into shellfish dredging impacts identifies the permitted activity has the potential to disturb bird populations and lead to changes in prey availability. These potential impacts and risks to the integrity of the site are however mitigated through a number of conditions applied under the permit. These include the exclusion of shellfish dredging all year round in a number of key sites which represent important areas for feeding and roosting, prohibition of shellfish dredging during key sensitive times (1st November-23rd December & 25th May-30th June) in a series of sites also important for feeding and roosting, the timing of the closed season which largely corresponds to the overwintering period for designated bird species, a cap on fishing effort through the allocation of a set number of permits, a number of restrictions on gear configuration and a requirement for catch reporting. Additional mitigation is also afforded through the Southern IFCA ‘Poole Harbour Roosting Sites Code of Practice’ which sets out guidelines to avoidance disturbance to nesting and roosting birds and promotes the protection of supporting breeding habitat and the ‘Green Island Saltmarsh Management Area’ which promotes protection of the supporting saltmarsh habitat around Green Island.

1.5 There has not been a need for a review of permit conditions since the conclusion of the 2020/21 dredge season and therefore there have not been any changes made to the permit conditions or any other management measures for the fishery for the 2021/22 season.

1.6 Based on the mitigation measures, in the form of permit conditions and additional codes of practice, it is concluded that that issuing of permits for the 2021/22 season under the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw will not hinder the site from achieving its conservation objectives and as such will not have an adverse effect upon on the integrity of the Poole Harbour SPA and Ramsar site.

1.7 Based on the outcome of the HRA, it is therefore proposed that the number of permits issued for the 2021/22 season should remain at 45 (the same as for the previous seasons 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20, 2020/21).

1.8 The HRA has been sent to Natural England for formal comment. As there have been no changes to the permit or any other management measures for the fishery, the HRA remains largely the same as for the previous year (2020/21). Catch and effort data for the fishery from the previous season (2020/21) has been incorporated into the assessment. Natural England agreed with the conclusions made in the 2020/21 Assessment and therefore, based on the fact that no changes have been made to the management of the fishery, it is not expected that there will be any material changes to the conclusion of the HRA for 2021/22 as a result of comment from Natural England.

1.9 Members are asked to consider the conclusion of the Habitats Regulations Assessment and agree that 45 permits can be issued for the 2021/22 season with Officers authorised to make any amendments to the HRA as required following any feedback from Natural England.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985 List of Background Papers  Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw http://www.southern-ifca.gov.uk/byelaws#PooleHarDredge ANNEX 1

Poole Harbour Dredge Permit

This permit authorises the named person in respect to the named vessel, for the period of validity specified below, to use, retain on board, store or transport a dredge within Poole Harbour, subject to the provisions of the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw and to the additional conditions listed in this permit.

Vessel Authorised is: NAME and PLN

Permit is issued to: Mr/Mrs X

Permit Number: 2021-22 XXX

Vessel length (m):

Vessel engine power (kw):

Cost of Permit: £600.00

Permit valid for period: 1st April 2021 – 31st March 2022

The permit holder should ensure that they have read and understand the Southern IFCA Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw and the Permit Conditions prior to fishing.

Failure to comply with any of the Permit Conditions constitutes contravention of the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw.

Poole Harbour Dredge Permit 2021‐22

Permit Conditions

1. Definitions

1.1 In this permit:

“spray bar” means any object that directs a pressurised jet(s) of water;

“riddle” means a table with spaced bars for the sorting of shellfish;

“tooth bar” means the bar, to which is attached teeth, the ends of which point downwards and are dragged along the sea bed when the dredge is towed;

“auxiliary hydraulic equipment” shall include but is not limited to any water pump and associated hoses that are designed for, or capable of being used in connection with a shellfish dredge and any hydraulic lifting equipment, when used in connection with a shellfish dredge.

“interaction” means direct contact between any part of the or dredge, as defined in the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw, and any part of an individual listed as an Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species.

2. Catch restrictions and reporting

2.1 For the months of May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December the permit holder must submit to the Authority a completed catch return using a ‘Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Monthly Catch Return Form’. Completed catch returns must be submitted either in hard copy or as an electronic PDF document and must be received by the Authority no later than the 14th day of the following month.

2.2 For each day of the month the permit holder must state in their catch return:

i. the hours spent fishing; and ii. the quantity in kilograms of each species caught that day; and iii. the number of the zone(s) in which the quantities of species caught that day have been taken according to the zonation map provided with the catch return form; and iv. the name(s) of the company or individual to whom all parts of the catch was sold or declare that no catch was taken on that day by entering the word "nil" in the column for "Species caught and Quantity”.

If no fishing has taken place during a month, the permit holder must indicate this to the Southern IFCA by submitting a “nil” catch return.

2.3 No person shall fish for or take from Poole Harbour any Native oyster ().

2.4 If a permit holder has an interaction between their fishing activity and an Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species, the permit holder must submit to the Authority a completed interaction form using a ‘Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw

Poole Harbour Dredge Permit 2021‐22

Interaction between dredge fishing activity and Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species Reporting Form’.

3. Gear types

3.1 Dredge designs are restricted to a basket size not exceeding 460 mm in width by 460 mm in depth by 300 mm high excluding any pole or attachments.

4. Gear construction and restrictions

4.1 Dredges must be constructed of rigid bars having spaces of not less than 18 mm between them. Any cross pieces used to strengthen the basket must have minimum spaces of 40 mm between them.

4.2 Only one dredge is allowed to be used at any one time on each vessel.

4.3 The contents of the dredge may only be removed after the dredge has been lifted into the vessel.

4.4 A second dredge may be carried on board but it must be inboard, stowed and disconnected.

4.5 Only one pump is permitted on board any vessel and any hoses connected to the pump and/or dredge should have a diameter of no greater than a 3 inch inlet and a 3 inch diameter outlet.

4.6 The maximum horsepower of the pump is 15 (fifteen).

4.7 A maximum of one spray bar is permitted to be used per dredge and must be fixed to the dredge. When using a dredge fitted with a tooth bar any associated spray bar must direct the flow of water towards the rear of the basket and at no times directly towards the seabed.

4.8 A riddle with 18mm bar spacing is mandatory for the sorting of shellfish. Any shell discards are to be re-deposited forthwith.

5. Spatial and temporal restrictions

5.1 A dredge shall not be used in any area of Poole Harbour between 18.00 and 06.00 each day.

5.2 A dredge shall not be used in any area of Poole Harbour during all Sundays.

Poole Harbour Dredge Permit 2021‐22

5.3 A dredge shall not be used, retained on board, stored or transported in any area of Poole Harbour from 1st April to 24th May 2021, both days inclusive, and from 24th December 2021 to 31st March 2022, both days inclusive.

5.4 A dredge shall not be used, retained on board, stored or transported in the following areas from 25th May to 30th June, both days inclusive and from 1st November to 23rd December, both days inclusive, in the same year:

AREA 1 – NEWTON BAY The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 1 (50 Degrees 40.351 minutes North, 001 Degrees 59.493 minutes West) to Point 2 (50 Degrees 40.402 minutes North, 001 Degrees 59.750 minutes West) From point 2 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 1 AREA 2 – OWER BAY The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 3 (50 Degrees 40.522 minutes North, 002 Degrees 00.101 minutes West) to Point 4 (50 Degrees 40.670 minutes North, 002 Degrees 00.464 minutes West) From point 3 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 4

AREA 3 – WYCH LAKE AND MIDDLEBERE LAKE The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 5 (50 Degrees 41.255 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.755 minutes West) to Point 6 (50 Degrees 40.891 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.030 minutes West) From point 6 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 7 Point 7 (50 Degrees 40.468 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.529 minutes West) to Point 8 (50 Degrees 40.795 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.911 minutes West) to Point 9 (50 Degrees 40.896 minutes North, 002 Degrees 02.157 minutes West) From point 9 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 5

AREA 4 – ARNE BAY The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 10 (50 Degrees 41.941 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.651 minutes West) to Point 11 (50 Degrees 42.204 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.843 minutes West) From point 11 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 10

AREA 5 – KEYSWORTH The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 12 (50 Degrees 42.400 minutes North, 002 Degrees 04.510 minutes West) to Point 13 (50 Degrees 42.264 minutes North, 002 Degrees 04.078 minutes West) to Point 14 (50 Degrees 41.890 minutes North, 002 Degrees 04.259 minutes West) to Point 15 (50 Degrees 41.842 minutes North, 002 Degrees 04.555 minutes West) From point 15 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 12

AREA 6 - BRANDS BAY SOUTH The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 16 (50 Degrees 40.156 minutes North, 001 Degrees 58.984 minutes West) to Point 17 (50 Degrees 40.156 minutes North, 001 Degrees 58.249 minutes West) From point 16 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 17

Poole Harbour Dredge Permit 2021‐22

AREA 7 – BRANDS BAY WEST The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 16 (50 Degrees 40.156 minutes North, 001 Degrees 58.984 minutes West) to Point 18 (50 Degrees 40.610 minutes North, 001 Degrees 58.702 minutes West) From point 18 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 16

5.5 A dredge shall not be used in the following areas at all times:

AREA 8 - LYCHETT BAY The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 19 (50 Degrees 43.212 minutes North, 002 Degrees 02.412 minutes West) to Point 20 (50 Degrees 43.205 minutes North, 002 Degrees 02.439 minutes West) From point 20 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 19

AREA 9 - HOLES BAY The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 21 (50 Degrees 42.771 minutes North, 001 Degrees 59.539 minutes West) to Point 22 (50 Degrees 42.734 minutes North, 001 Degrees 59.591 minutes West) From point 22 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 21

AREA 10 – WYCH LAKE The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 7 (50 Degrees 40.468 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.529 minutes West) to Point 8 (50 Degrees 40.795 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.911 minutes West) From point 8 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 7

AREA 11 – MIDDLEBERE LAKE The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 8 (50 Degrees 40.795 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.911 minutes West) to Point 9 (50 Degrees 40.896 minutes North, 002 Degrees 02.157 minutes West) From point 9 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 8

6. The fitting of specified equipment to vessels

6.1 None.

Date ......

Signed ...... Chief / Deputy Chief Officer Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

Poole Harbour Dredge Permit 2021‐22

ANNEX 2 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Document Control

Title Poole Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA) Appropriate Assessment - Issue of Permits Under Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw (2021-22 Season)

SIFCA Reference SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 Author S Birchenough Approver Owner Southern IFCA Template Used HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0

Revision History Date Author Version Status Reason Approver(s) 04/03/2021 S Birchenough 1.0 Initial S Pengelly Draft

This document has been distributed for information and comment to:

Comments Title Name Date sent received Natural England Mr Gavin Black Dr Richard Morgan

Page 1 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (IFCA)

Habitat Regulations Assessment for Plans/Projects

European Marine Site: Poole Harbour SPA

Plan/Project: Issue of permits under Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw for 2021-22 season

Feature(s): Common tern, Sandwich tern, Mediterranean gull, Little egret, Spoonbill, Avocet, Shelduck, Black-tailed godwit (Icelandic Race), Water bird assemblage (Dunlin, Dark-bellied Brent goose, Teal, Goldeneye, Red-breasted merganser, Curlew, Spotted redshank, Greenshank, Redshank, Pochard, Black- headed gull)

Site Specific Sub-feature(s)/Supporting Habitat(s): Coastal lagoons, Freshwater and coastal grazing marsh, Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous scrubs, Atlantic salt meadows, Spartina swards, Intertidal seagrass beds, Intertidal mixed sediments, Intertidal mud, Intertidal sand and muddy sand, Water column

Page 2 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 1 Technical Summary

Duties under Regulation 9 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 require Southern IFCA, as a competent authority, to make an appropriate assessment of a plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a site that is part of the National Site Network (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects). As such, Southern IFCA undertakes an annual appropriate assessment for the issue of permits under the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw which regulates dredge fishing within the Poole Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA). The byelaw regulates the wild shellfish fishery in the Harbour through the annual allocation of a fixed number of permit entitlements (45). The permit allows the use of, retention on board, storage and transportation of a dredge within Poole Harbour and under each permit a number of conditions are applied. The purpose of the assessment is to determine, whether or not in the view of Southern IFCA, the issuing of permits will hinder the achievement of the conservation objectives of the Poole Harbour SPA and lead to an adverse effect on site integrity.

A review of research into shellfish dredging impacts identifies the permitted activity has the potential to disturb bird populations and lead to changes in prey availability. These potential impacts and risks to the integrity of the site are however mitigated through a number of conditions applied under the permit. These include the exclusion of shellfish dredging all year round in a number of key sites which represent important areas for feeding and roosting, prohibition of shellfish dredging during key sensitive times (1st November-23rd December & 25th May-30th June) in a series of areas also important for feeding and roosting, the timing of the closed season which largely corresponds to the overwintering period, a cap on fishing effort through the allocation of a set number of permits and a number of restrictions on gear configuration. Additional mitigation is also afforded through the Southern IFCA ‘Poole Harbour Roosting Sites Code of Practice’ which sets out guidelines to avoidance disturbance to nesting and roosting birds and promote the protection of supporting breeding habitat and the ‘Green Island Saltmarsh Management Area’ which sets out a voluntary closed area to protect saltmarsh supporting habitat around Green Island.

Based on these mitigation measures, in the form of permit conditions and additional protection from the Code of Practice, it was concluded that that issuing of permits for the 2021/212 season under the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw will not hinder the site from achieving its conservation objectives and as such will not have an adverse effect upon on the integrity of the Poole Harbour SPA and Ramsar site. As in previous years (2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20, 2020/21) it is therefore proposed the number of permits issued should remain at 45.

Page 3 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Table of Contents 1 Technical Summary ...... 3 2 Introduction ...... 6 2.1 Need for a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) ...... 6 2.2 Documents reviewed to inform this assessment ...... 6 3 Information about the EMS ...... 7 3.1 Overview and qualifying features ...... 7 3.1.1 Supporting Habitat ...... 8 3.1.2 Ramsar Site...... 9 3.2 Conservation Objectives ...... 9 3.3 Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) ...... 9 4 Plan/Project Description ...... 10 4.1 Poole Harbour Dredge Permit ...... 10 4.1.1 Permit Conditions ...... 10 4.1.2 Changes to Permit Conditions ...... 11 4.1.3 The Poole Harbour Roosting Sites Code of Practice and the Green Island Saltmarsh Agreement ...... 11 4.1.4 Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Access Policy ...... 12 4.2 Technical Gear Specifications ...... 12 4.3 The Poole Harbour Shellfish Fishery: Location, Effort and Scale of Fishing ...... 14 4.3.1 Fishing Effort ...... 15 4.3.2 Landings ...... 1 7 4.3.3 Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) ...... 20 4.3.4 Sightings ...... 2 1 5 Test of Likely Significant Effect (TLSE) ...... 21 6 Appropriate Assessment ...... 22 6.1 Co-location of Bird Features (and their supporting habitats) and Project/Plan(s) ...... 22 6.2 Potential Impacts ...... 23 6.2.1 Disturbance (visual and noise) ...... 24 6.2.2 Physical change (to another sediment type) ...... 29 6.2.3 Removal of target species ...... 29 6.2.4 Removal of non-target species ...... 32 6.3 Site-Specific Seasonality Table ...... 41 6.4 Site Condition ...... 42 6.4.1 Poole Harbour SSSI Condition Assessment ...... 42 6.4.2 Population trends ...... 48 6.5 Existing Management ...... 50 6.6 Table 9: Summary of Impacts ...... 51 7 Conclusion ...... 58 8 In-combination assessment ...... 6 0 8.1 Fishing Activity In-combination Assessment ...... 61 9 Integrity test ...... 62 Annex 1: Reference list ...... 63 Annex 2: Supporting Habitat(s) Site Feature Map for Poole Harbour SPA ...... 70 Annex 3: Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Activity Map ...... 71

Page 4 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Annex 4. Natural England’s advice on the potential impacts of shellfish dredging on the nature conservation features of Poole Harbour SPA, Ramsar and SSSI...... 72 Annex 5. Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw spatial and temporal restrictions...... 77 Annex 6. Poole Harbour Dredge Permit 2021/22 including permit conditions ...... 78 Annex 7: TLSE summary for each feature (and supporting habitats) ...... 83 Annex 8: Co-Location of Shellfish Dredging and Site Feature(s)/Sub-feature(s) ...... 92 Annex 9. Table of studies investigating the impacts of shellfish dredging and recovery rates...... 93 Annex 10. Southern IFCA’s Poole Harbour Roosting Sites Code of Practice ...... 97 Annex 11. The Green Island Saltmarsh Management Area ...... 101

Page 5 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 2 Introduction

2.1 Need for a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

The National Site Network1 is a network of protected sites which are designated for rare and threatened species and rare natural habitat types. These sites include Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA), designated under the EC Habitats Directive 1992 and EC Birds Directive 2009 (amended), respectively. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 20172, as amended by The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 20193, transposes the land and marine aspects of the Habitats Directive and the Wild Birds Directive into domestic law, and outlines how the National Site Network will be managed and reflect any changes required by EU Exit.

Southern IFCA has duties under Regulation 9 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as a competent authority, with functions relevant to marine conservation, to exercise those functions so as to secure compliance with the Habitats Directive and Birds Directives.

Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive requires any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a European site (SPA or SAC) within the National Site Network, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, to undergo an Appropriate Assessment to determine its implications for the site.

Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive states that ‘Member states shall take appropriate steps to avoid …deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting the birds, in so far as these would be significant having regard to the objectives of this Article’.

Regulation 65 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 requires Southern IFCA, as the competent authority, to make an appropriate assessment of a plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a European site that forms part of the National Site Network (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) and is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site in question. The implications of any plan or project must be assessed in view of the site’s conservation objectives.

This document forms the basis of an appropriate assessment for the issue of permits under the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw for the 2021/22 season. The purpose of this document is to assess whether or not in the view of Southern IFCA, the issue of permits under the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw will have a likely significant effect on the bird features and supporting habitats (saltmarsh and intertidal sediment) of the Poole Harbour SPA alone, and in combination with other plans or projects. The assessment ensures Southern IFCA meets its responsibilities as a competent authority by ensuring that the conservation objectives of the Poole Harbour SPA will be met and the integrity of the site is not adversely affected.

2.2 Documents reviewed to inform this assessment

 Reference list4 (Annex 1)

1 The National Site Network is the network of sites in the United Kingdom’s territory consisting of such sites as immediately before EU Exit day formed part of the Natura 2000 site network. 2 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (legislation.gov.uk) 3 The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (legislation.gov.uk) 4 Reference list will include literature cited in the assessment (peer, grey and site specific evidence e.g. research, data on natural disturbance/energy levels etc)

Page 6 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018  Natural England’s Conservation Advice5  Site map(s) – sub-feature/feature location and extent (Annex 2)  Fishing activity data (map(s), etc) (Annex 3)  Natural England’s advice on the potential impacts of shellfish dredging on the nature conservation features of Poole Harbour SPA, Ramsar and SSSI (received 3rd June 2014) (Annex 4)  Fisheries Impact Evidence Database (FIED)/SPA Tool Kit

3 Information about the EMS

 Poole Harbour SPA (Site Code: UK9010111)

3.1 Overview and qualifying features

The site qualifies under Article 4 of the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) for the following reasons (summarised in Table 1):

 The site regularly supports more than 1% of the Great Britain populations of five species listed in Annex I of the EC Birds Directive.

 The site regularly supports more than 1% of the biogeographic population of two regularly occurring migratory species not listed in Annex I of the EC Birds Directive.

Feature Interest Type A193 Common tern Annex 1 Sterna hirundo Breeding A191 Sandwich tern Annex 1 Sterna sandvicensis Breeding A176 Mediterranean gull Annex 1 Larus melanocephalus Breeding A026 Little egret Annex 1 Egretta garzetta Non-breeding A034 Spoonbill Annex 1 Platalea leucorodia Non-breeding A132 Avocet Annex 1 Recurvirostra avosetta Non-breeding A048 Shelduck Regularly occurring migrant Tadorna tadorna Non-breeding A156 Black-tailed godwit, Icelandic-race Regularly occurring migrant Limosa limosa islandica Non-breeding

 The site qualifies under Article 4 of the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) as it used regularly by over 20,000 waterfowl (waterfowl as defined by the Ramsar Convention) or 20,000 seabirds in any season.

5 https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/Marine/MarineSiteDetail.aspx?SiteCode=UK9010111&SiteName=Poole %20harbour&countyCode=&responsiblePerson=&SeaArea=&IFCAArea=

Page 7 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 During the non-breeding season the area supports 25,176 individual and waterfowl including (in addition to the species which qualify as features in their own right (Table 1)): dunlin (Calidris alpine), great cormorant (Phalacracorax carbo), dark-bellied Brent goose (Branta bernicla bernicla), teal (Anas crecca), goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), curlew (Numenius arquata), spotted redshank (Tringa erythropus), greenshank (Tringa nebularia), redshank (Tringa tetanus), pochard (Aythya farina) and black-headed gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus), all of which are present in nationally important numbers. The features; little egret, spoonbill, black-tailed godwit and shelduck are also included within the water bird assemblage.

3.1.1 Supporting Habitat

Natural England’s Advice on operations6 details the supporting habitats as follows. No breakdown of supporting habitats is given per qualifying species.  Coastal lagoons  Freshwater and coastal grazing marsh  Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous scrubs  Atlantic salt meadows  Spartina swards  Intertidal seagrass beds  Intertidal mixed sediments  Intertidal mud  Intertidal sand and muddy sand  Water column

Poole Harbour is a bar-built estuary of nearly 4,000 ha located on the coast of Dorset in southern England. The Harbour occupies a shallow depression towards the south-western extremity of the Hampshire Basin which has flooded over the last 5,000 years as a result of rising sea levels. The unusual micro-tidal regime means that a significant body of water is retained throughout the tidal cycle. The Harbour therefore exhibits many of the characteristics of a lagoon. There are extensive intertidal mud-flats and, away from the north shore that has become urbanised through the growth of the town of Poole, there are fringes of saltmarsh and reedbed. As a whole, the Harbour supports important numbers of water birds in winter and is also an important breeding site for terns and gulls, whilst significant numbers of Little Egret Egretta garzetta and Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicola occur on passage. Several river valleys converge on the Harbour, notably the Frome and the Piddle, and these support grazing marshes that contribute to the importance of the SPA for wintering waterbirds. Parts of the Harbour, especially along the western and southern shores, adjoin the Dorset Heathlands SPA. Where the two areas meet, there are unusual transitions from saltmarsh and reedbed to valley mire and heath habitats. The Harbour is separated from Poole Bay by the Studland Dunes (part of the Dorset Heaths [Purbeck and Wareham] and Studland Dunes SAC) and the SPA includes Littlesea, a large oligotrophic dune-slack lake of importance for wintering wildfowl.

In 2016 Natural England held a consultation on a proposed extension to the Poole Harbour SPA to include all areas below the Mean Low Water mark which lie within the Harbour entrance, an additional landward extension in Lytchett Bay and the addition of three qualifying species; Sandwich tern, spoonbill and little egret. The rationale between the extension was to ensure that all areas of marine habitat which are exploited for resting, roosting or feeding by protected bird species were included. Poole Harbour regularly supports more than 1% of each of the populations of the three

6 https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/Marine/FAPMatrix.aspx?SiteCode=UK9010111&SiteName=Poole+harb our&SiteNameDisplay=Poole+Harbour+SPA&countyCode=&responsiblePerson=&SeaArea=&IFCAArea=

Page 8 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 additional species. The proposed extension became a potential SPA (pSPA) on 21st January and as such the features and species proposed for inclusion were considered as part of the 2017/18 appropriate assessment. On 30th November 2017, the pSPA was included in the Register of European Sites in England (as required as Regulation 17 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010) and as such was confirmed as part of the Poole Harbour SPA.

The full site citation is available at: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6625771074355200

3.1.2 Ramsar Site

Poole Harbour is a Ramsar site, and as such is recognised as a wetland of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention. The site was designated for the following reasons:

 Regularly supports 20,000 waterfowl  Regularly supports over 1% of avocet, black-tailed godwit, common tern, Mediterranean gull and shelduck  Supports an appreciable assemblage of rare, vulnerable or endangered species including a nationally scarce hydroid species Hartlaubella gelatinosa and nationally rare sponge Suberites massa  Is of special value for maintaining the genetic and ecological diversity of a region because of the quality and peculiarities of its flora and fauna including supporting the nationally scarce plants narrow leaved eelgrass Zostera augustifolia and dwarf eelgrass Zostera noltii

3.2 Conservation Objectives

With regard to the SPA and the individual species and/or assemblage of species for which the site has been classified (the ‘Qualifying Features’ listed below), and subject to natural change;

Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring;  The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features  The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features  The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely  The population of each of the qualifying features, and,  The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

The high-level conservation objectives for the Poole Harbour SPA are available online at: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6625771074355200

3.3 Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

Section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) defines ‘section 28G authorities’, including the Southern IFCA, who have a duty to take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of their functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiological features by reason of which the site is of special scientific interest.

Page 9 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 In May 2018 Natural England notified additional land as a part of the Poole Harbour SSSI. The largest of which includes the estuarial open water below mean water. The other three areas comprise saltmarsh, wetland and supporting habitats around the fringes of Lytchett Bay and Holes Bay respectively. All four additional areas have been included as they support estuarine habitats and/or wintering wildfowl and waders for which the site is designated. The area below MLW is also seen to support other features for which the site is designated including foraging habitat for breeding seabirds and subtidal benthic habitats.

In order to ensure the protection of the entirety of the re notified SSSI Southern IFCA worked with Natural England to produce and agree a ‘Site Management Statement’ for the Poole Harbour SSSI. This importantly includes the ongoing management of Wild Fishing Activity of which clam dredging is a part. In the site management statement, it was agreed that the current process of reviewing the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw HRA in consultation with Natural England will ensure that the fishery does not damage or disturb the features of the site.

4 Plan/Project Description

The Poole Harbour Dredge Permit (PHDP) byelaw7 regulates the wild shellfish fishery in Poole Harbour through the annual allocation of permit entitlements and as such requires an annual HRA for the issuing of permits.

4.1 Poole Harbour Dredge Permit

The permit allows the use of, retention on board, storage and transportation of a dredge within Poole Harbour.

Under the permit, a series of conditions are applied, relating to catch restrictions and reporting; gear types; gear construction and restrictions and spatial and temporal restrictions (see Annex 5 (Map) and Annex 6 (Permit Conditions)). The permit also allows for a requirement to fit specified equipment to vessels.

The permit is flexible and allows Southern IFCA to review the suitability of the permit conditions, attach conditions to the permit and vary or revoke conditions attached to the permit at any time after the permits have been issued, following a set process. As such, any changes will have regard to the Authority’s duties and obligations under section 153 and 154 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, advice from Natural England, new evidence in the form of scientific data or literature and/or any Habitats Regulations Assessment. This flexibility allows proportionate management of the dredge fishery in Poole Harbour whilst achieving the conservation objectives of the site.

As in previous years (2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20, 2020/21) it is proposed there will be a maximum of 45 permit entitlements. This reflects the current level of effort which is considered to be sustainable.

4.1.1 Permit Conditions

The spatial and temporal restrictions (Annex 5 & 6), which are part of the permit conditions, are designed to mitigate any potential impacts of dredge fishing activity on the nature conservation features of the Poole Harbour SPA and ensures there will be no adverse effect on site integrity.

7 Link to be added once new website finalised

Page 10 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 They reflect advice received from Natural England received prior to the introduction of the PHDP byelaw (June 2014). The permit conditions:

 Provide a network of areas where there is little or no noise and visual disturbance and sediment disturbance including; bird sensitive areas, areas where declines in some bird species have been observed (Brands Bay, Wych Lake, Lytchett Bay) that are likely to be in part attributable to site specific pressures, Mediterranean gull nesting sites at Seagull Island, areas where sediment recovery is likely to be slow (low energy sites), fringing saltmarsh, reedbed and lowland water habitats supporting breeding birds. Shellfish dredging is excluded in Lytchett Bay, Holes Bay, and inner regions Wych Lake and Middlebere Lake all year round. Shellfish dredging is excluded from overwintering, feeding and roosting bird sensitive areas at Wych Lake, Middlebere Lake, Newton Bay, Ower Bay, Keysworth Bay and parts of Arne Bay and Brands Bay (Annex 5) during key sensitive times of the year for bird species between 25th May and 1st July, 1st November and 23rd December. The inclusion of part of Brands Bay provides an additional area afforded protection during sensitive periods.  Exclude or manage intensity where high levels of sediment disturbance could result in release of contaminants in Holes Bay which is closed to shellfish dredging at all times.  Manage shellfish dredging throughout the Harbour in a way that minimises its impact on prey availability and disturbance, through restrictions in the number of permits (45), the design of the pump and dredge used and restrictions in the timing of when the fishery takes place (closed from 24th December to 24th May). The prohibition on dredge fishing activity from 24th December to 24th May mitigates over-wintering bird disturbance during this lean period.  Provide an ability to monitor catch levels, particularly for the main commercial species (Manila clam and ) that are also prey species for some of the designated bird species. There is requirement for fishers to provide monthly catch return data indicating, for each day of the month, the hours fished, the quantities of shellfish taken, the buyer(s) and the zone of the Harbour from which the catch was taken. This data allows the Southern IFCA to monitor trends in fishing activity and relate catch data to the data from the Poole Harbour Bivalve Stock Assessment8 to ensure that fishing activity continues to remain sustainable with respect to shellfish stocks.

4.1.2 Changes to Permit Conditions

The permit conditions of the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit for the 2021/2022 season will remain the same as those for the 2020/21 season.

4.1.3 The Poole Harbour Roosting Sites Code of Practice and the Green Island Saltmarsh Agreement

The Poole Harbour Roosting Sites Code of Practice (Annex 10) is a voluntary agreement in place to prevent disturbance to breeding and roosting bird species and promote the protection of supporting breeding habitat within specific areas of Poole Harbour. The Code of Practice lists several points for fishers to follow for the duration of the dredge season:  Avoid fishing in close proximity to saltmarsh areas  When moving around areas of saltmarsh keep speed to a maximum of 6 knots  Avoid landing or disembarking on any saltmarsh area  Avoid contact between a vessel and any part of the saltmarsh

8 The report for the Southern IFCA Poole Harbour Bivalve Stock Assessment 2019 can be found at the following link. Add link once new website finalised. This document details the methodology and results of the stock assessment. There was no stock assessment carried out in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Page 11 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018  When operating in bird sensitive areas during the period when these areas are open between 1st July and 1st November avoid excessive noise, beyond that caused by deployment of gear

In addition, fishers are asked to avoid disturbance to Mediterranean gull between 25th May and 1st July each year in the area of Seagull Island to cover the key breeding period for this species (1st April to 1st July) where it overlaps with the dredge season. During this time, fishers are asked to follow specific points relating to Seagull Island which include avoiding fishing between the different parts of the island, avoiding contact with the island, not to land or disembark, keep speed to a maximum of 6 knots in the vicinity of the island and avoid excessive noise. The Code of Practice is well adhered to by fishers.

In 2019 this Code of Practice was expanded to include provisions relating to avoiding the saltmarsh are around Green Island to help protect this supporting habitat. In 2020 a separate information leaflet was provided to fishers detailing the ‘Green Island Saltmarsh Management Area’ (Annex 11). This details an area around Green Island for the management of saltmarsh which was established between fishers and partners to manage and protect the supporting habitat and fishing activity interests in the area. The area is marked by a series of buoys and fishers are asked to avoid fishing with this marked area at all times during the season. For the 2021/22 season Southern IFCA will monitor compliance with these voluntary measures around Green Island and collate evidence on any activity in the area which will aid in reviewing the success of the Management Area.

4.1.4 Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Access Policy

The Access Policy9 outlines the way in which the Authority administers the allocation of permits under the byelaw and sets out criteria for applicants based on whether they have held a permit during the previous season or are a new entrant. In either case, the vessel for which an application is made must be a relevant fishing vessel as defined in the byelaw and the applicant must be a majority shareholder in that vessel or nominated for that purpose by a majority shareholder of the vessel provided that the applicant is also named as a shareholder on the vessel’s certificate of registry.

This ensures that in order to gain a permit there is a rigorous process and set of criteria which will be tested by the Authority. The specified criteria are designed to ensure that permit entitlements are used during the season and that the fishery is open to those with a genuine desire to engage in the commercial shellfish fisheries within the Harbour. The process also prohibits unregistered/unlicensed fishing and creates a robust regulatory mechanism against illegal activity. The current version of the Access Policy was adopted by the Authority at their meeting on 21st March 2019.

4.2 Technical Gear Specifications

Fishing for shellfish in Poole Harbour is carried out using pump-scoop dredge. A pump-scoop dredge consists of toothed dredge basket which is towed through the seabed alongside a vessel (Jensen et al., 2005). Attached to the front end of the dredge is a series of water jets which direct a flow of water to the rear of the dredge basket (Jensen et al., 2005) (Figure 1). The water jets, powered by a hydraulic pump, allow sediment to be moved through the dredge basket (Jensen et al., 2005). In 2012, the use of a trailed pump-scoop dredge, which uses the aid of a davit arm and winch, was introduced. This type of dredge evolved from the previously used and more physically demanding

9 Link to be added once new website finalised

Page 12 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 hand-held dredge or scoop, pushed into the sediment and pulled along by a vessel (Jensen et al., 2005; Clarke et al., 2018). The pump-scoop dredge is deployed from small (less than 10 metre in length) and shallow drafted vessels. This gear type is unique to Poole Harbour and differs from suction or hydraulic dredging techniques which both fluidise the sediment by spraying water in front of the dredge (Jensen et al., 2005).

Figure 1: Typical pump-scoop dredge set up with basket dredge, water jets, davit arm and sorting riddle.

A comparison between the pump-scoop and hand-held dredge revealed no differences in the areas fished in terms of proximity to the shore (i.e. potential displacement of birds) or sediment penetration (i.e. likelihood of impacting on infaunal communities). Further observations also showed no increase in fishing intensity when comparing both dredge types.

The pump-scoop dredge is towed in a circular motion with each tow lasting from 2 to 5 minutes depending on the nature of the seabed. After each tow the pump-scoop dredge is lifted into the vessel and the contents of the dredge basket are emptied directly onto the riddle for sorting. Fishers must sort their catch immediately and return all shellfish under minimum size restrictions, as well as bycatch, to the water.

The configuration of the pump-scoop dredge is dictated by the conditions of the permit. These include restrictions on the dimensions of a dredge basket to a maximum of 460 mm in width, 460 mm in depth and 30 mm in height (excluding any poles or attachment). Dredges must be constructed on rigid bars having spaces of no less than 18 mm between them. Bar spacing is designed to allow

Page 13 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 young spat and infauna to go through the dredge basket (Jensen et al., 2005). A riddle with bar spacing of 18 mm is mandatory for the sorting of shellfish.

4.3 The Poole Harbour Shellfish Fishery: Location, Effort and Scale of Fishing

Prior to the introduction of the PHDP byelaw, commercial shellfish dredging within Poole Harbour was regulated through a combination of the Poole Fishery Order 1985, a hybrid Regulating and Several Order that licensed the wild clam fishery and provided leased ground for shellfish aquaculture, and the ‘Cockle’ byelaw, which regulated commercial cockle fishing. There was additional clam fishing in areas which fell outside of the Poole Fishery Order 1985, namely Brands Bay and Lytchett Bay. There was also a level of unlicensed/unregistered fishing activity for both clam and cockle, with 18 unlicensed vessels recorded by SIFCA between 1st January 2012 and 1st September 2014.

On 1st July 2015, the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw was introduced to regulate the use, retention on board, storage and transportation of a dredge through the allocation of permit entitlements. Simultaneously, the Poole Harbour Fishery Order 2015 was also introduced on 1st July 2015 to regulate shellfish aquaculture within the Harbour.

Since the introduction of the PHDP byelaw, 45 permit entitlements have been allocated each season (2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20, 2020/21). During the most recent season (2020/21), 45 out of 45 permit entitlements were taken out. In both the 2017/18 and 2016/17 seasons 43 permits were taken out, whilst 44 were taken out in 2015/16 and 45 were taken out in 2018/19 although one of these permits was not used.

Another permit condition of the PHDP byelaw is the submission of monthly catch return forms. This allows a number of parameters to be monitored, for each day of the month, including time spent fishing, quantities of shellfish species caught, the name(s) of the buyer(s) and the zone of the Harbour in which the fishing took place. Also, there is a record of whether there was any interaction with Endangered, Threatened or Protected (ETP) species during that month.

Page 14 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018

4.3.1 Fishing Effort

50

45

40

35 2015‐16 30 2016‐17 25 2017‐18 20 2018‐19

15 2019‐20 2020‐21 10

Number of Permit Entitlements Actively Fished 5

0 May June July August September October November December Month

Figure 2. Number of Poole Harbour Dredge Permit entitlements actively fished for the 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons, broken down by month. This is ascertained through the submission of monthly catch returns, where vessels have reported catch and effort data they are considered as actively fishing. In 2015, the season commenced on July 1st. For all other years the season commenced on May 25th.

For the 2020/21 season, the number of permit holders actively fishing per month varied between 20 in May and 43 in October and December. The average number of active fishers per month was highest during the 2019/20 season with 39, compared to 36 in 2018/19, 35 in 2020/21, 33 in 2017/18 and 2016/17, and 27 in 2015/16. During the 2020/21 season, the number of active vessels increased steadily from May to a peak of 43 actively fished permits used in October, this level maintained with 42 permits used in November and then back up to 43 actively fished permits in December. A similar trend was seen in 2019/20, 2018/19 and 2017/18. In 2016, the number of active fishers peaked twice, once in June/July, before dipping in August/September and then peaked again in October. In 2016, the number of active fishers is maintained at near a consistent level from October to December. In 2015, the number of fishers peaked in September and remained relatively consistent thereafter, although with a slight decline month on month until December. The peaks seen in past seasons between October and December are likely to be a result of an increased demand and price offered for shellfish close to the Christmas period. Additional burdens during the 2020/21 season caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including a reduction in domestic market opportunities (i.e., the restaurant trade) and a lower average value for catch across the season, do not seem to have affected the number of fishers actively fishing from July onwards, when levels were consistent with previous years, however the pandemic may explain the lower numbers of active fishers during May and June when the country was still in a nationwide lockdown and shielding was in place. It is important to note that all permit holders actively fish throughout the season but do not necessarily fish for every month of the season. The reasons for this may be related to weather, vessel maintenance, alternative fishing practices, other work commitments or extraordinary circumstances.

Page 15 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018

4000

3500

3000

2500 2015 2016 2000 2017

Hours Fished 2018 1500 2019 2020 1000

500

0 May June July August September October November December Month

Figure 3. Total number of hours fished by Poole Harbour Dredge Permit holders per month for the 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons. In 2015, the season commenced on July 1st. For all other years the season commenced on May 25th.

In 2020/21 the total number of hours fished per month peaked in August. The hours fished varied from 381.75 (May) to 2978.75 (August). For the months of May, June, July and October, the hours fished per month were lower than the previous season (2019/20). The general pattern observed was the same as that seen in previous years with an increase in fishing hours during the first two months of the season and a gradual decline for the last three months of the season. The lower number of hours fished during the start of the season may also be attributably to the COVID-19 pandemic as the start of the season coincided with a period of national lockdown and shielding, reflected in a lower number of active permits being used. The total number of hours fished per month in 2015 shows little similarity to the other seasons, this is due to different timings for the start of the season and the introduction of the new legislation.

Page 16 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018

4.3.2 Landings

120000 Manila Clam 100000

80000 2015 2016 60000 2017

Quantity (kg) 2018 40000 2019 2020 20000

0 May June July August September October November December Month

Figure 4. Total landings of manila clam (in kilograms) by Poole Harbour Dredge Permit holders for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons, broken down by month. In 2015, the season commenced on July 1st. For all other years the season commenced on May 25th.

45000

40000 Cockle

35000

30000 2015 25000 2016

20000 2017

Quantity (kg) 2018 15000 2019 10000 2020

5000

0 May June July August September October November December Month

Figure 5. Total landings of cockle (in kilograms) by Poole Harbour Dredge Permit holders for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons, broken down by month. In 2015, the season commenced on July 1st. For all other years the season commenced on May 25th.

Page 17 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018

7000 Other 6000

5000

2015 4000 2016 2017 3000 Quantity (kg) 2018 2019 2000 2020

1000

0 May June July August September October November December Month

Figure 6. Total landings (in kilograms) of other bivalve species (American hard-shell clam and Palourde clam) by Poole Harbour Dredge Permit holders for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons, broken down by month. In 2015, the season commenced on July 1st. For all other years the season commenced on May 25th.

The main targeted species is the Manila clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) which is reflected in the landings data, in comparison to landings for cockle and other bivalve species (Figures 4 to 6). In 2015, after the introduction of the new season, landings of manila clam reached 70,000 kilograms and remained at this level for the first three months of the season. Following this, landings of manila clam, rapidly declined from September onwards. In the following two seasons landings of manila clam were lower, peaking at approximately 35,000 kg between June and August, and more stable across the season. In both 2016/17 and 2017/18 seasons, landings show a steady decline in last four months. In the 2018/19 season the landings of Manila clam peaks twice in August and October which accurately reflects the peaks in effort levels (total hours fished) in these months. As with previous seasons there was a steady decline in November and December however catches from July to December are consistently above those of the 2016/17 and 2017/18 seasons. For the 2019/20 season, the landings were again higher than in the previous year with a peak in Manila clam catches in July coinciding with the peak in hours fished. There was a decline in catches from August to December although the overall quantity of Manila clam caught from June to November was higher than the previous three seasons. For the 2020/21 season there was a large increase in the quantity of Manila clam landed for all months except May. As with previous seasons the largest quantity caught for a particular month, 108,288.7 kg in August, matches the month with the highest number of hours fished. The general pattern remains the same as in previous months with an increase in quantity to the summer and then a steady decline through the second half of the season. Catch quantity for Manila clam varied from 8550.0 kg (May) to 108,288.7 kg (August). Prior to the 2020/21 season the highest catch quantity for Manila clam had been recorded in July 2015, the first month after the Poole Harbour Dredge Fishing Permit Byelaw was introduced. The reason for the large increase in the quantity of this species caught by the fishery is not known. The 2020/21 season

Page 18 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 took place during the COVID-19 pandemic in which changes to markets and pricing may have impacted the quantities caught but this cannot be verified. The Southern IFCA was unable to undertake the Poole Harbour Bivalve Stock Survey in 2020 due to the pandemic therefore it is possible that there may have been a larger stock of Manila clam above the minimum conservation reference size (MCRS) available for the season. There were also some prolonged periods of high temperatures during the spring and summer of 2020/21 which may have promoted increased growth rates and therefore maintained the supply of Manila clam above MCRS for a longer duration throughout the season.

A number of fishermen target common cockle (Cerastoderma edule) throughout the season, however it is usually less popular as a target species due to a lower market price, the fact they are less widespread within the Harbour and the difficulties with harvesting the species as they are associated with harder ground. As such, the landings of cockle are usually much lower than those of manila clam. Catches remained relatively stable at 2,000 to 3,000 tonnes per month in the 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 seasons. An exception to this was observed in July 2017 when monthly landings reached over 14,000 kilograms. However, in 2018 catches of cockle were higher throughout the entire season, peaking in September at 8964kg and then showing a steady decline to December. The 2019/20 season showed a significant increase in cockle catches for the period July to September (10693kg to 12862kg) with a peak in August of 38686kg. Anecdotal information from fishers indicated that 2019 was a particularly good year for cockle and that the species often shows a cycle within the Harbour having a particularly good year for stock every 2-3 years. As a result of this more fishers actively targeted cockles during the 2019/20 season which may also help to explain the increase in landings. The landings for cockles during the 2020/21 season were more in line with those during the 2016/17 season. Quantities landed ranged from 416 kg (May) to 2866 kg (July). 2019 and 2018 were seen to be good years for cockle in the Harbour and therefore we may be seeing the pattern cycle indicated by fishers of 2-3 good years for stock followed by lower stock levels. As above, the Southern IFCA were unable to undertake the Poole Harbour Bivalve Stock Survey in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore the stock levels prior to the season cannot be quantified. The increase in the stock of Manila clam available may also indicate why fewer cockle landings were seen, the Manila clam generally commands a higher price per kg and therefore, if stock and market demand is available, fishers generally prefer to fish for this species.

Other bivalve species caught and landed within Poole Harbour consist predominantly of American hard-shell clams (Mercenaria mercenaria), as well as the native Palourde clam (Ruditapes decussatus). The landings of these species vary largely between each year with no recognisable pattern. In 2015, the landings of other species were low, with a small peak in September of 1090 kilograms. Landings increased in 2016 and 2017, reaching over 5500 kilograms in November 2017, with both years showing an increase in landings in the last 3 to 4 months of the season. These increases are likely to be driven by the simultaneous declines in manila clam. It is rumoured that the landings in 2017 were markedly higher in the last four months of the season because of a decline in the American fishery for American hard-shell clams and therefore a greater market. A small peak in catches of other species was seen in October 2018, however levels of catches remained relatively constant throughout the entire season. For the 2019/20 season catches of ‘other’ species were higher than in previous years varying between 385.5kg in May to 6481.5kg in December. From examining catch returns, this was mainly driven by increased catches of American Hard-Shelled clam but there were also increased catches of Palourde clams recorded compared to previous years. For the 2020/21 season, quantities of these other two species were generally lower than in the 2019/20 season except for December where the quantity of ‘other’ species peaked at 6395 kg, less than 100kg difference to the quantity caught in December 2019. For 2020/21 this increase in December was mainly driven by catches of the American hard-shell clam. Catches of the Palourde

Page 19 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 clam were increased compared to seasons from 2015/16 to 2018/19 but were lower when compared to the previous season (2019/20). The Palourde clam and the Manila clam are very similar making it difficult to identify the species, particularly out of the water when the siphons are not visible. Whilst the Manila clam is the dominant of the two species, the Palourde clam will often fetch a higher price, and, if in particular demand by markets, fishers may make more of an effort to retain Palourde clams.

4.3.3 Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)

70

60

50

2015 40 2016 2017 30 2018 2019 20 2020 Total kg of all species fished per hour 10

0 May June July August September October November December Month

Figure 7. Catch per unit effort (total kilograms of all species per hour) derived from Poole Harbour Dredge Permit holders monthly catch return for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons, broken by month. In 2015, the season commenced on July 1st. For all other years the season commenced on May 25th.

In 2015, CPUE reached 63 kg/hour in the first month of the season and declined thereafter to 18.6 kg/hour (Figure 7). The introduction of the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw on 1st July 2015 introduced a new season for clam fishing, where previously fishing had only been licenced during three months between October and December (and in small areas of the Harbour year-round). Therefore, the catch rates and fishing effort reported in the first few months of the 2015/16 dredge season need to be considered in light of the fact that a much larger area of the Harbour was open to clam dredging at this time of year than had been previously. This helps to explain the anomalous trends observed in catch rates of manila clam, total number of hours fished per month and catch per unit effort observed in 2015 when compared to all other years. Data from the following seasons show a more stable picture across all months and is likely to be representative of the fishery as a whole. CPUE observed in the following two seasons did not reach levels observed in 2015 and although lower, remained stable across the entire season between approximately 11.5 and 15.5 kg/hour, except in July 2017 where CPUE peaked at 21.8 kg/hour. In the 2018/19 season CPUE

Page 20 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 remained stable throughout the season again, peaking at 17.95kg/hour in September. The CPUE per month of 2018 was consistently higher than the two seasons before (excluding July 2017).

For 2019/20 CPUE remained relatively stable across the season varying from 16.3 kg/hour in May to 30.7 kg/hour in August. The peak in August coincides with increased catches for both Manila clam and the peak in catches for common cockle. For the previous season (2020/21) CPUE was markedly higher than in previous seasons (except for July 2015). The CPUE data showed a pattern consistent with that for hours fished and quantities of the Manila clam indicating that the fishing of this species is the driver for the pattern in the CPUE data. The large increase in catches of Manila clam across the season combined with similar or lower fishing hours than the previous year explain the large increase in CPUE. Excepting 2015/16 as the season that the legislation was first introduced, the CPUE for the fishery has increased each season, primarily with the increase in quantities of Manila clam caught, although the CPUE will also be influenced by large catches of common cockle during certain seasons.

4.3.4 Sightings

Shellfish dredging takes in distinct and relatively small spatial areas, where shellfish beds exist. There are a number of beds within Poole Harbour and the level of fishing effort varies between them. This can depend on a number of factors including the target species, substrate type and level of weed. These sites occur intertidally (at high tide) with vessels operating in very shallow waters. Key sites are well illustrated using sightings data (Annex 3). Sightings from the dredge season (25th May to 23rd December) for all seasons up to 2020/21 illustrate distinct areas where shellfish dredging takes place, with activity largely concentrated in the area of Holton Mere and the Wards (between Round Island and Green Island). Sightings data shows shellfish dredging to also take place east of Giggers Island, Arne Bay, Middlebere Lake and Wych Lake, Ower Lake and Brands Bay. Almost all sightings occur within the intertidal. Sightings that occur within seasonal closed areas all occurred during periods when these areas were open to fishing activity (1st July to 31st October). Please note that Southern IFCA’s sightings data may reflect the home port of the patrol vessel, high risk areas and typical patrol routes and therefore are only indicative of fishing activity. The frequent nature of patrols conducted in Poole Harbour mean it is likely that the geographical extent of the fishery is well reflected, however intensity may be skewed by aforementioned factors.

5 Test of Likely Significant Effect (TLSE)

The Habitats Regulations assessment (HRA) is a step-wise process and is first subject to a coarse test of whether the plan or project will cause a likely significant effect on an EMS10. Each feature/sub- feature was subject to a TLSE, a summary table is provided in Annex 7. Only those features or supporting habitats where there was potential for likely significant effect have been included.

10 Managing Natura 2000 sites: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm

Page 21 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 6 Appropriate Assessment

Note: this is only to be undertaken if the Test for LSE (section 5) concluded ‘Yes’ or ‘Uncertain’ for LSE, either alone or in-combination.

6.1 Co-location of Bird Features (and their supporting habitats) and Project/Plan(s)

Key areas favoured by designated bird species in Poole Harbour SPA are summarised in table 2.

Table 2. Key areas for designated bird species in the Poole Harbour SPA. Information taken from the draft supplementary advice on conserving and restoring site features, Natural England’s Conservation Advice Package and Poole Harbour Aquatic Management Plan Appendix 5 (Selection of Bird Sensitive Areas in Poole Harbour). Common Name Latin Name Favoured Area(s) Roosting areas include Brownsea Lagoon, towards the end of Wych and Middlebere channel and on the Spartina saltmarsh in north Holes Bay. Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta Main feeding areas include Wych and Middlebere channels, Brownsea Lagoon, East Fitzworth. To feed, flocks tend to congregate in one bay, including Holes Bay or Lytchett Bay and roosting is limited to the area in which they are feeding. Preferred feeding sites also include Brownsea Lagoon. Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa islandica

Arne Bay, Brands Bay, Wych Lake, Newton Bay, Ower Bay and Middlebere Lake and Brownsea Lagoon are important roost sites for waders, including black-tailed godwit. Common tern and lagoon is the site of the principal and probably only nesting colony of Sterna hirundo Sandwich tern common terns and Sandwich terns within the Poole Harbour SPA. Only confirmed breeding colony in Poole Harbour is saltmarsh islands of off Holton Mediterranean gull Larus melanocephalus Heath where the species nests alongside black-headed gulls. Feeding takes place throughout the harbour, although favoured areas include Keysworth, Hole Bay and Brands Bay. Keysworth is reported to be an important area Shelduck Tadorna tadorna for feeding, with the food requirements for the numbers of shelduck recorded to exceed food availability.

Page 22 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Brownsea Lagoon and Middlebere channel represent favoured feeding sites. Species Eurasian spoonbill Platalea leucorodia is also recorded at other locations including Arne and Holes Bay. but also recorded at other locations e.g. Arne and Holes Bay Occurs throughout the harbour. Known to roost in trees around Littlesea (the dune Little egret Egretta garzetta slack lake on Studland) and Plantation trees in Arne. Keysworth is reported to be an important area for feeding, with the food requirements Curlew Numenius arquata for the numbers of curlew recorded to exceed food availability. Arne Bay, Brands Bay, Wych Lake, Newton Bay, Ower Bay and Middlebere Lake are Redshank Tringa totanus important roost sites for waders, including redshank. Arne Bay, Brands Bay, Wych Lake, Newton Bay, Ower Bay and Middlebere Lake are Greenshank Tringa nebularia important roost sites for waders, including greenshank. All of the above sensitive areas are utilised by bird species comprising the waterbird Waterbird assemblage, Over 20,000 waterbirds assemblage. Saltmarsh habitats, seagrass beds and reedbed are all important non-breeding over the winter supporting habitats.

A map of shellfish dredging and supporting habitats can be found in Annex 8. This reveals where shellfish dredging activity occurs in relation to designated supporting habitats of the site and shows activity occurring over intertidal mud and in the vicinity of saltmarsh. Using knowledge presented in table 2, shellfish dredging may have some effect on sites used by avocet, black-tailed godwit, Mediterranean gull, shelduck, Eurasan spoonbill, curlew, redshank and green shank. The sites used by these species, which occur in relatively close proximity to shellfish dredging, include outer Wych and Middlebere, Arne Bay, Ower Bay, Newton Bay, Brands Bay, Holton Mere and Keysworth. A number of key feeding and roosting sites identified in table 2 are however not affected by shellfish dredging either by the fact they are inaccessible to fishing vessels (Brownsea Lagoon) or through the year-round closure of certain areas (i.e., Lytchett Bay and Holes Bay).

The potential effect on the sites utilised by designated bird species however is mitigated through a number of permit conditions associated with the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw, principally, spatial and temporal restrictions and timing of the season (see section 6.6, table 9 for further details). It is also worth noting some effects, particularly disturbance, will be negated by the virtue that birds feed at low tide and shellfish dredging occurs at high tide.

6.2 Potential Impacts

Prior to the introduction of the PHDP byelaw in July 2015, Natural England provided initial advice on the potential impacts of shellfish dredging on the nature conservation features of Poole Harbour. Using the potential impacts identified in this advice, combined with the pressures outlined the

Page 23 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Advice on Operations (and identified in the TLSE process), a list of pressures and relevant attributes has been put together and is outlined below. In this section, these pressures are elaborated on using available scientific literature and results from relevant research.

Pressure Relevant Attribute Visual disturbance, Above water noise Supporting habitat: disturbance caused by human activity Supporting habitat: extent and distribution of supporting non-breeding Physical change (to another sediment type) habitat; Supporting habitat: extent and distribution of supporting habitat for the breeding season Supporting habitat: food availability within supporting habitat; Removal of non-target species Supporting habitat: food availability within the intertidal Supporting habitat: food availability within supporting habitat; Removal of target species Supporting habitat: food availability within the intertidal

6.2.1 Disturbance (visual and noise)

Generic impacts

Human disturbance to shorebirds can be defined as ‘any situation in which human activities cause bird to behave differently from the behaviour it would exhibit without presence of that activity’ (Wheeler et al., 2014). The response of birds to disturbance is influenced by a number of factors, including distance from the disturbance source, scale of disturbance and time of year (Stillman et al., 2009). Disturbance from many small-scale sources is thought to be more detrimental than fewer, large-scale sources (West et al., 2002).

Disturbance can result in displacement when birds are unable to use an area due to the magnitude of the disturbance present (Natural England, 2014). Under certain circumstances the impacts of disturbance may be equivalent to habitat loss, although such effects are reversible (Madsen, 1995; Hill et al., 1997; Stillman et al., 2007; Natural England et al., 2012). The effects of habitat loss through disturbance can include a reduction in the survival of displaced individuals and effects on the population size (Goss-Custard et al., 1995; Burton et al., 2006). Sites with high levels of human activity are often characterised by lower densities of birds when compared with sites that have low levels (Burger, 1981; Klein et al., 1995). The movement of birds to alternate feeding areas as a result of disturbance, which may be less suitable, can lead to increased shorebird density and thus interspecific competition; with alternate sites becoming depleted in food resources if used for prolonged periods of time (Goss-Custard et al., 2006; Wheeler et al., 2014). Disturbance can affect wintering bird populations in a number of ways including reduced intake a result of enhanced vigilance (Riddington 1996; Goss-Custard et al. 2006; Klaassen et al. 2006) and physiological impacts such as stress (Thiel et al., 2011). Such impacts can affect the fitness of individuals and have knock-on effects at a population scale (Natural England, 2011). Furthermore, disturbance can cause birds to take flight which increase energy demands and reduce food intake with potential consequences for survival and reproduction.

Page 24 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Birds can modify their behaviour in order to compensate for disturbance (Stillman et al., 2009). Some bird species may become habituated to particular disturbance events or types of disturbance (Walker et al., 2006, Nisbet, 2000, Baudains & Lloyd, 2007; Blumstein et al., 2003) and can do so over short periods of time (Rees et al., 2005; Stillman et al., 2009). The frequency of the disturbance will help to determine the extent to which birds can become habituated and thus the distance at which they respond (Stillman et al., 2009). The behavioural response of a bird to disturbance is also dependent on the time of year (Stillman et al., 2009). Towards the end of winter, when migratory birds need to increase feeding rates to provide energy for migration, behavioural response to disturbance is less (Stillman et al., 2009). Birds will approach a disturbance source more closely and return more quickly after a disturbance has taken place (Stillman et al., 2009).

In the context of shellfish harvesting from a vessel, limited has taken place to investigate its potential effects on bird populations through disturbance. It is thought that shellfish dredging has very little direct impact on disturbance of waders since it occurs at high tide (Sewell et al., 2007). Sewell et al. (2007, p. 51) stated that ‘We know of no evidence that dredging will have a direct impact in terms of disturbance on seabirds since most dredging occurs subtidally or at high-tide’. Wheeler et al. (2014) however stated, like other forms of disturbance, it could cause relocation and increased energy expenditure of birds

Examples of disturbance impacts

In the mid-1980s, localised and sustained disturbance from bait diggers at Lindisfarne National Nature Reserve were considered responsible for significant declines in the numbers of Wigeon, Bar-tailed Godwit and Redshank at the site (Townshend & O’Connor, 1993).

In 1996/97, Gill et al. (2001a) investigated the effect of human-induced disturbance on black-tailed godwits across 20 sites on the east coast of England. The study revealed no significant relationship between numbers of godwits and human activity at a range of spatial scales (Gill et al., 2001a). There was also no effect of the presence of marinas or footpaths on the number of godwits supported on the adjacent mudflats (Gill et al., 2001a).

Using a behaviour-based model, Durell et al. (2005) explored the effect if an extension to the port at Le Havre and proposed mitigation measures on the mortality and body condition of three overwintering bird species; curlew, dunlin and oystercatcher. Body condition was expressed as the percentage of birds failing to achieve at least 75% of their target weight for the time of year. Disturbance to feeding birds, day and night, had a significant effect on the mortality and body condition of all three species. The same was found for roosting birds. Roost disturbance was simulated by increased energy costs due to extra flying time of 10 minutes or more each day. Disturbance limited to the daytime only removed the effect of disturbance in curlew and oyster catcher, and although reduced the disturbance effect it still had a significant effect on the body condition and mortality of feeding dunlin. The introduction of a buffer zone, which would prevent disturbance within 150 m of the seawall, reduced the effects of disturbance on mortality and body condition to pre-disturbance levels.

Page 25 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Studies in the Solent which have focused on disturbance to birds, have reported disturbance levels of 30% during the winter of 1993/94 using disturbance events observed during low tide counts. Sources of disturbance from human activity on the shore included dog walkers, walkers, bait diggers and kite flyers (Thompson, 1994). A more recent study conducted from December 2009 to February 2010, which formed phase II of the Solent Disturbance & Mitigation Project, found for water-based recreational activities that 25% of observations resulted in disturbance and on the intertidal 41% of observation result in disturbance (Liley et al., 2010). Surfing, rowing and horse riding were activities found to most likely result in disturbance to birds. Over half of incidences where major flight was observed involved activities on the intertidal, with dog walking accounting for 47% of major flight events (Liley et al., 2010). The most responsive bird species to different activities were oyster catcher and wigeon (Liley et al., 2010). These two species had the highest proportion of observations involving a disturbance response. Primary data collected by Liley et al. (2010) was used to predict if disturbance could reduce the survival of birds using computer models (Stillman et al., 2012). Dunlin, ringed plover, oystercatcher and curlew were predicted to be the species most vulnerable to disturbance due to a combination of disturbance distances (see species-specific response), night-time feeding efficiency and vulnerability to food competition at high competitor densities (Stillman et al., 2012). Redshank, grey plover and black-tailed godwit typically had the shortest disturbance distances and were able to feed relatively effectively at night, meaning that these species were less affected by visitors (Stillman et al., 2012). Disturbance was predicted to result in increases in the level of time spent feeding intertidally by dunlin, ringed plover, redshank and grey plover, with no effect on black-trailed godwit and reductions in oystercatcher and curlew (Stillman et al., 2012). This was related to the ability of modelled birds to feed in terrestrial habitats, as those unable to do so spent longer feeding in intertidal habitats (Stillman et al., 2012).

Site-specific impacts

Liley and Fearnley (2012) surveyed a total of 15 sites located within the vicinity Poole Harbour between November to February, recording access levels, birds counts and bird response to disturbance, in addition to paired night and day counts at 13 sites. During the survey period there was 1981 potential disturbance events, generating a total of 3755 species-specific observations. Of these, 87% resulted in no visible change in behaviour or response and 12% resulted in some form of disturbance, with 6% involving birds undertaking major flight. Disturbance was found to have a significant effect on the numbers of waders and wildfowl present and overall 5.6 potential disturbance event were recorded per hour and a response of 1.7 times per hour, with birds flushed approximately once per hour. In December, the number of disturbance events resulting in a response, particularly birds being flushed, was markedly higher and locations where birds were more frequently flushed included Arne and Studland. In areas with the highest levels of access, bird was found less likely to respond to a disturbance event. Dog walkers without a lead accounted for 40% of birds flushed, followed by walkers (17%) and canoeists (17%).

A number of variables were found to influence the probability of major flight, including distance, with a shorter disturbance more likely to result in major flight, flock size, with a larger flock less likely to result in major flight, as well as the presence of a dog, availability of alternate foraging or roosting sites, temperature and the bird species present. A higher probability of major flight was recorded for curlew, oystercatcher and shelduck. The highest proportion of flushing in response to a disturbance events were seen in the species red-breasted merganser and sanderling. Water- based activities, including canoeing, pump-scoop dredging, small sailing boats and kite surfing, relative to other activities, were more likely to cause

Page 26 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 disturbance. This activity type made up a relatively small proportion of all recorded activities and it is worth noting the low sample sizes for water- based activities, with only 2 observations of pump-scoop dredging throughout the survey period. Thus, distorting the likelihood of disturbance, if for example major flight occurred 1 out of 2 observations, disturbance would be considered to occur 50% of the time. Species-specific response

Responsiveness to disturbance is thought to be a species-specific trait (Yasué, 2005). Gathe and Hüppop (2004) developed a wind farm sensitivity index (WSI) for seabirds. The index was based on nine factors, derived from specie’ attributes, and include; flight manoeuvrability, flight altitude, percentage of time flying, nocturnal flight activity, sensitivity towards disturbance by ship and helicopter traffic, flexibility in habitat use, biogeographical population size, adult survival rate and European threat and conservation status (Gathe & Hüppop, 2004). Each factor was scored on a 5-point scale from 1 (low vulnerability of seabirds) to 5 (high vulnerability of seabirds). The WSI was used by King et al. (2009) to develop sensitivity scores for species likely to be susceptible to cumulative impacts of offshore wind farms development. Table 3 provides available sensitivity scores of species within Poole Harbour SPA, with details of scores given for the species vulnerability to disturbance by ship and helicopter traffic.

Table 3. Sensitivity scores for designated bird species in the Poole Harbour SPA to offshore wind farm developments. Higher scores are indicative of a greater sensitivity. Information on species vulnerability to disturbance by ship or helicopter traffic is also provided. Scores were taken from King et al. 2009 who calculated scores using methods by Garthe & Hüppop (2004). Species Total sensitivity score Disturbance by ship and helicopter traffic (1 – very flexible in habitat use, 5 – reliant on specific habitat characteristics) Sandwich tern 25.0 2 Dark-bellied Brent goose 21.7 2 Red-breasted merganser 21.0 3 Goldeneye 15.8 3 Common tern 15.0 2 Black-tailed godwit 9.9 1 Black-headed gull 7.5 2 Redshank 6.7 1 Curlew 5.7 1 Shelduck 5.3 1 Teal 3.8 1 Dunlin 3.3 1

Page 27 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 There is great variation in the escape flight distances between species (Kirby et al., 2004) and the distance at which birds fly away from a disturbance can be viewed as a specie-specific trait (Blumstein et al., 2003). Response distances can depend on a number of different factors, including the time of year, tide, frequency, regularity and severity of disturbance, flock size and age of bird (WWT Consulting, 2012). Body mass has also been shown to be positively related to response distance (Liley et al., 2010). Table 9 and 10 provides details of response distances of species within Poole Harbour SPA, with Table 4 providing details of response distances in relation to different types of activities.

Table 4. Distances from disturbance stimuli (in metres) at which study waterbird species took flight. Taken from Kirby et al., 2004 in WWT Consulting 2012. Study Tydeman Cooke 1980 Tensen and Watmough Smit and Visser Smit and Visser Smit and Visser 1978 van Zoest 1983a,b 1993 1993 1993 Activity Boats Researcher People Researcher People Kayaks Surfers Distance measure Min Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Brent goose 105 Shelduck 126 148/250 220 400 Teal 400 86 Pochard 60 Goldeneye 100 168 280 Dunlin 30 71/163 Redshank 92 95 175 260

Mitigation

The effects of disturbance on the quality of an area for birds are reversible (Natural England et al., 2012). Studies have shown that bird numbers increase when either the source of disturbance is removed or mitigated (Natural England et al., 2012). Modelling of wintering oystercatchers on the Exe estuary revealed that preventing disturbance during late winter, when feeding conditions are harder and a migratory bird’s energetic demands are higher, has been shown to largely eliminate any predicted population consequences (West et al., 2002). Following this modelling, it was recommended that to eliminate predicted population consequences of disturbances, competent authorities responsible for management should prevent disturbance to birds during late winter (West et al., 2002).

Establishing flight-initiation distances may be considered a starting point for competent authorities responsible for management in order to minimise adverse effects of disturbance (Wheeler et al., 2014). The establishment of such buffer areas are dependent on a number of factors including population densities, food availability, time of year and behaviour of individuals (Wheeler et al., 2014). As aforementioned, a buffer zone of 150 m from the seawall was found to reduce the effects of disturbance from an extension to the port at Le Havre on the mortality and body condition to

Page 28 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 pre-disturbance levels for three bird species (dunlin, curlew and oystercatcher) (Durell et al. 2005). Investigation into disturbance caused by recreational activities in the Solent however suggested that there was no clear set-back distance, for all species on all sites due to the large variability observed in response distances, which would result in no disturbance (Liley et al., 2010). The largely variability in flight-initiation distances suggests that competent authorities should be conservative when developing buffer zones, although previously published flight-initiation distances for a given species may be used as a guideline for setting buffer zones (Blumstein et al., 2003).

Whilst many authors may try and define a distance beyond which disturbance is assumed to have no effect, which is then used in turn to determine set-back distances, it may be inappropriate to set such distances (Stillman et al., 2009). The reason for this is because of the variation between species (Blumstein et al., 2005), as well as variation between individuals of the same species (Beale & Monaghan, 2004). This is further compounded by particular circumstances such as habitat, flock size, cold weather, variations in food availability, all of which will influence a birds’ ability to response to disturbance and hence the scale of the impact (Rees et al., 2005; Stillman et al., 2001). In addition, there is no guarantee that the behavioural response i.e. response distance, will be related to population consequence (Gill et al., 1996; 2001b).

6.2.2 Physical change (to another sediment type)

Advice from Natural England, received prior to the introduction of the PHDP byelaw, outlining the potential impacts of shellfish dredging on the nature conservation features of the Poole Harbour SPA, highlighted a concern related to the potential erosion of saltmarsh taking place where shellfish dredging occurs in close proximity to this habitat type. Natural England advice refers to a study undertaken by Dyrynda (1995) in Liley et al. (2012) looking at the impacts of bait dragging on the seabed within Poole Harbour, who states

‘Bait dragging would undoubtedly cause substantial damage to communities involved rooted species such as saltmarsh, seagrass and peacock- worm beds. However, these areas are not usually suitable for dragging and are avoided (R. Castle, pers. comm).’

As stated by Natural England and recognised in the above statement with regards to bait dragging, pump-scoop dredging is unlikely to occur over saltmarsh. This is further supported by a lack of literature on the impacts of towed gear with regards saltmarsh habitats, as any interaction between the two is not thought to occur (i.e. Hall et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 2010).

6.2.3 Removal of target species

Commercial shellfisheries can provide a potential source of conflict by competing with the same food resources as certain bird species (Schmechel, 2001; Atkinson et al., 2003). The removal of food resources by shellfishing therefore has the potential to have detrimental effects on the amount of food available per bird and subsequently increases the chance of a threshold being reached where mortality from starvation begins to increase

Page 29 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 (West et al., 2005; Navedo et al., 2008). The removal of shellfish from productive beds, along with associated disturbance, can drive birds from preferred feeding grounds to areas of poorer quality. This can lead to an increase in bird densities and a subsequent intensification of interference and exploitation competition for food which can reduce intake rate and probability of starvation, particularly in winter (Goss-Custard & Verboven, 1993; Clark, 1993; Goss-Custard et al., 1996). It is important to understand to what degree bird species are able to switch to other food resources, if their target species (that may also be the target species of the fishery) is reduced (Schmechel, 2001). It was reported by Zwarts et al. (1996a) that along the north west European coast there are limited possibilities of alternative prey items for certain bird species, especially in winter due to changes in availability (Schmechel, 2001). Using individual behaviour-based models it has been shown that shellfish stocks should not fall below 2.5 to 8 times the biomass that shorebird populations require to survive (Stillman et al. 2003; Goss-Custard et al. 2004; Stillman et al. 2010).

A link has been shown between the state of shellfish stocks and oystercatcher survival in the Wash (Schmechel, 2001). The Wash, constitutes an important estuary for supporting large numbers of wintering waterfowl (310 000), including internationally important numbers of knot and oystercatcher (Schmechel, 2001; Atkinson et al., 2003). The area also supports one of the three major cockle fisheries in Britain (Atkinson et al., 2003). The majority of cockle harvesting involves the use of continuous delivery hydraulic suction dredges (Bannister, 1998; 1999). Between 1990 and 1999, stocks of cockles and mussels collapsed following a period of poor recruitment and high levels of fishing effort in the 1980s (Bannister, 1998; 1999). During this period, oystercatcher populations fell from 110,000 to 40,000 (Atkinson et al., 2000). Population modelling has confirmed that declines in the availability of these prey items were associated with changes in oystercatcher survival between 1970 and 1998, which included three periods of mass mortality (Atkinson et al., 2003). Oystercatchers are particularly sensitive to low cockle stocks in years where stocks of mussels are also low and in the Wash, it is thought that mussels act as a buffer during periods when cockle numbers are low (Atkinson et al., 2003; Velhurst et al., 2004). In the Wash, oystercatcher mortality occurred during winters when stocks of both species were low (Atkinson et al., 2003).

Atkinson et al. (2010) investigated overall changes in the waterbird assemblage in the Wash between 1980-1982 and 2002-2003. During this study period, the waterbird assemblage underwent a gradual change from one being dominated by species with a high proportion of bivalves or ‘other’ prey i.e. crustaceans and fish in their diet to those with a higher proportion of worms (Atkinson et al., 2010). Three winters in this period were characterised by elevated levels of oystercatcher mortality, 5 to 13 times greater than normal winter levels (Atkinson et al., 2010). The great declines were observed in oystercatcher, knot and shelduck (Atkinson et al., 2010). Bar-tailed godwit and grey plover showed large increases over the study period. As expected, these changes were found to be significantly related to mussel and cockle stock levels and nutrient levels to a lesser extent (Atkinson et al., 2010). Six out of 11 bird species investigated, showed significantly lower rates of annual change in the 10 years before and after the crash of mussel stocks (which occurred during 1992) (Atkinson et al., 2010).

There have also been changes in the bird populations in other areas were cockle fisheries are known exist. Like the Wash, the Burrey Inlet cockle fishery saw a decrease in the number of oystercatchers feeding in the inlet for a number of years, in response to removal of less than 25% of available cockle stocks (Norris et al., 1998). Oystercatcher numbers remained stable or slightly increased from 1970 to 1986, before declining through to 1993 and then recovering slightly (Schmechel, 2001). In the Thames, there has been a consistent increase in the number of birds from 5000 in the 1970s to 16000 in 1997/98, despite a simultaneous increase in cockle dredging (Schmechel, 2001). Contrasting to Schmechel (2001)

Page 30 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 in the Dutch, Wadden Sea international MPA a gradual loss of intertidal resources explained the loss of red knots (Caldris cantrus islandica) from the local populations and a decline in the EU wintering population (van Gils et al. 2006). Cockle (Cerastoderma edule) mechanical dredging led to lower settlement rates of cockles and reduced their quality (ratio of flesh to shell) (van Gils et al. 2006).

Stillman et al. (2001) used a behaviour-based model to investigate the effects of present-day management regimes of the Exe estuary mussel fishery and Burry Inlet cockle fishery on the survival and numbers of overwintering oystercatchers. Results of the study concluded that at present intensities (2 fishing units in the Exe estuary and 50 fishing units in Burry Inlet) in both fisheries does not cause oystercatcher mortality to be higher than it would be in absence of the activity (Stillman et al., 2001). Theoretical changes in management, such as fishing effort, a reduction in the minimum size of target species and increase in the daily catch quota were shown to have an impact on oystercatcher mortality and population size (Stillman et al., 2001). Different fishing methods were investigated as part of the study. The model predicted the use of dredges on either estuary increased the time birds would spent feeding and the use of supplementary feeding areas (Stillman et al., 2001). As would be expected, the removal rates of mussels and cockles using mussel dredges and suction dredges were much greater that hand-raking or hand-picking (Stillman et al., 2001). Sixty suction dredges could kill all the Burry Inlet oystercatchers (Stillman et al., 2001). Hand-raking for mussels however was found to reduce the area of beds, permanently increase interference and disturb birds, temporarily increasing interference, whilst dredging for mussels only decreased bed area (Stillman et al., 2001). The varying impacts of different fishing methods reflect differences in the way they deplete shellfish stocks (Stillman et al., 2001).

Size of prey species

The exact role of the fishery and its effect on bird population, as a result of direct competition, will largely depend on the different size fractions of the stock that may be exploited by fishers and birds (Schmechel, 2001). Whilst there may be an overlap in the size of cockles taken by both fishers and birds, most bird predation is of a smaller size class than fishers take (Norris et al., 1998). If sizes overlap there can be a genuine conflict of interest between the birds and the fishery, therefore larger minimum sizes are therefore more favourable to birds (Lambeck et al., 1996). Oystercatchers have shown a preference for older cockles, 20 to 40 mm, and will not take cockles less than 10 mm when these larger size classes are available (Hulscher, 1982; Zwarts et al., 1996a). On the other hand, oystercatchers do not necessarily choose the largest cockles as they are difficult to handle, with studies reporting that larger cockles were refused more often than small ones (Zwarts et al. 1996a). Oystercatchers are known to refuse small prey due to low profitability and the size of cockles left after fishing may therefore have an impact on feeding rate of the oystercatcher (Zwarts et al. 1996b; Wheeler et al., 2014).

Caldow et al. (in Jensen et al. 2005) demonstrated, the main target species of pump-scooping dredging, the non-native Manila clam, forms a prey item of the oystercatcher population in Poole Harbour. In the study, it is speculated the fishery, which reduces abundance, maximum age and size of Manila clam, may suppress potential benefits to the oystercatcher population. Between late summer and the following spring, a significant increase in the proportion of the population (up to 40 to 50%) consumes this target species. Using an individuals-based simulation model, the study predicts the presence of Manila clams in the Harbour, at low densities of 5 clams per m2 (mean density when the study was undertaken), has

Page 31 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 reduced over-winter mortality rates of oystercatchers by 3.5%. The size of individuals targeted by oystercatchers range in length from 16 to 50 mm, which overlaps to some extent with the fishery, where individuals 35 mm and above are removed. As such, there will be some level of direct competition between the two.

6.2.4 Removal of non-target species

Fishing activity can have indirect impact upon birds by affecting the availability of prey through pathways that do not include targeted removal (Natural England, 2014). In general, bottom towed fishing gear has been shown to reduce biomass, production and species richness and diversity of benthic communities where fishing activities take place (Veale et al., 2000; Hiddink et al., 2003). Alterations in the size structure of populations and community are also known to occur (Roberts et al., 2010). When dredges are towed along the seafloor, surface dwelling organisms can be removed; crushed, buried or exposed and sessile organisms will be removed from the substrate surface (Mercaldo-Allen & Goldberg, 2011). Direct burial or smothering of infaunal and epifaunal organisms is possible due to enhanced sedimentation rates (Mercaldo-Allen & Goldberg, 2011). In a meta-analysis of 39 studies investigating the effects of bottom towed gear, there was an overall reduction of 46% in the abundance of individuals within disturbed (fished) plots (Collie et al., 2000). In a separate meta-analysis of 38 studies, investigating the impacts of intertidal harvesting on benthic invertebrate communities, which represent bird prey sources, harvesting was shown to cause a significant reduction of 42% in the average abundance across all taxa in the first 10 days following disturbance (Clarke et al., 2017). A simultaneous increase in species diversity of 39% was reported in the first 10 days following disturbance, however this was followed by a significant reduction in diversity 51-500 days post-fishing and no significant effect after >500 days (Clarke et al., 2017). The magnitude of the response of fauna to bottom towed fishing gear varied with gear type, habitat (including sediment type) and among taxa (Collie et al., 2000).

In a study by Ferns et al. (2000), bird feed activity increased shortly after the mechanical harvesting of cockles using a tractor, particularly in areas of muddy sand rather than in areas of clean sand. Gulls and waders took advantage of the invertebrates made available by harvesting. For example, 80 dunlins and seven curlews were observed feeding on harvested areas 6 days after harvesting. Following this increase, the level of bird activity declined in areas of muddy sand when compared with control areas and become particularly apparent 21 and 45 days after harvest (Figure 8). Levels of bird activity remained significantly lower in curlews and gulls for more than 80 days after harvesting and in oystercatchers for more than 50 days. Any initial net benefit of harvesting was matched by decreased feeding opportunities in the winter. Harvesting large areas however would not result in a neutral effect, firstly as the bird population would not be large enough to fully exploit the enhanced feeding opportunities and secondly the subsequent reduction in feeding opportunities would extend over a longer period of time (Ferns et al., 2000). Other effects would include the migration of birds into unharvested areas which would then lead to increased bird densities in these areas (Sutherland & Goss-Custard 1991; Goss-Custard 1993).

Page 32 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018

Figure 8. Mean proportion (±SD) of samples in control (black squares) and harvested (white circles) sectors containing footprints of different bird species. Significant differences between sectors are indicated by an asterisk and estimated by bootstrapping. Source: Ferns et al., 2000

The relative impact of shellfish dredging on benthic organisms, which form potential prey items, is species-specific and largely related to their biological characteristics and physical habitat (Mercaldo-Allen & Goldberg, 2011). The vulnerability of an organism is ultimately related to whether or not it is infaunal or epifaunal, modile or sessile and soft-bodied or hard-shelled (Mercaldo-Allen & Goldberg, 2011). Epifauna, organisms inhabiting the seabed surface, are subject to crushing or at risk of being buried, in addition to effects of smothering, whilst infauna, organisms living within sediment, may be excavated and exposed (Mercaldo-Allen & Goldberg, 2011). A number of studies have found soft-bodied, deposit feeding crustaceans, polychaetes and ophiuroids to be most affected by dredging activities (Constantino et al., 2009). This is supported by a meta-analysis conducted by Collie et al. (2000) who predicted a reduction of 93% for anthozoa, malacostraca, ophiuroidea and polychaete after chronic exposure to dredging. This is further supported by another meta-analysis conducted by Clarke et al. (2017) which reported the most severe decline in the taxonomic group annelida (39.17%), followed by mollusca (33.76%) and crustacea (29.61%) in the first 10 days following disturbance from intertidal harvesting. Furthermore, a study looking at the effects of mechanical cockle harvesting in intertidal plots of muddy sand and clean sand, found that annelids declined by 74% in intertidal muddy sand and 32% in clean sand and molluscs declined by 55%in intertidal muddy sand and 45% in clean sand (Ferns et al., 2000). Similar results were reported by EMU (1992), who found a distinct reduction in polychaetes, but less distinct difference in bivalves, after dredging had taken place and between dredged and control samples. This corresponds with analysis completed by Collie et al.

Page 33 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 (2000) who reported that bivalves appeared to less sensitive to fishing disturbance than anthozoa, malacostraca, ophiuroidea, holothuroidea, maxillopoda, polychaeta, gastropoda and echinoidea,

A number of studies have highlighted species that are particularly vulnerable to dredging as well as those which appear to be more tolerant. For example, the polychaete Lanice conchilega are highly incapable of movement in response to disturbance and therefore take a significant period of time to recolonise disturbed habitats (Goss-Custard, 1977). Deep burrowing molluscs, such as Macoma balthica, also have limited capability to escape. Following suction dredging for the common cockle on intertidal sand, the abundance of Macoma declined for 8 years from 1989 to 1996 (Piersma et al., 2001). Ferns et al. (2000) reported reductions of 30% in the abundance of Lanica conchilega in intertidal muddy sand after mechanical cockle harvesting (using a tractor) took place, although abundances of Macoma balthica increased. The same study also revealed large reductions of 83% and 52% in the abundance of the polychaete Pygospio elegans and Nephtys hombergii, respectively (Ferns et al., 2000). The former species remained significantly depleted in the area of muddy sand for more than 100 days after harvesting and the latter for more than 50 days (Ferns et al., 2000). Other polychaete species also thought to be particularly affected are Arenicola, Scoloplos, Heteromastus and Glycera (Collie et al., 2000). A meta-analysis of 38 studies investigated the initial impacts (0-10 days post-fishing) of intertidal harvesting on bird prey resources down to a specie-level response. The study reported reductions in all species (23.58% in Cerastoderma edule, 16.18% in Nephtys spp., 47.25% in Hydrobia (Peringia) ulvae, 48.78% in Scoloplos spp), although only significant for Scoloplos spp. and except for Macoma baltica which increased by 14.09%.

Furthermore, a study by Beukema and Dekker (2018) investigated the effects of cockle (Cerastoderma edule) abundance and fishery on bivalve abundance, finding that low adult cockle density led to high cockle recruit density. Low recruit densities were apparent before fishing started indicating that these low densities were a result of the high cockle abundance itself. Recruit numbers, which had not changed post fishing activity were not different between fishing and non-fishing years, nor between fished and unfished areas (Beukema & Dekker, 2018). This study was conducted in relatively muddy sediments a reason suggested for the lack of significant influences of fishery in the studied area.

Site-Specific Studies

A number of studies have specifically investigated the impacts of pump-scoop dredging in Poole Harbour (Parker & Pinn, 2005; Cesar, 2003 in Jensen et al., 2005), with the most recent being the most extensive

Jensen et al. (2005) reported on the preliminary results of a MSc project looking at potential impact of pump-scoop fishing (for clam species) in Poole Harbour At thirteen sites, three replicate sediment samples were taken before and after the 2002/03 clam fishing season (late October to early January). Preliminary results from four sites, including data from a site experiencing ‘high’ fishing pressure (Seagull Island) were analysed and presented. The results show the infaunal community at Seagull Island to have a qualitatively similar level of disturbance before and after the fishing season, with no significant differences at all four sites before and after the season. Some quantitative changes were observed in the fine sediment granulometry at Seagull Island, however sediment samples from all four sites showed no significant differences before and after the

Page 34 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 season. From the preliminary results it was concluded that there was no significant additional disturbance to the infaunal community before and after the 2002/03 season occurred and whilst no statistically significant, changes to sediment granulometry at the site subject to high fishing pressure did occur.

Parker and Pinn (2005) investigated the impacts of pump-scoop dredging (for cockles) on the intertidal sedimentary environment and macro- infaunal community at two sites located within the Whitley Lake area of Poole Harbour. The study area was characterised by sandy mud with some patches of shingly ground occurring close inshore. Samples from each site were collected in April prior to the cockle fishery season (1st May to 31st January) opening, and then again in May, June and July during the season. The results show little change in the sediment particle size distribution on a monthly basis, with no significant differences observed. After three months of dredging, species richness had declined by from 17.2±1.1 to 12.6±0.9 at the first site and 17.0±2.3 to 14.8±2.3 at the second site. Post-hoc tests reveal significant differences between July and all other months. A decline in abundance was also observed, with reductions of 42.3% at the first site and 50.6% at the second site, with post-hoc tests revealing difference differences between April and July. No significant differences were found in infaunal communities between April and May, indicating either low fishing effort or no initial impact of pump-scoop dredging. After three months, significant differences were detected, with changes between June and July potentially attributable to sudden temperature changes, reproduction-induced mortality or disturbance from another source (hand gathering of cockles or bait digging), although also potentially indicative of a chronic effect of pump-scoop dredging. The species characterising the faunal assemblage in April consisted of Scoloplos armiger, Cingula trifasciata and Hydrobia spp., with May and June similar to April, although with the additional of Arenicola marina. In July the dominant species characterising faunal assemblage were Urothoe spp., C. trifasciata, A. marina and Corophium spp. S. armiger abundance showed the most change, with abundance decreasing to zero in July at both sites. Over the duration of the study Hydrobia spp. abundance declined at both sites, whilst Corophium abundance and Urothoe spp. increased and A. marina abundance increased at the first site and remained constant at the second site. It was noted by authors that two species commonly cited as important prey species for bird populations, Arenicola marina and Corophium spp., did not observe any obvious reductions in response to pump-scoop dredging and as such dredging may not have an obvious adverse impact on bird populations through impacts on the infaunal community.

Clarke et al., (2018) used a Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) sampling design to assess the impacts of pump-scoop dredging on the benthic physical characteristics and community structure. Core samples were taken from separate areas representing different levels of dredging intensity: an area that has historically been intensively dredged and remains open for a seven-month season; an area that has historically been closed to dredging but will be opened for a four-month season and an area that remains permanently closed to dredging (control site). The samples were taken in June, prior to the start of the fishing season in 2015 and November, before the end of the season.

Organic content and the proportion of fine sediments decreased in all sites throughout the study period, with the greatest declines in the intensively dredged site. Statistical analyses showed a significant effect with respect to site, with post-hoc tests revealing significantly less organic content at the intensively dredged site than the newly dredged and control sites, which showed no difference. However, the interaction term between time and site, which would indicate an overall impact of dredging activity in terms of relative change, appeared non-significant, thus indicating a small effect of dredging on the fine sediment content and very slight effect on organic content throughout the study period. The lower level of organic

Page 35 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 content and volume of fine sediments may be reflective of the higher fishing intensity or a more dynamic environment dominated by coarser sediments.

Throughout the study period significant changes in community structure occurred in both dredged sites, with statistical analyses showing a significant effect of both site and time before and after fishing, indicating a variation in the magnitude of change in overall assemblage between sites. The overall community structure of the newly dredged site shifted during the study period from those resembling the control site to those at the intensively dredged site. The community structure of the intensively dredged site and to some extent that of the newly dredged site in November, were characterised by high abundances of polychaete worms, in particular Hediste diversicolor, Aphelochaeta marioni, Streblospio shrubsolii and Tubificoides spp.; with the former three species showing notable increases in the newly dredged site (Figure 9). Densities of H. diversicolor more than doubled in the newly dredged site and were largely dominated by smaller (<10mm) individuals. Control sites were largely dominated by Peringia ulvae and Abra tenuis, which declined at both dredged sites and also had a general absence of A. marioni. A. tenuis represents a key prey item for molluscivorous shorebirds. Throughout the study period, densities of all species at the control site were generally much lower but more stable than at both dredged sites, at which the magnitude of change was much larger. Across both months, species richness was also found to be significantly higher in both dredged site compared to the control site. Biotic indices indicate all sites to be classed as ‘moderately disturbed’, with the control site and newly dredged site classified as ‘good’ quality and the intensively dredged site classified as ‘moderate’ quality. Despite the significant changes in community structure in the newly dredged site, as described above, no change in the biotope or ecological quality of either of the dredged sites were identified. It is worth noting that prior to the opening of the fishing season statistical analyses showed site differences in community structure, likely to be driven by a gradient in sediment type. Throughout the study period there were also clear seasonal changes in species abundance. The BACI sampling design allows for assessment of seasonally-induced changes however, and the greatest changes in community structure were observed in the newly dredged site with significant increases in species richness and total abundance.

Page 36 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018

Figure 9. Mean densities of common species in June (dark grey) and November (light grey) 2015 at three sites representing different levels of pump-scoop dredging intensity (heavily dredged, newly opened, control) in Poole Harbour. Heavily dredged; an area that has historically been intensively dredged and remains open for a seven-month season (May 25th-December 23rd). Newly dredged; an area that has historically been closed to dredging but will be opened for a four-month season (1st July-31st October). Control site; an area that remains permanently closed to dredging (control site). Source: Clarke et al., 2018.

Page 37 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Recovery

The timescale of recovery for benthic communities and potential prey species largely depends on sediment type, associated fauna and the rate of natural disturbance (Roberts et al., 2010). In locations where natural disturbance levels are high, the associated fauna are characterised by species adapted to withstand and recover from disturbance (Collie et al., 2000; Roberts et al., 2010). More stable habitats, which are often distinguished by high diversity and epifauna, are likely to take a greater time to recover (Roberts et al., 2010). The recovery for gravel habitats has been predicted to be in the order of ten years (Collie et al., 2005). This was reported by recovery rates observed during a 10-year monitoring program of a gravel habitat located close to the Isle of Man following closure of the area to scallop dredging (Bradshaw et al., 2000). Similar recovery periods were estimated for muddy sands, which Kaiser et al. (2006) estimated to take years after finding the sediment type was particularly vulnerable to impacts of fishing activities. The recovery periods for sandy habitats is estimated to take days to months (Kaiser et al., 2006). In the meta-analysis conducted by Kaiser et al. (2006), a significant linear regression with time for the response of annelids to the impacts of intertidal dredging in sand and muddy sand habitats was reported. Annelids were predicted to have recovered after 98 days post fishing in sand habitats and 1210 days in muddy sand habitats (Kaiser et al., 2006). Authors stated recovery for the latter however should be treated with caution (Kaiser et al., 2006).

Population recovery rates are known to be species specific (Roberts et al., 2010). Long-lived bivalves will undoubtedly take longer to recovery from disturbance than other species (Roberts et al., 2010). Megafaunal species such as molluscs and shrimp over 10 mm in size, especially sessile species, are more vulnerable to impacts of fishing gear than macrofaunal species as a result of their slower growth and therefore are likely to have long recovery periods (Roberts et al., 2010). Short-lived and small benthic organisms on the other hand have rapid generation times, high fecundities and therefore excellent recolonization capacities (Coen, 1995). For example, slow-growing large biomass biota such as sponges and soft corals are estimated to take up to 8 years, whilst biota with short life-spans such as polychaetes are estimated to take less than a year (Kaiser et al., 2006).

In a meta-analysis of 38 studies, investigating the recovery of invertebrate communities from intertidal harvesting, the recovery of non-target species (of the fishery) did not appear more than 500 days following disturbance across all habitat types, with a further reduction in abundance occurring at this time (Clarke et al., 2017). When broken down by habitat type, some habitats may demonstrate a trend towards recovery at 51-500 days (Clarke et al., 2017). Recovery trends for the majority of gear-habitat combinations were shown to be are unstable and highly variable. The recovery for hydraulic dredging in mud habitats show relatively short-term impacts with respect to abundance, with reductions in the first 10 days following disturbance, and close to no effect thereafter. The recovery of from mechanical dredging in mud differs between phyla with a decline in mollusc abundance suppressed for >60 days post-fishing, but positive trend in other phyla (annelids, crustaceans), demonstrating near recovery over the same period. Recovery in may is variable with clear trends towards recovery only evidence for hydraulic and mechanical dredging. The recovery for mechanical dredging in sand indicates a positive trend, with partial recovery after 400 days.

Page 38 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Studies on recovery rate

There are a limited number of studies which examine the recovery rate from biological and physical disturbance caused by shellfish dredging. Five studies were found on the impacts of shellfish harvesting on intertidal habitats, four of which are based in the UK (details are provided in Annex 9). The recovery rates reported range from no effect (thus no recovery is required) up to 12 months, with intermediate recovery rates reported at 56 days and 7 months (Kaiser et al., 1996; Hall & Harding, 1997). Spencer et al. (1998) reported a recovery rate of up to 12 months, although inferred it was not possible to be certain recovery had not occurred before this as not all treatment replicates were taken 4 and 8 months after sampling. The authors compared their findings with similar studies and speculated the greater length of recovery in comparison was related to the protected nature of the site (Spencer et al. 1998). This study highlights the importance of exposure in determining recovery rates of different habitats and also how recovery rates are site-specific.

Species-specific diets

While shorebirds will typically eat a range of different prey species such as molluscs and annelids, the type of preferred prey species will vary between bird species (Natural England, 2014). It is important to knowledge these variations in prey preference as the impacts of dredging on bird species are likely to be reflective vary depending on the vulnerability of prey species to impacts of dredging. The plasticity of a bird’s diet will also vary depending on the species and it is important to consider alternate prey species as bird will not be restricted to one source of food. Table 5 provides details of prey items taken by designated bird species within the Poole Harbour SPA. For example, oystercatchers will prey upon small cockles, Baltic tellins, soft-shell clams, lug-worms and ragworms (Wheeler et al., 2014). Some prey items may be of low value to the birds and not a major component of their diet (Zwarts et al. 1996ab; Atkinson et al. 2003). Alternative prey sources may also be less available as organisms may bury deeper into the sediment and thus require the birds to expend a greater amount of energy (Zwarts et al. 1996ab). Birds may directly compete with the fishery if both target the same species. The key bird species at risk from changes in prey availability are non-breeding overwintering species as food requirements are considerably greater during winter due to thermoregulatory needs and metabolic costs (Wheeler et al., 2014).

Table 5. Typical prey items known to be taken by designated bird species in Poole Harbour SPA. Information on general prey preference was obtained from the SPA Tool Kit and Natural England’s Poole Harbour Conservation Advice Package. Specific information on prey species was taken from the draft supplementary advice on conserving and restoring site features and also from other conservation advice packages from nearby SPAs with the same bird features. Common Name Latin Name General Prey Preference Prey Species Fish, molluscs, crustaceans, Gammarus, Corophium, Nereis, Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta insects, worms Hydrobia, Cardum, gobie spp. Little egret Egretta garzetta Fish, amphibians, insects

Page 39 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Insects, small fish, crustaceans, Eurasian spoonbill Platalea leucorodia frogs and tadpoles, worms, leeches Insects, worms, Scrobicularia, Macoma, Hediste, Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa islandica plants/grasses/seeds Arenicola, Cardium, Nereis Molluscs, crustaceans, worms, Hydrobia ulvae, Macoma, Shelduck Tadorna tadorna insects Corophium, Hediste, Enteromorpha, Nereis Molluscs, insects, worms Macoma, Hydrobia spp., Nereis, Crangon, Carcinus, Dunlin Calidris alpina Scrobicularia, Corophium, Hediste Plants/grasses/seeds Zostera spp., Enteromorpha, Dark-bellied brent goose Branta bernicla bernicla Ulva lactuca Fish, molluscs, crustaceans, Goldeneye Bucephala clangula insects Teal Anas crecca Plants/grasses/seeds Enteromorpha spp., Ulvae spp. Molluscs, crustaceans, insects, Mya, Cerastoderma, Curlew Numenius arquata worms Scrobicularia, Macoma, Hediste, Arenicola, Carcinus Fish Gobies, flatfish, herring fry Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator (<11cm), shrimp, sticklebacks, Nereis spp. Spotted redshank Tringa erythropus Insects, worms Greenshank Tringa nebularia Fish, crustaceans, worms Molluscs, crustaceans, insects, Mya, Scrobicularia, Macoma, Redshank Tringa totanus worms Hydrobia, Corophium, Hediste, Nereis Fish, insects, Pochard Aythya farina plants/grasses/seeds Additional information was also obtained from Durrell & Kelly (1990), Cox et al. (2014), European Commission (2009), Brearey (1982) & Clarke et al., (2017) (Supplement 1)

Page 40 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 6.3 Site-Specific Seasonality Table

Table 6 below indicates (highlighted in grey) when significant numbers of each mobile designated feature are most likely to be present at the site during a typical calendar year. Periods highlighted in grey are likely to require consideration of mitigation to minimise impacts to qualifying bird features during these principal periods of site usage by those features. The months which are not highlighted in grey do not necessarily indicate when features are absent, rather that features may be present in less significant numbers than in typical years.

Table 6. Presence by month of mobile designated features at the Poole Harbour SPA. Grey indicates periods of presence in significant numbers whereas blank (white) indicates either periods of absence or of presence but only in numbers of less significance.

Common Designated Name Latin Name Season Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Reference Cramp and Simmons, 1983; Recurvirostra Nonbreeding; Avocet British Trust for avosetta Wintering Ornithology (BTO), 2014 Black- Wernham et al., Nonbreeding;

tailed Limosa limosa 2002 Wintering godwit Forrester and Andrews, 2007; Common Sterna Pennington et al., Breeding tern hirundo 2004; Wernham et al., 2002; Cramp and Simmons, 1983 Cox, 2011; Larus Hunnybun and Hart, Mediterran melanocephal Breeding 2011; Wernham et ean gull us al., 2002; Cramp and Simmons, 1983 Cramp and Tadorna Nonbreeding; Simmons, 1977; Shelduck tadorna Wintering Liley and Fearnley, 2012; British Trust

Page 41 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 for Ornithology (BTO), 2014 Egretta Nonbreeding; WeBS data Little egret garzetta Wintering Sandwich Sterna Seabird Monitoring Breeding tern sandvicensis Programme Platalea BTO data (analysed Spoonbill Non-breeding leucorodia 13th August 2015)

6.4 Site Condition

Natural England provides information on the condition of designated sites and describes the status of interest features.

Under the Habitats Directive, relevant for Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Sites of Community Importance (SCIs), the United Kingdom is obliged to report on the Favourable Conservation Status of Annex I and Annex II features every 6 years. There are similar reporting requirements under the Birds Directive, relevant for Special Protection Areas (SPAs). Feature condition influences the Conservation Objectives in that it is used to determine whether a ‘maintain’ or ‘recover’ objective is needed to achieve the target level for each attribute.

During 2015-16 Natural England reviewed, refined and tested condition assessment methodology to provide more robust results. Natural England will employ this methodology to start a rolling programme of marine feature condition assessments in 2017-18, which will be conducted by their Area Teams. The condition assessment currently available for Poole Harbour SPA is comprised of an analysis of data collected by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) and the condition assessment of Poole Harbour SSSI which was compiled in 2010, with a few of the units having been re assessment in 2018.

6.4.1 Poole Harbour SSSI Condition Assessment

An indication of the condition of site interest features can be inferred, if available, from assessments of SSSIs11 that underpin the SPA. There are a number of SSSIs which exist within the area covered by Poole Harbour SPA and these, along with relevant feature condition assessments are summarised in Table 7. Note that only SSSI sites where shellfish dredging is known to occur have been chosen.

11 SSSI Condition assessments: http://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/.

Page 42 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Table 7. Condition assessments of SSSI units within the Poole Harbour SPA SSSI Site Habitat Unit Unit Name Condition Condition Comments Name number Threat Risk Poole Harbour Littoral 02 Whitley Lake Favourable High Intertidal mudflat feature – reduction in the biomass of Sediment small invertebrates (particularly worms) from 2002- 2009, although Nephtys had increased. Change may be a result of slightly seasonal differences in sampling or natural variation.

Estuarine feature – no significant algal mat coverage in 2005, so no further samples.

Saltmarsh feature – substantial loss of marsh since 2004. Poole Harbour Littoral 15 Ham Favourable High Estuarine feature – no significant algal mat coverage Sediment Common in 2005, so no further samples. Poole Harbour Fen, 31 Holton Mere Favourable High Estuarine – in 2008 and 2009 algal cover (2kg/m2) Marsh and Wood was less than 10% in this unit. In favourable condition and Bar Looe but at risk from algal cover. Swamp – Lowland Poole Harbour Fen, 32 Keysworth Favourable High Very few changes since 2001. Marsh Saltings and and Shag Looe Swamp – Head Lowland Poole Harbour Fen, 34 Swineham Favourable No identified Communities and zonation noted in 2001, still Marsh point Condition present. and Threat Swamp – Lowland Poole Harbour Fen, 36 Gigger's Favourable High Intertidal mudflat feature – reduction in the overall Marsh Island biomass of small invertebrates from 2002-2009. and mudflat and

Page 43 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Swamp – Arne Change may be a result of slightly seasonal Lowland Reedbeds differences in sampling or natural variation.

Estuarine feature – no significant algal mat coverage in 2005, so no further samples. Poole Harbour Fen, 37 Patchin Point Unfavourable High Assessed as being in unfavourable condition in 2010, Marsh and Arne Bay – Declining demmed to still be the case due to a eutrophication and problem affecting ecology. Decline in numbers of Swamp – overwintering shelduck. Lowland Poole Harbour Fen, 42 Wych Lake Favourable High Saltmarsh feature – favourable. Little change with Marsh limited erosion. and Swamp – Estuarine feature – algal mats recorded in 2009 Lowland however no samples over 2kg/m2, which is the threshold considered to be unfavourable in terms of algal cover. Poole Harbour Fen, 46 Long and Favourable High Saltmarsh feature – little change between 2002 and Marsh Round Island 2009. and saltmarsh Swamp - and mudflat Intertidal sediment feature – reduction in the biomass Lowland of small worms and overall biomass of invertebrate, including a reduction in Corophium (an important prey item for avocet). Change may be a result of slightly seasonal differences in sampling or natural variation. Poole Harbour Fen, 47 Ower Bay Unfavourable High There are both water quality and biological indicators Marsh and Fitzworth - declining of a eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) problem that and is affecting the ecology. Monitoring shows no Swamp – evidence that the problem is reducing. The nitrate- Lowland nitrogen load reaching the Harbour from its catchment is continuing to increase but more slowly in recent years. Erosion of saltmarsh is also evident, and numbers of wintering shelduck in the Harbour have declined significantly in recent years. Current

Page 44 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 measures to address these matters are not adequate to achieve favourable condition. Elevated levels of nitrogen enrichment encourage macroalgae growth on mudflat and saltmarsh. Green algal mats were widespread in 2016 and 2017. Algal species present dense impenetrable mats. Research indicates macroalgae can cause adverse effects on mudflat invertebrates and wintering birds, as well as saltmarsh by increasing its susceptibility to erosion. The nitrate-nitrogen load continues to increase but more slowly in recent years. Poole Harbour Fen, 52 Newton Bay Unfavourable High There are both water quality and biological indicators Marsh – declining of a eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) problem that and is affecting the ecology. Monitoring shows no Swamp – evidence that the problem is reducing. Erosion of Lowland saltmarsh is also evident, and numbers of wintering shelduck in the Harbour have declined significantly in recent years. Current measures to address these matters are not adequate to achieve favourable condition. Elevated levels of nitrogen enrichment encourage macroalgae growth on mudflat and saltmarsh. Green algal mats were widespread in 2016 and 2017. Algal species present dense impenetrable mats. Research indicates macroalgae can cause adverse effects on mudflat invertebrates and wintering birds, as well as saltmarsh by increasing its susceptibility to erosion. The nitrate-nitrogen load continues to increase but more slowly in recent years.

Poole Harbour Littoral 64 Brands Bay Unfavourable High There are both water quality and biological indicators sediment east - declining of a eutrophication problem that is affecting ecology. Monitoring shows no evidence that the problem is reducing. Erosion of saltmarsh is also evidence, and

Page 45 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 numbers of wintering shelduck in the Harbour have declined significantly in recent years. Poole Harbour Littoral 63, 53 Brands Bay Unfavourable High Comments cover three intertidal and saltmarsh rock north; Inner - declining condition assessment units within Brands Bay Brand’s Bay (Brands Bay east, Brands Bay north, Inner Brand’s and Drove Bay and Drove Island). Island Indicators of eutrophication which is affecting ecology. Erosion of saltmarsh. Number of wintering shelduck in the Harbour have declined significantly and likely to be caused by site-specific pressures. Such site- specific measures may be linked to a reduction in food availability as a result of algal mat cover leading to physical inhibition of feeding activity. Shelduck is also considered vulnerable to disturbance.

Elevated levels of nitrogen enrichment encourage macroalgae growth on mudflat and saltmarsh. Green algal mats were widespread in 2016 and 2017. Algal species present dense impenetrable mats. Research indicates macroalgae can cause adverse effects on mudflat invertebrates and wintering birds, as well as saltmarsh by increasing its susceptibility to erosion. The nitrate-nitrogen load continues to increase but more slowly in recent years.

Substantial loss (over 10 ha) of saltmarsh vegetation has occurred in Brands Bay, with most changes between 1972 and 1997. Poole Harbour Littoral 65 Poole Unfavourable No identified The overall condition of this unit, the unit covering the sediment Harbour – declining Condition entire sub-tidal area of Poole Harbour, is based on an channels and Threat evaluation of the condition of different ecological open water attributes of the estuary as well as the overall health of the bird population and the condition of the

Page 46 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 nationally important bird species primarily dependent on this sub-tidal environment. The Harbour shows a number of water quality and biological indicators of a eutrophication problem that is affect the ecology of a number of features that are critical components of the estuary. These include the littoral sediment, saltmarsh and the benthic flora and fauna. The assessment of the estuary feature for this unit concentrates on the sub-tidal sub features of the estuary. In summary the weight of evidence indicated the estuary is in unfavourable declining condition because the trends causing the deterioration in condition are continuing. The waterbird assemblage feature is unfavourable for not meeting SPA conservation objectives in a number of respects, primarily declines in a number of different species not explained by national trends, changes in the composition of the wintering population, species declines resulting in several species no longer meeting thresholds for international and national importance and declines in some of the more common species. A number of these changes have been linked to eutrophication effects. Sandwich tern, common tern, Brent goose, teal, pintail and cormorant are all seen to be in favourable condition.

Overall, the SSSI condition assessment shows that there are units in favourable condition and there are units where the condition is noted to be declining. The unfavourable condition appears to be primarily caused by eutrophication and resulting significant algal mat cover, there are also some concerns noted with regard to certain bird species comprising the waterbird assemblage where populations are declining and the decline cannot be explained by national trends. A number of the changes to the waterbird assemblage have been linked to the eutrophication effects. A number of units considered to be in favourable condition do however note reductions in the overall biomass of small invertebrates (particularly worms) with respect to intertidal sediment communities. Such reductions however do not constitute a reason to classify such units as unfavourable.

Page 47 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Advice from Natural England received prior to the introduction of the PHDP byelaw, outlining the potential impacts of shellfish dredging on the nature conservation features of the Poole Harbour SPA, reiterated the findings of the 2010 SSSI condition assessment:

‘The main concern from the assessment is the high inputs of nitrogen into the Harbour and the consequent algal mat growth which is at levels that could impact on bird prey availability and bird foraging behaviour. A further concern is the possible reduction in the abundance and variety of benthic invertebrates with a decline in biomass of some 26% between surveys in 2002 and 2009. This may be due to year-to-year fluctuations in variability and slight differences in the sampling methodology, although the difference is of sufficient magnitude to cause concern.’

6.4.2 Population trends

Population trend data, where available, can be used to identify site-specific pressures. Information on population trends comes from Natural England’s Conservation advice packages available here: https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/. The setting of population abundance targets for the species is derived based on Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) and JNCC’s Seabird Monitoring Programme (SMP) population data. The population trend data is available for 8 species that are qualifying features of the site and the waterbird assemblage, non-breeding. The information is presented in table 8 below.

Table 8. Population abundance targets for the bird species found in the Poole Harbour SPA. Please note all information presented in this table has been taken from Natural England’s Conservation Advice Package available at: https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/. These do not represent condition assessments. Species Target Explanation Since classification in 1999, the number of breeding pairs of Mediterranean gulls in Poole Harbour has increased from 5 pairs Mediterranean to the new baseline of 64 pairs. This count represents a 10-fold increase in numbers since the site was originally classified. Maintain gull The most recent count of 155 pairs in 2018 represents 25.8% of the latest (2006 to 2010) GB breeding population estimate of 600 pairs. Sandwich The most recent five-year mean (2013-2017) of 179 pairs (classified population was 181), represents 1.6% of the GB breeding Maintain Tern population (2013 - 180 pairs, 2014 - 210 pairs, 2015 - 174 pairs, 2016 - 189 pairs, 2017 - 140 pairs). When classified in 2000 the site supported 155 pairs, representing over 1% of the British population. The number of nesting pairs of common terns during a recent five-year period (2011-2015) were: 2011 - 222 pairs, 2012 - 171 pairs, 2013 - 163 pairs, Common Tern Maintain 2014 - 145 pairs. This provides a recent five year mean of 178 pairs (or 356 breeding adults), representing 1.78% of the GB breeding population. This current figure is now the baseline for this breeding species in the Poole Harbour SPA. The current five-year peak mean (2012/13 - 2016/17) is 179 individuals (114 at time of designation), representing 2.5% of the Little Egret Maintain British population. The most recent WeBS report indicates that Poole Harbour currently ranks as the 8th most important overwintering site in the UK for this species.

Page 48 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 The current five-year peak mean (2012/13 - 2016/17) is 37 individuals (20 at time of designation), representing 25% of the Spoonbill Maintain British population. The most recent WeBS report indicates that Poole Harbour currently ranks as the most important overwintering site in the UK. Since classification, the shelduck population in Poole Harbour has declined by 64%, with a current five-year peak mean of 1,295 individuals (2012/13 - 2016/17). Poole Harbour is currently only the 16th most important site for the species in the UK, Shelduck Restore holding just 0.4% of the north-west European population. We do not have site-specific information about the cause of the decline, although a study in 2010 suggested that food availability for shelduck in Poole Harbour was borderline, and extensive algal mats may be inhibiting effective foraging (Herbert et al., 2010). Since classification, the avocet population has increased in number in Poole Harbour, with a current five-year peak mean Avocet Maintain (2012/13 to 2016/17) of 1,359 individuals. This represents 18.1% of the latest (2004/05 to 2008/09) GB wintering population estimate of 7,500 individuals. Poole Harbour ranks as the third most important wintering site in the UK. Black-tailed Since classification, the black-tailed godwit population has steadily increased in number in Poole Harbour, with a current five- godwit year peak mean (2012/13 to 2016/17) of 2,030 individuals. This represents 4.7% of the British population and Poole Harbour Maintain (Icelandic is ranked as the 14th most important wintering site in the UK for this species. Race) Water bird The latest five-year peak mean is 23,640 individuals (2012/13-2016/17) with the highest peak count being 26,184 individuals Maintain assemblage in 2016/17.

It is important to note that the time periods of data used to inform conservation advice packages vary and therefore this data may not have captured the effects of fishing activities that have since commenced or altered since publication. The effects of fishing activities may not necessarily be captured in the next population abundance targets due to the time lag between cause and effect. Additional analysis of bird count data (WeBS data) was undertaken by Natural England in 2012. This analysis highlighted declines in the numbers of overwintering birds in some sectors of the Poole Harbour. The data analysis highlighted in particular there was concern regarding declines in some species in Lytchett Bay (shelduck, redshank and dunlin), Brands Bay (shelduck, redshank, dark bellied brent geese, dunlin) and Wych Lake (shelduck, black tailed godwit, dunlin). One of these areas (Brands Bay) concurs with the Poole Harbour SSSI which classified Brands Bay as being in an ‘unfavourable – declining’ condition.

Page 49 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 6.5 Existing Management

This list details the management measures which also apply in Poole Harbour, in addition to the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw:

 Bottom Towed Fishing Gear 2016 byelaw – prohibits bottom towed fishing gear over sensitive features including seagrass features within the Poole Harbour SPA.  Prohibition of Gathering (Sea Fisheries Resources) in Seagrass Beds byelaw. This prohibits any person from digging for, fishing for or taking any sea fisheries resource in or from the prohibited areas and does not apply to fishing/taking fisheries resources by means of net, rod and line and hook and line. It also does not apply to fishing for/taking sea fisheries resources using a vessel, provided that no part of the vessels hull in contact with the seabed. No person shall carry a rake, spade, fork or any similar tool in prohibited areas.  Fishing for Oysters, Mussels and Clams byelaw states that when fishing for these species only the following methods are used; a) hand picking and b) dredging using a dredge with a rigid framed south so designed to take shellfish only when towed along the sea bed.  Poole Harbour Shellfish Hand Gathering byelaw prohibits persons from fishing for or taking shellfish by hand picking or using a hand rake or similar instrument from 1st November to 31st March in defined areas.  Fishing for Cockles byelaw applies restrictions to the fishing for cockles by hand in Poole Harbour through a seasonal closed season (1st February to 30th April inclusive) and specifications on the methods of collection, specifying hand picking or a rake or other similar instrument with specified size requirements. The dredge specifications under this byelaw do not apply in Poole Harbour as this is regulated under the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw. The minimum conservation reference size for cockles is set under this byelaw at 23.8mm, this applies to hand gathering and dredging fishing.  Memorandum of Agreement for Bait Digging within Poole Harbour. Bait diggers are asked to avoid conducting activity within the bird sensitive areas in Poole Harbour between 1st November and 30th March, backfill any holes which are dug and a number of general provisions, including avoiding trampling saltmarsh and reedbeds and carrying torch lights at night which may disturb roosting birds.  Poole Harbour Fishery Order 2015 is a Several Order which allows Southern IFCA to lease ground for the purposes of aquaculture and is achieved by granting exclusive rights to individuals to cultivate and harvest shellfish of any kind within designated lease beds. The Order is accompanied by a Management Plan which outlines the extent of the proposed Order (837.8 hectares) and how the area within that extent will be managed, including the positioning and allocation of leased beds and the process criteria and conditions by which access to leased beds is determined. For any leased ground allocated, a number of management measures are apply including a restriction of vessel length, the persons and vessels that can operate and remove shellfish from a leased bed and a requirement that all commercial shellfish species removed are subject to minimum size restrictions, as would be the case for commercial fisheries operating within Poole Harbour.

Page 50 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 6.6 Table 9: Summary of Impacts

The potential pressures, associated impacts, level of exposure and mitigation measures are summarised in table 9.

Feature Supporting Attribute Target Potential Pressure(s) Nature and Likelihood of Mitigation measures habitat(s) and Associated Impacts Impacts

Avocet Saltmarsh: Supporting Restore the Natural England raised Shellfish dredging occurs in the vicinity Shellfish dredging is prohibited habitat: extent and concerns with respect to of saltmarsh, in particular to Seagull between 23rd December and 25th Little egret Atlantic salt extent and distribution potential erosion caused by Island. May. meadows distribution of of suitable pump-scoop dredging taking Eurasian supporting habitat place in close proximity to The shallow nature of these areas and Shellfish dredging is excluded all spoonbill Spartina swards non-breeding (either saltmarsh supporting habitats. pattern of the dredging activity means year round from Holes Bay, habitat; within or vessels are likely to be operating at a Lytchett Bay, upper Wych Lake Black- outside the slow speed in these areas. and upper Middlebere Lake. tailed site godwit boundary) As stated by Natural England and Temporal closures prohibit which recognised in the above statement with shellfish dredging during key Shelduck supports regards to bait dragging, pump-scoop sensitive times of the year (1st the feature dredging is unlikely to occur over November-23rd December & 25th Waterbird for all saltmarsh. This is further supported by May to 30th June) during the fishing assemblag necessary a lack of literature on the impacts of season in key feeding and roosting e stages of towed gear with regards saltmarsh areas for overwintering birds the non- habitats (i.e. Hall et al., 2008; Roberts (Wych Lake, Middlebere Lake, (Non- breeding/wi et al., 2010). Newton Bay, Ower Bay, breeding – ntering Keysworth and parts of Arne Bay winter period and Brands Bay). and//or (moulting, passage roosting, The level of fishing effort is capped season) loafing, through the allocation of a set feeding). number permits at a level of maximum of 45 vessels. Common Saltmarsh: Supporting Maintain tern habitat: the extent, The Southern IFCA ‘Poole Atlantic salt extent and distribution Harbour Roosting Sites Code of Sandwich meadows distribution of and Practice’ (Annex 10) sets out the tern supporting availability following guidelines in order to

Page 51 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Spartina swards habitat for the of suitable avoid any damage to and promote Mediterran breeding breeding the protection of saltmarsh: ean gull season habitat - Avoid fishing in close which proximity to saltmarsh supports areas (Breeding the feature - When moving around (summer) for all areas of saltmarsh keep season) necessary speed to a maximum of 6 stages of its knots breeding - Avoid landing or cycle disembarking on any (courtship, saltmarsh area nesting, - Avoid contact between a feeding) vessel and any part of the saltmarsh Specific reference is also made to Seagull Island with very similar guidelines to the those outlined for saltmarsh, in order to avoid disturbance to the Mediterranean gull.

The Green Island Saltmarsh Management Area has been established between fishers and partners to manage and protect saltmarsh and fishing interests around Green Island. Within a defined marked area dredge fishing should not occur. Avocet All habitats Supporting Reduce the Visual disturbance and above- During the 2016/17 and 2017/18 Shellfish dredging is excluded all habitat: frequency, water noise were identified as seasons, 43 out of 45 permit year round from Holes Bay, Little egret disturbance duration potential pressures of pump- entitlements were taken out. In the Lytchett Bay, upper Wych Lake caused by and / or scoop dredging. 2018/19 and 2019/20 seasons 45 and upper Middlebere Lake which Eurasian human intensity of permits were taken (one permit was represent key feeding and roosting spoonbill activity disturbance A pump-scoop dredge uses a not fished during the 2018/19 season). areas for designated bird species. affecting hydraulic pump to power water The number of permit holders fishing Black- roosting, jets attached to the front edge per month varies. The average Temporal closures prohibit tailed foraging, of the basket dredge. As such, number of active fishers per month shellfish dredging during key godwit feeding, the noise associated with was highest in 2018 and 2019 with 43, sensitive times of the year (1st moulting pump-scoop dredging has November to 23rd December & 25th

Page 52 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Shelduck and/or previously been raised as a compared to 33 in 2017 and 2016, and May to 30th June) during the fishing loafing concern (Parker & Pinn, 2005). 27 in 2015. season in key feeding and roosting Waterbird birds so areas for overwintering birds assemblag that they Disturbance can result in (Wych Lake, Middlebere Lake, e are not displacement when birds are Sightings data show shellfish dredging Newton Bay, Ower Bay, significantly unable to use an area due to occurs intertidally (at high tide) in Keysworth and parts of Arne Bay (Non- disturbed. the magnitude of disturbance. distinct and relatively small spatial and Brands Bay). breeding The effects of disturbance can areas. Activity is largely concentrated in (winter include a reduction in the the area of Holton Mete and the Wards, Shellfish dredging is prohibited and/or survival of displaced individuals with activity also taking place east of between 23rd December and 25th passage) and effects on the population Giggers Island, Arne Bay, Middlebere May. This corresponds to the season) size. The movement of birds to Lake, Wych Lake, Ower Lake and period of highest disturbance less suitable feeding areas can Brands Bay. sensitivity due to the cold weather Common lead to increased densities and conditions and availability of food tern interspecific competition. Using the co-location analysis, shellfish resources. The start of the fishing Disturbance can cause birds to dredging may have some effect on sites season takes place after the start Mediterran take flight which increase used by avocet, black-tailed godwit, of the gull breeding season (1st ean gull energy demands and reduce Mediterranean gull, shelduck, curlew, April). food intake with potential redshank and greenshank with (Breeding consequences for survival and potentially sensitive sites including Shellfish dredging is only (summer) reproduction. outer Wych and Middlebere, Arne Bay, permitted between 06:00 and season) Ower Bay, Newton Bay, Brands Bay, 18:00 each day and from Monday The significance of disturbance Holtojn Mere and Keysworth. to Saturday. is likely to depend on the availability of alternative Avocet are present from September to Disturbance is minimised through undisturbed areas for birds and February, black-tailed godwit are the allocation of a set number the frequency, seasonality and present from September to March and permits, thus capping fishing effort intensity at which shellfish Mediterranean gull are present from at a level of maximum of 45 dredging takes place. April to August. Shelduck, curlew, vessels. Responsiveness to disturbance redshank and greenshank are part of is largely thought to be a the overwintering bird assemblage and The Southern IFCA ‘Poole species-specific trait. as such will be present during the winter Harbour Roosting Sites Code of months (September – March). Practice’ sets out the following guidelines in order to avoid The wind-sensitivity farm indicates disturbance to nesting and black-tailed godwits have moderate to roosting birds, with particular low sensitivity and curlew and shelduck reference to the Mediterranean have very low sensitivity to offshore gull breeding season (1st April – 1st wind farm developments. The escape August): flight distance exhibited by the shelduck has been reported to vary from 126

Page 53 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 metres in response to disturbance by - Avoid dredge fishing researchers to 400 m in response to between the three parts of surfers. The escape flight distance Seagull Island exhibited by redshank has been - Avoid contact between a reported to vary from 92 in response to vessel and any part of disturbance by researchers to 260 m in Seagull Island response to people. In a Poole Harbour - When moving around or disturbance study shelduck were between parts of Seagull highlighted to have a higher probability Island keep speed to a of major flight. maximum of 6 knots - Avoid excessive noise, The mitigation measures outlined beyond that caused by reduces the likelihood of disturbance deployment of gear, when through a number of permanently and in close proximity to any seasonally closed areas which not only part of Seagull Island provide areas where no disturbance Specific reference is also made to through pump-scoop dredging can Seagull Island with very similar occur in the overwintering period, it also guidelines to the those outlined for provides alternative undisturbed sites saltmarsh, in order to avoid for birds. These sites were chosen disturbance to the Mediterranean based on a number of criteria including gull. bird sensitive areas and in areas where declines in some species have been The Green Island Saltmarsh observed. The timing of the fishing Management Area has been season eliminates any disturbance over established between fishers and a large proportion of the overwintering partners to manage and protect period and beginning of the saltmarsh and fishing interests Mediterranean gull breeding season. around Green Island. Within a Additional protection is afforded for defined marked area dredge Mediterranean gulls through guidelines fishing should not occur. set out in the code of practice. Avocet Intertidal mud Supporting Maintain Removal of target and non- During the 2016/17 and 2017/18 Shellfish dredging is excluded all habitat: food the target species were identified seasons, 43 out of 45 permit year round from Holes Bay, Little egret Intertidal mixed availability distribution, as potential pressures of pump- entitlements were taken out. In the Lytchett Bay, upper Wych Lake sediments within abundance scoop dredging. 2018/19 and 2019/20 seasons 45 and upper Middlebere Lake and as Eurasian supporting and permits were taken (one permit was not such protect key feeding areas for spoonbill Intertidal sand habitat availability Shellfish dredging can lead to fished during the 2018/19 season). The designated bird species. These and muddy sand of key prey impacts on non-target species number of permit holders fishing per areas provide alternative items (e.g. through physical disturbance or month varies. The average number of undisturbed foraging sites. Gammarus, damage to supporting habitats active fishers per month was highest in Corophium, which in turn can cause

Page 54 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 flies, changes in community 2018 and 2019 with 43, compared to 33 Temporal closures prohibit beetles, structure, the removal and in 2017 and 2016, and 27 in 2015. shellfish dredging during key Nereis, mortality of non-target sensitive times of the year (1st Hydrobia, organisms through interaction Sightings data show shellfish dredging November-23rd December & 25th Cardium, with fishing gear and occurs intertidally (at high tide) in May to 30th June) during the fishing gobies) at smothering of prey through distinct and relatively small spatial season in key feeding areas for preferred increased sedimentation. areas. Activity is largely concentrated in overwintering birds (Wych Lake, prey sizes the area of Holton Mete and the Wards, Middlebere Lake, Newton Bay, (e.g. fish or Generally, bottom towed fishing with activity also taking place east of Ower Bay, Keysworth and parts of worms gear has shown to reduce Giggers Island, Arne Bay, Middlebere Arne Bay and Brands Bay). between 4- biomass, production, species Lake, Wych Lake, Ower Lake and 15 mm richness and diversity Brands Bay. Shellfish dredging is prohibited long). communities. In a meta- between 23rd December and 25th Black- Intertidal mud Supporting Maintain analysis of 38 studies, intertidal Using the co-location analysis, shellfish May. This largely overlaps with the tailed habitat: food overall prey harvesting was shown to cause dredging may have some effect on sites overwintering periods for a number godwit Intertidal mixed availability availability a reduction in abundance of used by avocet, black-tailed godwit, of designated bird species. sediments within the (e.g. benthic invertebrates by 42% Mediterranean gull, shelduck, curlew, intertidal Macoma, and 39% reduction in species redshank and greenshank with Disturbance to intertidal sediments Intertidal sand Cardium, diversity in the first 10 days potentially sensitive sites including is minimised through the allocation and muddy sand Nereis) at following disturbance (Clark et outer Wych and Middlebere, Arne Bay, of a set number permits, thus preferred al., 2017). Ower Bay, Newton Bay, Brands Bay, capping fishing effort at a level of prey sizes. Holtojn Mere and Keysworth. maximum of 45 vessels. Shelduck Intertidal mud Supporting Restore The relative impact of shellfish habitat: food availability dredging on benthic organisms Avocet are present from September to A number of restrictions are Intertidal mixed availability of key prey is species-specific and often February, black-tailed godwit are imposed on the gear configuration sediments within the species related to their biological present from September to March and of the dredge basket including intertidal (e.g. characteristics and physical Mediterranean gull are present from specified bar spacing which allows Intertidal sand especially habitats. A number of studies April to August. Shelduck, curlew, small invertebrates to pass and muddy sand Hydrobia, have found soft-bodied, deposit redshank and greenshank are part of through the dredge. but also feeding crustaceans, the overwintering bird assemblage and Nereis, polychaetes and ophiuroids to as such will be present during the winter There is a requirement to sort Corophium, be most affected by dredging months (September – March). catch immediately and return all hatching activities (Collie et al., 2000; shellfish under minimum size midges) at Constantino et al., 2009; Clark Using the co-location analysis and restrictions (as per EC 2019/1241 preferred et al., 2017). Recovery of information on diet (table 5), the and Southern IFCA byelaws), as prey sizes. affected species is largely species likely to be sensitive to changes well as bycatch, to the water. species-specific, with short- in food availability are black-tailed lived and small benthic godwit, shelduck, curlew, redshank and organisms, such as greenshank. Prey preferences polychaetes having excellent exhibited by these species in particular recolonization capacities include Scrobicularia, Macoma,

Page 55 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 (Coen, 1985; Kaiser et al., Hediste and Nereis. A number of 2006). studies have reported increases in Macoma following disturbance from harvesting (Ferns et al., 2000; Clark et al., 2017). Studies specific to the impacts of pump-scoop dredging in Poole Harbour report increases in Hediste diversicolor, (Clark et al.,2018) as well as other species considered as key bird prey items including Arenicola marina and Corophium spp (Parker & Pinn, 2005).

Many small benthic organisms, including crustaceans, polychaetes and molluscs, some of which are listed above, have short generation times and high fecundities, both of which enhance their capacity for rapid recolonization (Coen, 1995). In such instances, the effect of shellfish dredging is likely to only be short term.

The mitigation measures outlined reduces the likelihood of disturbance through the removal of target and non- target species through a number of permanently and seasonally closed areas which provide a series of foraging and feeding areas where no pump- scoop dredging can occur in the overwintering period (or all year round in a number of sites). These sites were chosen based on a number of criteria including bird sensitive areas, in areas where declines in some species have been observed and where sediment recovery is likely to be slow i.e. low energy sites. The timing of the fishing season eliminates any disturbance of intertidal mudflats over a large

Page 56 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 proportion of the overwintering period and allows for the recovery of impacted communities over a five-month period.

Page 57 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 7 Conclusion12

In order to conclude whether the issuing of permits under the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw, which will allow up to 45 vessels to undertake pump-scoop dredging (subject to a number of permit conditions), has an effect on the integrity of the Poole Harbour SPA, it is necessary to assess whether the impacts of the permitted activity (pump-scoop dredging) will hinder the site’s conservation objectives, namely:

“Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring;  The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features  The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features  The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely  The population of each of the qualifying features, and,  The distribution of the qualifying features within the site

The review of research into the impacts of shellfish dredging (detailed in section 6.2) identifies that this activity has the potential to disturb regularly occurring migratory birds and waterfowl species and lead to changes in prey availability. Disturbance can occur visually or through noise. Changes in prey availability mainly relate to the indirect effects of pump-dredging which include interactions with fishing gear through crushing, burial or exposure. It is therefore recognised that this activity has the potential to lead an adverse effect upon the following SPA attributes:  Supporting habitat: disturbance caused by human activity  Supporting habitat: extent and distribution of supporting non-breeding habitat  Supporting habitat: extent and distribution of supporting habitat for the breeding season  Supporting habitat: food availability within supporting habitat  Supporting habitat: food availability within the intertidal

These potential impacts and risks to the integrity of the site are mitigated through a number of conditions applied under the permit which;  Provide a network of areas where there is little or no noise and visual disturbance and sediment disturbance including; bird sensitive areas, areas where declines in some bird species have been observed that are likely to be in part attributable to site specific pressures, Mediterranean gull nesting sites at Seagull Island, areas where sediment recovery is likely to be slow (low energy sites), fringing saltmarsh, reedbed and lowland water habitats supporting breeding birds. Shellfish dredging is excluded in Lytchett Bay, Holes Bay, and inner regions Wych Lake and Middlebere Lake all year round. Shellfish dredging is excluded from overwintering, feeding and roosting bird sensitive areas at Wych Lake, Middlebere Lake, Newton Bay, Ower Bay, Keysworth Bay and parts of Arne Bay and Brands Bay during key sensitive times

12 If conclusion of adverse affect alone an in-combination assessment is not required.

Page 58 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 of the year for bird species between 25th May and 1st July, 1st November and 23rd December. The inclusion of part of Brands Bay provides an additional area afforded protection during sensitive periods.  Manage shellfish dredging throughout the Harbour in a way that minimises its impact on prey availability and disturbance, through restrictions in the number of permits (45), the design of the pump and dredge used and restrictions in the timing of when the fishery takes place (closed from 24th December to 24th May). The prohibition on dredge fishing between 23rd December to 25th May mitigates over-wintering bird disturbance during this lean period.  Allow for an assessment of fishing effort of key commercial species including the Manila clam and common cockle, which are prey items for some of the designated bird species, through the requirement for catch data indicating, for each month, the hours fished, the quantities of species caught, the buyer(s) and the zone from which the catch was taken. This data can be used to indicate trends in fishing activity and can be related to data from the Poole Harbour Bivalve Stock Assessment to ensure that the level of fishing remains sustainable and will not have an adverse impact on prey availability of the commercially harvested species.

Additional protection is afforded through the Southern IFCA ‘Poole Harbour Roosting Sites Code of Practice’ which sets out the following guidelines to prevent disturbance to breeding and roosting bird species and promote the protection of supporting breeding habitat within specific areas of Poole Harbour:  Avoid fishing in close proximity to saltmarsh areas  When moving around areas of saltmarsh keep speed to a maximum of 6 knots  Avoid landing or disembarking on any saltmarsh area  Avoid contact between a vessel and any part of the saltmarsh  When operating in bird sensitive areas during the period when these areas are open between 1st July and 1st November avoid excessive noise, beyond that caused by deployment of gear

In addition, fishers are asked to avoid disturbance to Mediterranean gull between 25th May and 1st July each year in the area of Seagull Island to cover the key breeding period for this species (1st April to 1st July) where it overlaps with the dredge season. During this time, fishers are asked to follow specific points relating to Seagull Island which include:  Avoid dredge fishing between the three parts of Seagull Island  Avoid contact between a vessel and any part of Seagull Island  When moving around or between parts of Seagull Island keep speed to a maximum of 6 knots  Avoid excessive noise, beyond that caused by deployment of gear, when in close proximity to any part of Seagull Island

The Green Island Saltmarsh Management Area also affords protection to the supporting saltmarsh habitat in Poole Harbour. Established between fishers and partners in 2019, fishers are asked not to fish within the buoyed area to manage and protect the saltmarsh and fishing interests around Green Island. For the 2021/22 season Southern IFCA will monitor compliance with these voluntary measures around Green Island and collate evidence on any activity in the area which will aid in reviewing the success of the Management Area.

Page 59 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018

Taking into account all the evidence presented in this Appropriate Assessment, including scientific literature, habitat feature data and sightings data, it is concluded that issuing of permits for 2021/22 season under the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw will not hinder the site from achieving its conservation objectives and as such will not have an adverse effect upon on the integrity of the Poole Harbour SPA. As in previous years (2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20, 2020/21) it is therefore proposed the number of permits issued should remain at 45. This reflects the current level of effort which is considered to be sustainable. As outlined above, the permit conditions will continue to mitigate against any potential impacts of the fishery on the bird features and supporting habitats of this site. In addition, required catch reporting will allow catch rates and fishing effort to be monitored. Furthermore, the permit is flexible and Southern IFCA can therefore review the suitability of the permit conditions, attach conditions to the permit and vary or revoke conditions attached to the permit at any time after the permits have been issued, following a set process. As such, any changes will have regard to the Authority’s duties and obligations under section 153 and 154 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, advice from Natural England, new evidence in the form of scientific data or literature and/or any Habitats Regulations Assessment. This flexibility allows proportionate management of the dredge fishery in Poole Harbour whilst achieving the conservation objectives of the site.

8 In-combination assessment

Based on the mitigation measures, in the form of permit conditions, it is concluded that issuing 45 permits under the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw for the 2020/21 season alone will not have an adverse effect on bird features and their supporting habitats within Poole Harbour SPA.

Under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, the assessment of any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site, must be assessed in combination with other plans or projects. Any commercial plan or project require a Habitat Regulations Assessment in their own right and must also account for any in-combination effects with the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw.

Commercial plans and projects that occur within or that may affect the Poole Harbour SPA are considered in below. The impacts of these plans or projects require a Habitat Regulations Assessment in their own right and must also account for any in-combination effects with the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw.

Project Status In-combination Assessment Poole Local Plan Ongoing Poole Local Plan describes the requirement that Poole District must add at least 14,200 homes between 2013 and 2033. An increase in homes will directly increase the number of people living in the area. As it is well known that those who live close to the sea often take

Page 60 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 recreational visits to these areas it is likely that this will lead to an increased level of disturbance to protected overwintering birds around Poole Harbour. Therefore, one common impact pathway between this project and the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit of visual disturbance/above water noise is possible.

However, through this assessment of the Poole Harbour Permit Dredge Byelaw it is clear that these pressures have been screened out from having an adverse effect on the integrity of the site. Furthermore, each individual housing development will have to undergo a Habitats Regulations Assessment of its own as well as an in-combination assessment with fishing activity to ensure it does not cause adverse effect to the integrity of Poole Harbours MPAs. As these developments are not yet in the planning stages, and are likely to come in the form of many smaller developments over a long period of time, and with the consideration of the permits mitigating factors considered within this HRA it is unlikely that there will be a combination effect between those developments and the Poole Dredge Permit Byelaw.

8.1 Fishing Activity In-combination Assessment

The Poole Harbour Fishery Order 2015 is a several order which sets an area within the Harbour within which the Southern IFCA can lease out areas of seabed for aquaculture. Leases are issued on a five yearly basis and the current leases are for the period 2020-25. The conclusion of the 2020-25 HRA for the issuing of leases under the Order was that the issuing of The Poole Harbour Fishery leases would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Poole Harbour SPA. Lease beds under the Order are severed Order 2015 from the public right to fish therefore there is no potential for spatial overlap of the two activities within Poole Harbour. Based on this and the conclusion of both this HRA and the HRA for the issuing of leases under the Order of no adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA it is concluded that there will be no in-combination effect on the integrity of the Poole Harbour SPA from these two fishing activities.

Light otter trawls do not interact with the features. At a TSLE level no common pressures between light otter trawl and the Light otter trawl Dredge Permit Byelaw were screened in. Therefore, there is unlikely to be any in-combination effect between the two gear types.

Page 61 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018

At a TSLE level no common pressures between static gear and the Dredge Permit Byelaw were screened in. Therefore, Pots/creels there is unlikely to be any in-combination effect between the two gear types.

Handlines (rod/gurdy) & At a TSLE level no common pressures between handline/ and the Dredge Permit Byelaw were screened in. Jigging/ Therefore, there is unlikely to be any in-combination effect between the two gear types.

8. Summary of consultation with Natural England

Date Contact Sent Comments Received

9 Integrity test

Based on the mitigation measures, in the form of permit conditions, it is concluded that the issuing of permits under the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw for the 2021/22 season will not have an adverse effect, alone or in-combination, on bird features and their supporting habitats within Poole Harbour SPA. As in previous years (2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20, 2020/21) it is therefore proposed the number of permits issued should remain at 45.

Page 62 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Annex 1: Reference list

Atkinson, P.W., Austin, G.E., Burton, N.H.K., Musgrove, A.J., Pollitt, M., Rehfisch, M.M., 2000. WeBS Alerts 1998/99: Changes in Numbers of Wintering Waterbirds in the United Kingdom at National, Country and Special Protection Area (SPA) Scales (BTO Research Report No. 239). BTO, Norfolk. 127 pp.

Atkinson, P.W., Clark, N.A., Bell, M.C., Dare, P.J., Clark, J.A. & Ireland, P.L. 2003. Changes in commercially fished shellfish stocks and shorebird populations in the Wash, England. Biol. Cons., 114, 127-141.

Atkinson, P.W., Maclean, I.M.D. & Clark, N.A. 2010. Impacts of shellfisheries and nutrient inputs on waterbird communities in the Wash, England. J. Appl. Ecol., 47, 191-199.

Bannister, R.C.A., 1998. Analysing cockle and mussel stocks. Part 1—The Wash. Shellfish News, 6, 25–29.

Bannister, R.C.A., 1999. The Dr Walne memorial lecture. A review of shellfish resources and their management. In: Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Shellfish Conference of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain. SAGB, London.

Baudains, T. P. & Lloyd, P. 2007. Habituation and habitat changes can moderate the impacts of human disturbance on shorebird breeding performance. Anim. Conserv., 10, 400-407.

Beale, C. M. & Monaghan, P. 2004. Behavioural responses to human disturbance: a matter of choice? Anim. Behav., 68, 1065-1069.

Beukema J.J. & Dekker R. 2018. Effects of cockle abundance and fishery on bivalve recruitment. Journal of Sea Research. 140. Pp81-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seares.2018.07.013

Blumstein, D.T., Anthony, D.T., Harcourt, R.G. & Ross, G. 2003. Testing a key assumption of wildlife buffer zones: is flight initiation distance a species-specific trait? Biol. Cons., 110, 97-100.

Blumstein, D. T., Fernandez-Juricic, E., Zollner, P. A. & Garity, S. C. 2005. Inter-specific variation in avian responses to human disturbance. J. Appl. Ecol., 42, 5, 943-953

Bradshaw, C., Veale, L.O., Hill, A.S., & Brand, A.R. 2000. The effects of scallop dredging on gravelly seabed communities. In Kaiser, M.J. & de Groots, S.J. (Eds). The Effects of Fishing on Non-Target Species and Habitats: Biological Conservation and Socio-Economic Issues. Oxford, Blackwell Science, pp. 83-104.

Brearey, D.M. 1982. The feeding ecology and foraging behaviour of Sanderling Calidris alba and Turnstone Arenaria interpres at Teesmouth N. E. England. Theses. Durham University. UK. 412 pp.

Page 63 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Burger, J. 1981. The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biol. Cons., 21, 231-241.

Burton, N.H.K., Rehfisch, M.M., Clark, N.A. & Dodd, S.G. 2006. Impacts of sudden winter habitat loss on the body condition and survival of redshank Tringa totanus. J. Appl. Ecol., 43, 464-473.

Burton, N.H.K., Rehfisch, M.M., Clark, N.A. & Dodd, S.G. 2006. Impacts of sudden winter habitat loss on the body condition and survival of redshank Tringa totanus. J. Appl. Ecol., 43, 464-473.

Clark, N.A. 1993. Wash oystercatchers starving. BTO News, 185, 1, 24. Clarke L.J., Hughes K.M., Esteves L.S., Herbert R.J.H. and Stilman R.A. 2017. Intertidal invertebrate harvesting: a meta-analysis of impacts and recovery in an important waterbird prey resource. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol 584: 229-244.

Clarke, L., 2018. Ecosystem impacts of intertidal invertebrate harvesting: from benthic habitats to bird predators. Doctorate Thesis (Doctorate). Bournemouth University. Available at: http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/31136/. Date Accessed: 24/09/2018

Clarke, L.J., Esteves, L.S., Stillman, R.A. & Herbert, R.J.H. 2018a. Impacts of a novel shellfishing gear on macrobenthos in a marine protected area: pump- scoop dredging in Poole Harbour, UK. Aquat. Living Resour., 31, 5, https://doi.org/10.1051/alr/2017044.

Clarke, L.J., Stillman, R.A. & Herbert, R.J.H. 2018b. Monitoring of the Solent bottom-towed fishing gear management measures: a focused project on shellfish dredging in Langstone Harbour. BU Global Environmental Solutions (BUG) report (BUG2801) to Natural England. 100 pp.

Coen, L.D. 1995. A review of the potential impacts of mechanical harvesting on subtidal and intertidal shellfish resources. SCDNR-MRRI, 46 pp.

Collie, J.S., Hall, S.J., Kaiser, M.J. & Poiner, I.R. 2000 A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf-sea benthos. J. Anim. Ecol., 69, 785-798.

Collie, J.S., Hermsen, J.M., Valentine, P.C. & Almeida, F.P. 2005. Effects of fishing on gravel habitats: assessment and recovery of benthic megafauna on Georges Bank. American Fisheries Society Symposium. American Fisheries Society. 325 pp.

Constantino, R., Gaspar, M.B., Tata-Regala, J., Carvalho, S., Curdia. J., Drago, T. Taborda, R. 2009. Clam dredging effects and subsequent recovery of benthic communities at different depth ranges. Mar. Environ. Res., 67, 89-99.

Cox, R., Lancaster, J. & Rutherford, V. 2014. Review of Potential Impacts on the Diet of Sanderlings and Ringed Plovers and their Foraging Distribution. Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay. 1063030. Natural Power. 15 pp.

Durell, S.E.A. Le V. Dit. & Kelly, C.P. 1990. Diets of Dunlin Calidris alpine and Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola on the Wash as determined by dropping analysis. Bird Study, 37, 1, 44-47.

Page 64 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Durell, S.E.A. Le V. dit., Stillman, R.A., Triplet, P., Aulert, C., Biot, D.O. dit., Bouchet, A., Duhamel, S., Mayot & Goss-Custard, J.D. 2005. Modelling the efficacy of proposed mitigation areas for shorebirds: a case study on the Seine estuary, France. Biol. Cons., 123, 67-77.

Dyrynda, P. 1995. Impacts of bait dragging on the seabed within Poole Harbour. Report to Southern Sea District Fisheries Committee from Marine Environmental Research Group, University of Wales, Swansea.

European Commission. 2009. European Union Management Plan 2009-2011. Redshank Tringa totanus. Technical Report – 2009 – 031. 44 pp.

Ferns, P.N., Rostron, D.M. & Sima, H.Y. 2000. Effects of mechanical cockle harvesting on intertidal communities. J. Appl. Ecol., 37. 464-474.

Garthe, S. & Hüppop, O. 2004. Scaling possible adverse effects of marine wind farms on seabirds: developing and applying a vulnerability index. J. Appl. Ecol., 41, 724-734.

Gill, J.A., Sutherland, W.J. & Watkinson, A.R. 1996. A method to quantify the effects of human disturbance on animal populations. J. Appl. Ecol., 33, 786-792.

Gill, J.A., Norris, K. & Sutherland, W.J. 2001a. The effects of disturbance on habitat use by black-tailed godwits Limosa limosa. J. Appl. Ecol., 38, 846-856.

Gill, J.A., Norris, K. & Sutherland, W.J. 2001b. Why behavioural responses may not reflect the population consequences of human disturbance. Biol. Conserv. 97, 265–268.

Goss-Custard, J.D. & Verboven, N. 1993. Disturbance and feeding shorebirds on the Exe estuary. Wader Study Group Bull. 68.: 59-66.

Goss-Custard, J.D. 1977. The ecology of the Wash. III. Density-related behaviour and the possible effects of a loss of feeding grounds on wading birds (Charadrii). J. Anim. Ecol., 14, 721-739.

Goss-Custard, J.D. 1993. The effect of migration and scale on the study of bird populations: 1991. Witherby Lecture. Bird Study, 40, 81-96.

Goss-Custard, J.D., Stillman, R., West, A.D., Caldow, R.W.G., Triplet, P., Durell, S.E.A. Le V.dit. & McGrorty, S. 2004. When enough is not enough: Shorebirds and shellfishing. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 271, 233-237.

Goss-Custard, J.D., Triplet, P., Sueur, F. & West, A.D. 2006. Critical Thresholds of Disturbance by People and Raptors in Foraging Wading Birds. Biol. Cons., 127, 88–97.

Goss-Custard, J.D., Clarke, R.T., Durell, S.E.A. le V. dit, Caldow, R.W.G. & Ens, B.J. 1995. Population consequences of winter habitat loss in a migratory shorebird. II. Model predictions. J. Appl. Ecol., 32, 337-351.

Goss-Custard, J.D., Durell, S.E.A. le V. dit, Goater, C.P., Hulscher, J.B., Lambeck, R.H.D., Meininger, P.L. & Urfi, J. 1996. How oystercatchers survive the winter. In Goss-Custard, J.D. (Ed). The Oystercatcher: From Individuals to Populations. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press. pp. 133–154.

Page 65 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Hall, S.J. & Harding, M.J.C. 1997. Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities: the effects of mechanical harvesting of cockles on non-target benthic infauna. J. App. Ecol., 34, 497-517.

Hall, K., Paramor, O.A.L., Robinson L.A., Winrow-Giffin, A., Frid C.L.J., Eno, N.C., Dernie, K.M., Sharp, R.A.M., Wyn, G.C.& Ramsay, K. (2008). Mapping the sensitivity of benthic habitats to fishing in Welsh waters- development of a protocol. CCW [Policy Research] Report.

Hiddink, J.G. 2003. Effects of suction-dredging for cockles on non-target fauna in the Wadden Sea, J. Sea. Res., 50, 315-323

Hill, D., Hockin, D., Price, D., Tucker, G., Morriss, R. & Treweek, J. 1997. Bird disturbance: improving the quality and utility of disturbance research. J. Appl. Ecol., 34, 275-288.

Hulscher, J.B. 1982. The oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus as a predator of the bivalve Macoma balthica in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Ardea, 70, 89–152.

Jensen, A & Humphreys, John & Caldow, Richard & Cesar, Christopher. (2005). 13. The Manila Clam in Poole Harbour. Proceedings in Marine Science. 7. 10.1016/S1568-2692(05)80018-X.

Kaiser, M.J., Edwards, B. & Spencer, B.E. 1996. Infaunal community changes as a result of commercial clam cultivation and harvesting. Aquat. Living Resour., 9, 57-63.

Kaiser, M.J., Clarke, K.R., Hinz, H., Austen, M.C.V., Somerfield, P.J. & Karakassis, I. 2006. Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 311, 1-14

King, S., Maclean, I.M.D., Norman, T. & Prior, A. 2009. Developing Guidance on Ornithological Cumulative Impact Assessment for Offshore Wind Farm Developers. COWRIE. 129 pp.

Kirby, J., Davidson, N., Giles, N., Owen, M. & Spray, C. 2004. Waterbirds & Wetland recreation handbook. A review of issues and management practice. WWT. 128 pp.

Klaassen, M., Bauer, S., Madsen, J. & Tombre, I. 2006. Modelling Behavioural and Fitness Consequences of Disturbance for Geese Along Their Spring Flyway. J. Appl. Ecol., 43, 92–100.

Klein, M.L., Humphrey, S.R. & Percival, H.F. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on the distribution of waterbirds in a wildlife refuge. Conserv. Biol., 9, 1454-1465.

Lambeck, R., Goss-Custard, J.D. & Triplet, P. 1996. Oystercatchers and man in the coastal zone. In Goss-Custard, J.D. (Ed). The Oystercatcher: From Individuals to Populations. Oxford, Oxford University Press. pp. 289-326

Liley, D., Cruickshanks, K, Fearnley, H. & Lake, S. 2012 The effect of bait collection on waterfowl foraging behaviour in Holes Bay, Poole Harbour. Report for Natural England. Footprint Ecology Ltd., Wareham, Dorset.

Page 66 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Liley, D. & Fearnley, H. (2012). Poole Harbour Disturbance Study. Report for Natural England. Footprint Ecology Ltd., Wareham, Dorset.

Liley, D., Stillman, R. A. & Fearnley, H. 2010. The Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project: results of disturbance fieldwork 2009/10. Report to the Solent Forum. 71 pp.

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis, 137 (Supplement), S67-S74.

Mercaldo-Allen, R. & Goldberg, R. 2011. Review of the Ecological Effects of Dredging in the Cultivation and Harvest of Molluscan Shellfish. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-220. 84 pp.

Natural England. 2011. Bait collection in Poole Harbour European Marine Site. 19 pp.

Natural England. 2014. Poole Harbour Fishing Dredge Permit Byelaw – NEs advice on the potential impacts of shellfish dredging on the nature conservation features of Poole Harbour SPA, RAMSAR and SSSI. 3 June 2014. Pp1-10

Natural England. 2018. Natural England Conservation Advice for Marine Protected Areas: Poole Harbour SPA. Available at: https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/Marine/MarineSiteDetail.aspx?SiteCode=UK9010111&SiteName=poole%20Harbour&countyCode=&re sponsiblePerson=&SeaArea=&IFCAArea=. Date Accessed: 17/01/18

Natural England, Wildside Ecology & Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB. 2012. A simple method for assessment the risk of disturbance to birds and coastal sites. 32 pp.

Navedo, J.G. & Masero, J.A. 2008. Effects of traditional clam harvesting on the foraging ecology of migrating curlews (Numenius arquata). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 355, 1, 59-65.

Nisbet, I. C. T. 2000. Disturbance, habituation, and management of waterbird colonies – Commentary. Waterbirds: The International Journal of Waterbird Biology, 23, 312-332.

Norris, K., Bannister, R.C.A. & Walker, P.W. 1998: Changes In the number of oystercatchers, Haematopus ostralegus wintering in the Burry Inlet in relation to the biomass of cockles Cerastoderma edule and its commercial exploitation. J. Appl. Ecol., 35, 75–85.

Piersma, T., Koolhaas, A., Dekinga, A., Beukema, J.J., Dekker, R. & Essink, K. 2001. Long-term indirect effects of mechanical cockle-dredging on intertidal bivalve stocks in the Wadden Sea. J. Appl. Ecol. 38, 976-990.

Poole Harbour Commissioners. 2013. Poole Harbour Aquatic Management Plan. Available at: http://www.pooleharbouraqmp.co.uk/

Rees, E. C., Bruce, J. H. & White, G. T. 2005. Factors affecting the behavioural responses of whooper swans (Cygnus c. cygnus) to various human activities. Biol. Cons., 121, 369-382

Page 67 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Riddington, R., Hassall, M., Lane, S.J., Rurner, P.A. & Walters, R. 1996. The impacts of disturbance on the behaviour and energy budgets of Brent Geese Branta b. bernicla. Bird Study, 43, 269-279.

Roberts, C., Smith, C., Tillin, H. & Tyler-Walters, H. 2010. Review of existing approaches to evaluate marine habitat vulnerability to commercial fishing activities. Report: SC080016/R3.Environment Agency, Bristol. 150 pp.

Schmechel, F. 2001. Potential impacts of mechanical cockle harvesting on shorebirds in Golden and Tasman Bays, New Zealand. DOC Science Internal Series 19. New Zealand Department of Conservation. 51 pp.

Sewell, J., Harris, R., Hinz, H., Votier, S. & Hiscock, K. 2007. An Assessment of the Impact of Selected Fishing Activities on European Marine Sites and a Review of Mitigation Measures. SR591. Seafish Technology. 219 pp.

Spencer, B.E., Kaiser, M.J. & Edwards, D.B. 1998. Intertidal clam harvesting: benthic community change and recovery. Aquac. Res., 29, 429-437.

Stillman, R. A., Goss-Custard, J. D., West, A. D., Durell, S., McGrorty, S., Caldow, R. W. G., Norris, K. J., Johnstone, I. G., Ens, B. J., Van der Meer, J. & Triplet, P. 2001. Predicting shorebird mortality and population size under different regimes of shellfishery management. J. Appl. Ecol., 38, 857-868.

Stillman, R., West, A.D., Goss-Custard, J.D., Caldow, R.W.G., McGrorty, S., Durrel, S.E.A. Le V.dit., Yates, M.C., Atkinson, P.W., Clark, N.A., Bell, M.C., Drare, P.J. & Mander, M. 2003. An individual behaviour-based model can predict shorebird mortality using routinely collected shellfishery data, J. Appl. Ecol., 6, 1090- 1101.

Stillman, R.A., West, A.D., Caldow, R.W.G. & Durell, S.E.A. le V. dit. 2007. Predicting the effect of disturbance on coastal birds. Ibis, 149 (Suppl. 1), 9-14.

Stillman, R., Cox, J., Liley, D., Ravenscroft, N., Sharp, J. & Wells, M. 2009. Solent disturbance and mitigation project: Phase I report. Report to the Solent Forum. 103 pp.

Stillman, R.A., Moore, J.J., Woolmer, A.P., Murphy, M.D., Walker, P., Vanstaene, K.R., Palmer, D. & Sandersond, W.G. 2010. Assessing waterbird conservation objectives: An example for the Burry Inlet, UK. Biol. Cons., 143, 2617-2630.

Stillman, R. A., West, A. D., Clarke, R. T. & Liley, D. 2012. Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project Phase II: Predicting the impact of human disturbance on overwintering birds in the Solent. Report to the Solent Forum. 121 pp.

Sutherland, W.J. & Goss-Custard, J.D. 1991. Predicting the consequences of habitat loss on shorebird populations. Acta Congressus Internationalis Ornithologica, 20, 2199-2207.

Thiel, D., Jenni-Eiermann, S., Palme, R. & Jenni, L. 2011 Winter Tourism Increases Stress Hormone Levels in the Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus. Ibis, 153, 122– 133.

Page 68 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Thompson, J. R. 1994. Report on pilot project to investigate recreational disturbance to overwintering birds in the Solent 1993-94. Hampshire County Council.

Townshend, D. J., & O’Connor, D. A. 1993. Some effects of disturbance to waterfowl from bait-digging and wildfowling at Lindisfarne National Nature Reserve, north-east England. In Davidson, N. & Rothwell, P. (Eds). Disturbance to Waterfowl on Estuaries. Wader Study Group Bulletin, 68 (Special Issue). pp. 47–52. van Gils J.A., Piersma T., Dekinga A., Spaans B., Kraan C. 2006. Shellfish dredging pushes a flexible avian top predator out of a marine protected area. PLoS Biol 4(12): pp376. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040376

Veale, L.O., Hill, A.S., Hawkins, S.J. & Brand, A.R. 2000. Effects of long-term physical disturbance by commercial scallop fishing on subtidal epifaunal assemblages and habitats. Mar.Biol., 137, 2, 325-337.

Verhulst, S., Oosterbeek, K., Rutten, A.L. & Ens, B.J. 2004. Shellfish fishery severely reduces condition and survival of oystercatchers despite creation of large marine protected areas. Ecol. Soc., 9, 1, 17.

Walker, B. G., Dee Boersma, P. & Wingfield, J. C. 2006. Habituation of Adult Magellanic Penguins to Human Visitation as Expressed through Behaviour and Corticosterone Secretion. Cons. Biol., 20, 146-154.

West, A. D., Goss-Custard, J. D., Stillman, R. A., Caldow, R. W. G., Durell, S. & McGrorty, S. 2002. Predicting the impacts of disturbance on shorebird mortality using a behaviour-based model. Biol. Cons., 106, 319-328.

West, A.D., Goss-Custard, J.D., Durell, S.E.A. Le V.dit. & Stillman, R.A. 2005. Maintaining estuary quality for shorebirds: towards simple guidelines. Biol. Cons., 123, 211-224.

Wheeler, R., Stillman, R.A.S. & Herbert, R.J.H. 2014. Ecological impacts of clam and cockle harvesting on benthic habitats and waterfowl. Report to Natural England. Bournemouth University. 42pp.

Yasué, M. 2005. The effects of human presence, flock size and prey density on shorebird foraging rates. J. Ethol., 23, 199-204.

Zwarts, L., Cayford, J.T., Hulscher, J.B., Kersten, M. & Meire, P.M. 1996a. Prey size selection and intake rate. In Goss-Custard, J.D. (Ed). The Oystercatcher: From Individuals to Populations. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Zwarts, L., Ens, B.J., Goss-Custard, J.D., Hulscher, J.B., Durell. S.E.A. le V.dit. 1996b. Causes of variation in prey profitability and its consequences for the intake rate of the oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus. Ardea, 84a, 229-268.

Page 69 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Annex 2: Supporting Habitat(s) Site Feature Map for Poole Harbour SPA

Page 70 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Annex 3: Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Activity Map The map shows permit vessel sightings for the 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons. Prohibited areas, seasonal closed areas and areas of seagrass closed under the Bottom Towed Fishing Gear Byelaw 2016 are also shown. Where vessel sightings overlap with seasonal closed areas, all sightings occurred during the period when these areas are open for fishing activity (1st July to 31st October).

Page 71 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Annex 4: Natural England’s advice on the potential impacts of shellfish dredging on the nature conservation features of Poole Harbour SPA, Ramsar and SSSI.

Page 72 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018

Page 73 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018

Page 74 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018

Page 75 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018

Page 76 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Annex 5: Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw spatial and temporal restrictions

Page 77 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Annex 6: Poole Harbour Dredge Permit 2021/22 including permit conditions

Poole Harbour Dredge Permit

This permit authorises the named person in respect to the named vessel, for the period of validity specified below, to use, retain on board, store or transport a dredge within Poole Harbour, subject to the provisions of the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw and to the additional conditions listed in this permit.

Vessel Authorised is: NAME and PLN

Permit is issued to: Mr/Mrs X

Permit Number: 2021-22 XXX

Vessel length (m):

Vessel engine power (kw):

Cost of Permit: £600.00

Permit valid for period: 1st April 2021 – 31st March 2022

The permit holder should ensure that they have read and understand the Southern IFCA Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw and the Permit Conditions prior to fishing.

Failure to comply with any of the Permit Conditions constitutes contravention of the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw.

Page 78 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Permit Conditions

1. Definitions

1.1 In this permit:

“spray bar” means any object that directs a pressurised jet(s) of water;

“riddle” means a table with spaced bars for the sorting of shellfish;

“tooth bar” means the bar, to which is attached teeth, the ends of which point downwards and are dragged along the sea bed when the dredge is towed;

“auxiliary hydraulic equipment” shall include but is not limited to any water pump and associated hoses that are designed for, or capable of being used in connection with a shellfish dredge and any hydraulic lifting equipment, when used in connection with a shellfish dredge.

“interaction” means direct contact between any part of the fishing vessel or dredge, as defined in the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit byelaw, and any part of an individual listed as an Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species.

2. Catch restrictions and reporting 2.1 For the months of May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December the permit holder must submit to the Authority a completed catch return using a ‘Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Monthly Catch Return Form’. Completed catch returns must be submitted either in hard copy or as an electronic PDF document and must be received by the Authority no later than the 14th day of the following month.

2.2 For each day of the month the permit holder must state in their catch return:

i. the hours spent fishing; and ii. the quantity in kilograms of each species caught that day; and iii. the number of the zone(s) in which the quantities of species caught that day have been taken according to the zonation map provided with the catch return form; and iv. the name(s) of the company or individual to whom all parts of the catch was sold or declare that no catch was taken on that day by entering the word "nil" in the column for "Species caught and Quantity”. If no fishing has taken place during a month, the permit holder must indicate this to the Southern IFCA by submitting a “nil” catch return.

2.3 No person shall fish for or take from Poole Harbour any Native oyster (Ostrea edulis).

2.4 If a permit holder has an interaction between their fishing activity and an Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species, the permit holder must submit to the Authority a completed interaction form using a ‘Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw Interaction between dredge fishing activity and Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species Reporting Form’.

Page 79 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018

3. Gear types 3.1 Dredge designs are restricted to a basket size not exceeding 460 mm in width by 460 mm in depth by 300 mm high excluding any pole or attachments.

4. Gear construction and restrictions 4.1 Dredges must be constructed of rigid bars having spaces of not less than 18 mm between them. Any cross pieces used to strengthen the basket must have minimum spaces of 40 mm between them.

4.2 Only one dredge is allowed to be used at any one time on each vessel.

4.3 The contents of the dredge may only be removed after the dredge has been lifted into the vessel.

4.4 A second dredge may be carried on board but it must be inboard, stowed and disconnected.

4.5 Only one pump is permitted on board any vessel and any hoses connected to the pump and/or dredge should have a diameter of no greater than a 3 inch inlet and a 3 inch diameter outlet.

4.6 The maximum horsepower of the pump is 15 (fifteen).

4.7 A maximum of one spray bar is permitted to be used per dredge and must be fixed to the dredge. When using a dredge fitted with a tooth bar any associated spray bar must direct the flow of water towards the rear of the basket and at no times directly towards the seabed.

4.8 A riddle with 18mm bar spacing is mandatory for the sorting of shellfish. Any shell discards are to be re-deposited forthwith.

5. Spatial and temporal restrictions 5.1 A dredge shall not be used in any area of Poole Harbour between 18.00 and 06.00 each day.

5.2 A dredge shall not be used in any area of Poole Harbour during all Sundays.

5.3 A dredge shall not be used, retained on board, stored or transported in any area of Poole Harbour from 1st April to 24th May 2021, both days inclusive, and from 24th December 2021 to 31st March 2022, both days inclusive.

5.4 A dredge shall not be used, retained on board, stored or transported in the following areas from 25th May to 30th June, both days inclusive and from 1st November to 23rd December, both days inclusive, in the same year:

AREA 1 – NEWTON BAY The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 1 (50 Degrees 40.351 minutes North, 001 Degrees 59.493 minutes West) to Point 2 (50 Degrees 40.402 minutes North, 001 Degrees 59.750 minutes West) From point 2 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 1

Page 80 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 AREA 2 – OWER BAY The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 3 (50 Degrees 40.522 minutes North, 002 Degrees 00.101 minutes West) to Point 4 (50 Degrees 40.670 minutes North, 002 Degrees 00.464 minutes West) From point 3 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 4

AREA 3 – WYCH LAKE AND MIDDLEBERE LAKE The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 5 (50 Degrees 41.255 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.755 minutes West) to Point 6 (50 Degrees 40.891 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.030 minutes West) From point 6 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 7 Point 7 (50 Degrees 40.468 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.529 minutes West) to Point 8 (50 Degrees 40.795 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.911 minutes West) to Point 9 (50 Degrees 40.896 minutes North, 002 Degrees 02.157 minutes West) From point 9 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 5

AREA 4 – ARNE BAY The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 10 (50 Degrees 41.941 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.651 minutes West) to Point 11 (50 Degrees 42.204 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.843 minutes West) From point 11 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 10

AREA 5 – KEYSWORTH The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 12 (50 Degrees 42.400 minutes North, 002 Degrees 04.510 minutes West) to Point 13 (50 Degrees 42.264 minutes North, 002 Degrees 04.078 minutes West) to Point 14 (50 Degrees 41.890 minutes North, 002 Degrees 04.259 minutes West) to Point 15 (50 Degrees 41.842 minutes North, 002 Degrees 04.555 minutes West) From point 15 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 12 AREA 6 - BRANDS BAY SOUTH The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 16 (50 Degrees 40.156 minutes North, 001 Degrees 58.984 minutes West) to Point 17 (50 Degrees 40.156 minutes North, 001 Degrees 58.249 minutes West) From point 16 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 17

AREA 7 – BRANDS BAY WEST The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 16 (50 Degrees 40.156 minutes North, 001 Degrees 58.984 minutes West) to Point 18 (50 Degrees 40.610 minutes North, 001 Degrees 58.702 minutes West) From point 18 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 16

5.5 A dredge shall not be used in the following areas at all times:

AREA 8 - LYCHETT BAY The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 19 (50 Degrees 43.212 minutes North, 002 Degrees 02.412 minutes West) to Point 20 (50 Degrees 43.205 minutes North, 002 Degrees 02.439 minutes West) From point 20 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 19

Page 81 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 AREA 9 - HOLES BAY The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 21 (50 Degrees 42.771 minutes North, 001 Degrees 59.539 minutes West) to Point 22 (50 Degrees 42.734 minutes North, 001 Degrees 59.591 minutes West) From point 22 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 21

AREA 10 – WYCH LAKE The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 7 (50 Degrees 40.468 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.529 minutes West) to Point 8 (50 Degrees 40.795 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.911 minutes West) From point 8 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 7

AREA 11 – MIDDLEBERE LAKE The area enclosed by a line drawn from: Point 8 (50 Degrees 40.795 minutes North, 002 Degrees 01.911 minutes West) to Point 9 (50 Degrees 40.896 minutes North, 002 Degrees 02.157 minutes West) From point 9 along the coast at the level of mean high water spring tide to point 8

6. The fitting of specified equipment to vessels

6.1 None.

Date ......

Signed ...... Chief / Deputy Chief Officer Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

Page 82 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Annex 7: TLSE summary for each feature (and supporting habitats)

Feature Supporting Habitat Pressures Common Mediterranean In/Out Relevant tern gull Attributes Surface- Water column Abrasion/disturbance of the substrate on the surface of the seabed Out N/A feeding birds Mediterranean Saltmarsh features Changes in suspended solids (water clarity) S NS Out N/A gull Common tern Intertidal mixed sediment Penetration and/or disturbance of the substratum below the surface of Out N/A (Mediterranean gull only) the seabed, including abrasion Sandwich tern Intertidal mud Removal of non-target species Out N/A (Mediterranean gull only) Black-headed Intertidal sand and muddy Removal of target species Out N/A gull sand (Mediterranean gull only) Smothering and siltation rate changes (Light) Out N/A Visual disturbance SS In Supporting Above water noise S S In habitat: disturbance caused by human activity Collision ABOVE water with static or moving objects not naturally S S Out N/A found in the marine environment Collision BELOW water with static or moving objects not naturally S S Out N/A found in the marine environment Deoxygenation Out N/A Hydrocarbon and PAH contamination IE IE Out N/A Introduction of light IE IE Out N/A Introduction of microbial pathogens S S Out N/A Introduction or spread of invasive non-indigenous species S S Out N/A Litter S S Out N/A Nutrient enrichment Out N/A Organic enrichment Out N/A Physical change (to another sediment type) Out N/A Synthetic compound contamination (incl. pesticides, antifoulants, IE IE Out N/A pharmaceuticals)

Page 83 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Transition elements and organo-metal (e.g. TBT) contamination IE IE Out N/A Underwater noise changes IE IE Out N/A Black- Pied tailed Relevant Feature Supporting Habitat Pressures avocet godwit Shelduck In/Out Attributes Estuarine birds Water column Abrasion/disturbance of the substrate on the surface of the seabed Out N/A Pied avocet Saltmarsh features Changes in suspended solids (water clarity) Out N/A Intertidal mixed Penetration and/or disturbance of the substratum below the surface Little egret sediment of the seabed, including abrasion Out N/A Eurasian spoonbill Intertidal mud Removal of non-target species Out N/A Intertidal sand and Shelduck muddy sand Removal of target species Out N/A Black-tailed godwit Smothering and siltation rate changes (Light) Out N/A Supporting Dunlin Visual disturbance S S S In habitat: disturbance causd by Dark-bellied human Brent goose Above water noise S S S In activity Collision ABOVE water with static or moving objects not naturally Teal found in the marine environment SS S OutN/A Collision BELOW water with static or moving objects not naturally Goldeneye found in the marine environment Out N/A Red-breasted merganser Deoxygenation Out N/A Curlew Hydrocarbon and PAH contamination IE IE IE Out N/A Spotted redshank Introduction of light S S S Out N/A Greenshank Introduction of microbial pathogens S S S Out N/A Redshank Introduction or spread of invasive non-indigenous species NS S S Out N/A Pochard Litter IE IE IE Out N/A Nutrient enrichment Out N/A Organic enrichment Out N/A

Page 84 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Physical change (to another sediment type) Out N/A Synthetic compound contamination (incl. pesticides, antifoulants, pharmaceuticals) IE IE IE Out N/A Transition elements and organo-metal (e.g. TBT) contamination S S S Out N/A Underwater noise changes IE Out N/A Feature Supporting Habitat Pressures Med. & Atlantic Spartina In/Out Relevant thermo-Atl. salt swards Attributes Halophilous meadows scrub

Surface Meditteranean and Abrasion/disturbance of the substrate on the surface of the Out N/A feeding birds thermo-Atlantic seabed halophilous scrubs Estuarine Atlantic salt meadows Changes in suspended solids (water clarity) Out N/A birds Spartina swards Penetration and/or disturbance of the substratum below the Out N/A surface of the seabed, including abrasion Removal of non-target species Out N/A Removal of target species Out N/A Smothering and siltation rate changes (Light) Out N/A Visual disturbance Out N/A

Above water noise Out N/A Collision ABOVE water with static or moving objects not naturally Out N/A found in the marine environment Collision BELOW water with static or moving objects not naturally Out N/A found in the marine environment Deoxygenation NS NS Out N/A Hydrocarbon and PAH contamination NS NS Out NN Introduction of light Out N/A Introduction of microbial pathogens Out N/A Introduction or spread of invasive non-indigenous species Out N/A Litter IE IE Out N/A Nutrient enrichment NS NS Out N/A

Page 85 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Organic enrichment S S Out N/A Physical change (to another sediment type) S In Supporting habitat: extent and distribution of supporting non-breeding habitat; Supporting habitat: extent and distribution of supporting habitat for the breeding season Synthetic compound contamination (incl. pesticides, antifoulants, NS NS Out N/A pharmaceuticals) Transition elements and organo-metal (e.g. TBT) contamination NS NS Out N/A Underwater noise changes Out N/A Feature Supporting Habitat Pressures Intertidal In/Out Relevant Attributes mixed sediments

Surface Intertidal mixed Abrasion/disturbance of the substrate on the surface of the seabed S In No relevant attributes. feeding birds sediments Estuarine Changes in suspended solids (water clarity) S Out N/A birds Penetration and/or disturbance of the substratum below the surface of the S In No relevant attributes. seabed, including abrasion Removal of non-target species S In Supporting habitat: food availability within supporting habitat (avocet); Supporting habitat: food availability within the intertidal (Black-tailed godwit; Shelduck) Removal of target species NA Out N/A Smothering and siltation rate changes (Light) S Out N/A

Page 86 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Visual disturbance Out N/A

Above water noise Out N/A

Collision ABOVE water with static or moving objects not naturally found in the Out N/A marine environment Collision BELOW water with static or moving objects not naturally found in the Out N/A marine environment Deoxygenation S Out N/A Hydrocarbon and PAH contamination NS Out N/A Introduction of light IE Out N/A Introduction of microbial pathogens S Out N/A Introduction or spread of invasive non-indigenous species S Out N/A Litter NA Out N/A Nutrient enrichment NS Out N/A Organic enrichment NS Out N/A Physical change (to another sediment type) S Out N/A

Synthetic compound contamination (incl. pesticides, antifoulants, NS Out N/A pharmaceuticals) Transition elements and organo-metal (e.g. TBT) contamination NS Out N/A Underwater noise changes Out N/A Feature Supporting Habitat Pressures Intertidal In/Out Relevant Attributes mud Surface Intertidal mud Abrasion/disturbance of the substrate on the surface of the seabed S In No relevant attributes. feeding birds Estuarine Changes in suspended solids (water clarity) S Out N/A birds Penetration and/or disturbance of the substratum below the surface of the S In No relevant attributes. seabed, including abrasion

Page 87 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Removal of non-target species S In Supporting habitat: food availability within supporting habitat (avocet); Supporting habitat: food availability within the intertidal (Black-tailed godwit; Shelduck) Removal of target species NA Out N/A Smothering and siltation rate changes (Light) S Out N/A Visual disturbance Out N/A

Above water noise Out N/A Collision ABOVE water with static or moving objects not naturally found in the Out N/A marine environment Collision BELOW water with static or moving objects not naturally found in the Out N/A marine environment Deoxygenation NS Out N/A Hydrocarbon and PAH contamination NS Out N/A Introduction of light NS Out N/A Introduction of microbial pathogens S Out N/A Introduction or spread of invasive non-indigenous species S Out N/A Litter NA Out N/A Nutrient enrichment NS Out N/A Organic enrichment NS Out N/A Physical change (to another sediment type) S Out N/A Synthetic compound contamination (incl. pesticides, antifoulants, NS Out N/A pharmaceuticals) Transition elements and organo-metal (e.g. TBT) contamination NS Out N/A Underwater noise changes Out N/A Feature Supporting Habitat Pressures Intertidal In/Out Relevant Attributes mud and muddy sand

Page 88 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Surface Intertidal mud and Abrasion/disturbance of the substrate on the surface of the seabed S In No relevant attributes. feeding birds muddy sand Estuarine Changes in suspended solids (water clarity) S Out N/A birds Penetration and/or disturbance of the substratum below the surface of the S In No relevant attributes. seabed, including abrasion

Removal of non-target species S In Supporting habitat: food availability within supporting habitat (avocet); Supporting habitat: food availability within the intertidal (Black-tailed godwit; Shelduck) Removal of target species NA Out N/A Smothering and siltation rate changes (Light) S Out N/A Visual disturbance NA Out N/A

Above water noise Out N/A Collision ABOVE water with static or moving objects not naturally found in the Out N/A marine environment Collision BELOW water with static or moving objects not naturally found in the Out N/A marine environment Deoxygenation S Out N/A Hydrocarbon and PAH contamination NS Out N/A Introduction of light S Out N/A Introduction of microbial pathogens S Out N/A Introduction or spread of invasive non-indigenous species S Out N/A Litter NA Out N/A Nutrient enrichment NS Out N/A Organic enrichment NS Out N/A Physical change (to another sediment type) S Out N/A Synthetic compound contamination (incl. pesticides, antifoulants, NS Out N/A pharmaceuticals)

Page 89 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Transition elements and organo-metal (e.g. TBT) contamination NS Out N/A Underwater noise changes Out N/A

Advice on Operations Sensitivity Key

SENSITIVITY CATEGORY DESCRIPTION INTERACTION TYPE

DIRECT1 INDIRECT2 SENSITIVE: The evidence base suggests the feature is sensitive to the pressure at the benchmark. This activity-pressure-feature combination should therefore be taken to further assessment. S S*

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ASSESS: The evidence base is not considered to be developed enough for assessments to be made of sensitivity at the pressure benchmark. This activity-pressure-feature combination should therefore be taken to further assessment. The best available evidence, relevant to the activity in question, at the time of application, should be sourced and considered in any further assessment. IE IE*

NOT ASSESSED: A sensitivity assessment has not been made for this feature to this pressure. However, this activity-pressure-feature combination should not be precluded from consideration. The best available evidence, relevant to the activity in question, at the time of application, should be sourced and considered in any further assessment. NA NA*

Page 90 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 NOT SENSITIVE AT THE BENCHMARK: The evidence base suggests the feature is not sensitive to the pressure at the benchmark. However, this activity-pressure-feature combination should not be precluded from consideration (e.g. thought needs to be given to activity specific variations in pressure intensity and exposure, in-combination and indirect effects). The best available evidence, relevant to the activity in question, at the time of application, should be sourced and considered in any further assessment. NS NS*

NOT RELEVANT: The evidence base suggests that there is no interaction of concern between the pressure and the feature OR the activity and the feature could not interact

1 An activity which exerts pressures that interact with a feature within the spatial and/or temporal footprint of the operation 2An activity which exerts pressures that interact with a feature not associated with the immediate spatial and/or temporal footprint of the operation

Risk Profile of Pressures Key

RISK CATEGORY RECOMMENDATION High to Medium Risk Pressure is commonly induced by activity at a level that needs to be considered further as part of an assessment Low Risk Unless there are evidence based case or site-specific factors that increase the risk, or uncertainty on the level of pressure on a receptor, this pressure generally does not occur at a level of concern and should not require consideration as part of an assessment.

Page 91 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Annex 8: Co-Location of Shellfish Dredging and Site Feature(s)/Sub-feature(s)

Page 92 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Annex 9: Table of studies investigating the impacts of shellfish dredging and recovery rates.

Study Location and Gear Type and Sediment Type Recovery Period Species-Specific Exposure Target Species Recovery Ferns, P.N., Burry Inlet, Tractor-towed Intertidal clean Recovery was Muddy sand: Rostron, D.M. & South Wales cockle harvester sand and muddy considered with Pygospio elegans - >174 Sima, H.Y. 2000. sand invertebrate sampling days Effects of Common cockle conducted 15 and 86 Hydrobia ulvae - >174 mechanical -Cerastoderma days after harvesting in days cockle edule both sediment types and Nephtys hombergii – 51 harvesting on 174 days in muddy sand days intertidal only. Unfortunately Bathyporeia pilosa – 51 communities. sampling was not days Journal of continued long enough to Lanice conchilega – 0 days Applied Ecology, determine how long Corophium arenarium – 0 37, 464-474. invertebrate communities days took to recover. Macoma balthica - >86 Movement of adults or days passive transport as a Cerastoderma edule - result of sediment >174 days movements, was Pygospio elegans - >86 sufficient to allow days recovery of modest Crangon creangon - >86 invertebrate populations days in clean sand, but Retusa obtusa - >86 days inadequate to allow recovery of large Clean sand: populations in muddy Bathyporeia pilosa – 39 sand. See species- days specific recovery. Macoma balthica - <86 days Cerastoderma edule – 0 days

Page 93 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 Pygospio elegans - >86 days Nephtys homergii - <86 days Carcinus maenas - <86 days Kaiser, M.J., Whitestable, Suction dredge Clay Seven months after Nephtys hombergii Edwards, B. & Kent, south-east interspersed harvesting, no significant contributed to the most Spencer, B.E. England Manila clam – with patches of differences in infaunal similarity between samples 1996. Infaunal Tapes shell debris and communities were found taken from the clam lay 7 community philippinarum lignin deposits between the harvested months after harvesting changes as a (from local paper clam lay and either of the and was also dominant in result of mill) overlaid control sites (near and control areas. commercial clam with fine sand far). cultivation and and silt. harvesting. After seven months, Aquatic Living Exposed to sediment fractions in the Resources, 9, prevailing north harvested plot did not 57-63. easterly winds. significantly differ from the sediment in control areas, as sedimentation had nearly restored sediment structure. Hall, S.J. & Auchencairn Suction dredge Sediments Suction dredge – Suction dredge - significant Harding, M.J.C. Bay, Solway & tractor dredge generally statistically significant treatment (disturbed 1997. Physical Firth, Dumfries, become coarser effects were present, but versus undisturbed) effects disturbance and Scotland Common cockle in the centre of overall faunal structure in were reported for Pygospio marine benthic – Cerastoderma the bay and low distributed plots elegans and Cerastoderma communities: edule water mark recovered after 56 days. edule. There were also a the effects of (median This occurred against a significant time effect and mechanical diameter = 3.5ø, background of seasonal significant time-treatment harvesting of 88µm) (near to response. interaction for Pygospio cockles on non- the study area). elegans. target benthic Silt/clay fraction

Page 94 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 infauna. Journal (<62.5 µm) Tractor dredge – no Tractor dredge – mean of Applied ranges from 25 statistically significant abundance of P. elegans Ecology, 34, to 60% in the effects on total remained higher in the 497-517. centre. abundance and number undisturbed treatment until of species and overall day 56. No significant faunal structure in treatment effect occurred distributed plots for any species but a recovered after 56 days. significant time treatment This occurred against a occurred for P. elegans, background of general Nepthys sp. and C. edule, seasonal decline. with a significant time treatment interaction for P. elegans. Spencer, B.E., River Exe, Suction dredge Unknown – Recovery of sediment Pygospio elegans Kaiser, M.J. & England (see study refers to structure and abundance was greater in Edwards, D.B. Spencer et al., Manila clam – stable sediment invertebrate infaunal the harvested plot than any 1998. Intertidal 1996; 1997) Tapes and protection communities occurred 12 other four months after clam harvesting: philippinarum from onshore months after harvesting. harvesting, whilst Nephtys benthic winds by a sand Four months after hombergii abundance community dune bar. harvesting, significant remained lower. change and differences between the recovery. harvested plot, Aquaculture previously net-covered Research, 29, plot and control plot were 429-437. detectable (67% similarity between treatments), although there were indication of recruitment or migration. Eight months after harvesting, similarity between treatments increased to 85%, however significant

Page 95 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122 HRA Template Plan/Project v1.0 8th January 2018 differences were still apparent between treatment and control plots (excluding previously net-covered plot and the harvested plot).

Trenches (10 cm deep) left by suction dredging were infilled within 2 to 3 months. Peterson, C.H., Back Sound, ‘Clam kicking’ – Seagrass bed Monitored the impact of - Summerson, North Carolina, mechanical form and sandflat different intensities of H.C. & Fegley, USA of clam harvest clam kicking, as well as S.R. 1987. involving the clam raking, for up to Ecological modification of four years. Clam consequences boat engines to harvesting had no impact of mechanical direct propeller on the density or species harvesting of wash composition of small clams. Fishery downwards to benthic Bulletin, 85, 2, suspend bottom macroinvertebrates, 281-298. sediments and largely made up of clams into a polychaetes. The study plume and concluded that collected in a polychaetes recover trawl net towed rapidly from disturbance behind the boat. and as such the communities are unlikely American hard to be adversely affected shell clam - by clam harvesting. Mercencaria mercenaria

Page 96 of 102 SIFCA Reference: SIFCA/HRA_PP/PHDPByelaw202122

Annex 10: Southern IFCA’s Poole Harbour Roosting Sites Code of Practice

Poole Harbour Roosting Sites Code of Practice

To prevent disturbance to breeding and roosting bird species and promote the protection of supporting breeding habitat within specific areas of Poole Harbour the points listed below should be observed by any person carrying out dredge fishing activity within Poole Harbour between 25th May and 23rd December:

 Avoid fishing in close proximity to saltmarsh areas   When moving around areas of saltmarsh keep speed to a maximum of 6 knots

 Avoid landing or disembarking on any saltmarsh area

 Avoid contact between a vessel and any part of the saltmarsh   When operating in areas defined under section 5.4 of the Poole Harbour Dredge permit during the period when these areas are open between 1st July and 1st November avoid excessive noise, beyond that caused by deployment of gear 

Green Island Saltmarsh Management Area

The Green Island Saltmarsh Management Area was established between fishers and partners to manage and protect the saltmarsh and fishing interests around Green Island in Poole Harbour. The saltmarsh around Green Island is low lying and, at certain states of the tide, is submerged and not easily visible, because of this, interaction between dredges and saltmarsh can occur. Whilst fishing on saltmarsh is accidental and not a common occurrence, shellfish beds do occur close to the saltmarsh and so dredging can incidentally impact the roots of these areas. To aid Poole Harbour

Dredge Permit holders in the identification of these sensitive areas, the area is marked with buoys, as indicated in Figure 1.

Within this area dredge fishing should not occur

Seagull Island

Additionally, between 25th May and 1st July each year, to avoid disturbance to Mediterranean Gull (Larus melanocephalus), a feature of the Poole Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA), in the area of Seagull Island (Figure 2), any person carrying out dredge fishing activity within Poole Harbour should observe the following:

 Avoid dredge fishing between the three parts of Seagull Island

 Avoid contact between a vessel and any part of Seagull Island

 Avoid landing or disembarking on any part of Seagull Island

 When moving around or between parts of Seagull Island keep speed to a maximum of 6 knots

 Avoid excessive noise, beyond that caused by deployment of gear, when in close proximity to any part of Seagull Island 

Explanatory Note

This Code of Practice (CoP) aims to avoid disturbance to breeding and roosting bird species and promote protection of supporting breeding habitat within specific areas of Poole Harbour. Particular reference is made to avoiding fishing in sensitive saltmarsh areas and avoiding disturbance to the Mediterranean Gull (Larus melanocephalus) during the key breeding period of 1st April to 1st July in the area of Seagull Island where a large colony of this species is known to breed each year. By following the advice provided, fishermen will minimise the disturbance impact to this feature of the Poole Harbour SPA, a European Marine Site (EMS). The IFCA has a duty under the Habitats Directive 2010 to ensure that fishing activity does not disturb or have an adverse effect on the wildlife for which an EMS is legally protected. This CoP was developed as a first alternative to a regulatory permit condition under the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw as the disturbance can potentially be minimised through small changes to fishing practice.

Figure 1: Green Island Saltmarsh Management Area

Marker 1 End of Landing Pontoon Marker 4 50° 40.564'N 1° 59.55'W Marker 7 50° 40.640'N 1° 59.67'W Marker 2 50° 40.739'N 1° 59.31'W Marker 5 50° 40.580'N 1° 59.60'W Marker 8 50° 40.852'N 1° 59.78'W Marker 3 50° 40.626'N 1° 59.49'W Marker 6 50° 40.594'N 1° 59.65'W Marker 9 50° 40.913'N 1° 59.69'W

Figure 2: Poole Harbour, Seagull Island Extent

Annex 11: The Green Island Saltmarsh Management Area

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

OFFICER’S REPORT

POOLE CLAM AND COCKLE FISHERY PARTNERSHIP PROJECT ITEM J

Report by Deputy Chief Officer Pia Bateman

A. Purpose of the Report

To provide Members of the Authority with an overview of The Poole Clam and Cockle Fishery Partnership Project (‘The Project’).

B. Recommendation(s)

For the Members of the Authority to be aware of The Project.

1. Background 1.1 In March 2018 the Poole Clam and Cockle fishery (‘the fishery’) was certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) as a sustainable fishery. Certification was achieved as a result of partnership working between Poole and District Fisherman’s Association (PDFA) and Southern IFCA.

1.2 In addition, through partnership work with Dorset Wildlife Trust (DWT) and Seafish, fourteen vessels operating within the fishery achieved recognition under the Responsible Fishing Scheme (RFS).

1.3 This dual recognition (MSC Certification and RFS award) was a global first and is of particular significance due to Poole Harbour’s designation as a Marine Protected Area (MPA).

1.4 In order for the fishery to maintain MSC certification standards, a number of conditions must be met which relate to the potential interactions between the fishery and species which are endangered, threatened or protected (collectively known as ETP species).

1.5 Building on the success of partnership working to date, partners identified the benefit of maintaining a shared approach in addressing the management of the ETP conditions.

1.6 As such, the Poole Clam and Cockle Fishery Partnership Project was developed.

2. The Poole Clam and Cockle Fishery Partnership Project

2.1 Following confirmation of funding from the Ocean Stewardship Fund (OSF) Program of the MSC in October 2020, Southern IFCA began working with partners DWT, the PDFA and a local consultancy Noctiluca Marine.

2.2 The Project aims to (1) establish a process by which fishers can be supported to minimise interactions with ETP species within the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit fishery; (2) increase awareness of ETP species in Dorset and to promote the benefits of fishers as sentinels for the recording of ETP sightings and interactions, via a voluntary approach rather than thorough the introduction of a fishing restriction (3) demonstrate a model of best practice for MSC fisheries in the management of ETP

1

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

OFFICER’S REPORT interactions; (4) provide a blue print of how sustainable fisheries management can successfully co-exist within the context of an MPA and (5) provide a blue print approach to support the attainment of MSC certification in other fisheries within MPAs.

2.3 The Project officially begun on the 1st March 2021 and will run until February 2022.

2.4 Southern IFCA are the project managers.

2

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

OFFICER’S REPORT

2021 SOUTHERN IFCA WEBSITE LAUNCH ITEM K

Report & virtual by IFCO Smith

A. Purpose of the Report

For Members to receive a virtual tour around the new and improved Southern IFCA Website.

B. Recommendation

1. For Members to note the new and improved 2021 Southern IFCA Website 2. For Members to provide any feedback on the new and improved 2021 Southern IFCA Website

1. Background

1.1 Since November 2020, myself and fellow Southern IFCA Officers have been working hard with Toolkit Web Design to redesign the Southern IFCA website. The previous Southern IFCA website was created over 6 years ago, in which time web design technology has moved on dramatically particularly with the introduction of SMART devices such as mobiles and tablets.

1.2 The Southern IFCA website has been updated to include two important features: the website is now SSL secure and ‘mobile friendly’. This means that the website is secure and easy to use for our target audience such as fishers, who, would likely be accessing it whilst onboard their vessel/ or along the shore. The website has also been updated to better reflect the wide range of topics which The Authority engages stakeholders about through our website and other means such as patrols, telephone and email enquiries.

1.3 The Southern IFCA website will be launched on 18th March 2021! Officers really encourage Members to explore the new website and provide any feedback on the overall design, content or if any anomalies are found over the following weeks.

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

ITEM L OFFICER’S REPORT

RISK BASED ENFORCEMENT PROCESS

Report by the Deputy Chief Officer

A. Purpose of the Report

To inform Members on the progress of our risk-based enforcement approach and agree a compliance risk register.

B. Recommendation

That Members note the report and agree the contents of a Compliance Risk Register.

1. Background

1.1 Defra provided Guidance to Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities on the establishment of a common enforcement framework and in particular, on applying risk- based enforcement principles and methods.

1.2 Southern IFCA is committed to the monitoring of a risk based approach to enforcement and Members have agreed the process and principles through which apply to that approach.

1.3 Southern IFCAs Annual Plan commits the Authority to review its Compliance Risk Register.

2. Compliance Risk Register

2.1 Outcomes of risk assessments for specified areas within the District have been used to develop a Compliance Risk Register (appended to this report) containing compliance and enforcement strategic priorities to inform operational plans developed through a Tactical Coordination Group.

2.2 The Register has been developed using an evidence-based approach and been informed by stakeholder focus groups. An analysis of risk from the perspective of the marine resource allows the process to be informed by the available scientific evidence and through stakeholder input. Where further information is required this may be addressed through the IFCA’s Research Plan.

2.3 Where high risks are identified through The Register there will be a series of performance targets which will support the attainment of objectives to manage those risks. These targets will include enforcement and education and will be agreed by Members and reported on at regular intervals. Where the risks are lower, there will be an increased focus upon awareness as described in the IFCA Compliance and Enforcement Framework.

2.4 The development of The Register allows the officers to be clear about the Authority’s compliance strategic priorities as they are required to set objectives to reduce high and monitor medium risks in their daily work. The Register is a “live document” which will be reviewed regularly by Managers and Members and informed by information recorded in the IFCA’s intelligence systems.

3. Next steps

3.1 Once agreed by Members, The Register will be available on the Authorities website and identify where enforcement based responses will be delivered making the best use of resources and providing the best possible protection regarding sea fisheries sustainability and the marine environment.

3.2 Operational plans will be developed internally targeting high risk priorities through a monthly Tactical Coordination Group.

3.3 The Register will be regularly reviewed and monitored against agreed performance targets and reported to the Authority.

3.4 The Register will be updated for the introduction on new legislation (recreational bass limit, Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Byelaw, MPAs, new byelaws and Codes of conduct when they are introduced etc.), emerging trends or the increase/reduction of risk ratings.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985 List of Background Papers

Compliance Risk Register

Compliance Risk Register

1 of 19

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority Compliance Risk Register

Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities will lead, champion and manage a sustainable marine environment and inshore fisheries, by successfully securing the right balance between social, environmental and economic benefits to ensure healthy seas, sustainable fisheries and a viable industry

Purpose of the Document

The Compliance Risk Register provides focus for enforcement activities and is a keystone document forming part of the Compliance and Enforcement Framework. The Register identifies strategic priorities for enforcement based responses that inform the development and delivery of operational plans making the best use of resources and providing the best possible protection regarding sea fisheries sustainability and the marine environment. The Register is regularly reviewed and updated.

First draft published March21 © Southern IFCA 2021

This report is available to download from www.southern-ifca.gov.uk Alternatively a hard copy can be viewed at: Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority Unit 3 Holes Bay Park, Sterte Avenue West, Poole. BH15 2AA Tel: 01202 721373 Email [email protected]

2 of 19

Contents

1. Purpose of the Compliance Risk Register

2. Risk based enforcement process

2.1. What is a Risk Assessment? 2.2. Why use a Risk Based Enforcement Process? 2.3. Risk Based Enforcement Framework 2.4. Risk Matrix 2.5. Table 1 Impact Definitions 2.6. Table 2 Likelihood Definitions 2.7. Table 3 Risk Matrix

3. Risk Assessments

4. The District

4.1. Table 4 Area Map

5. Classification of risks

5.1. Removal of undersized 5.2. Fishing within a prohibited area 5.3. Fishing within a prohibited period 5.4. Fishing within a prohibited season 5.5. Fishing with a prohibited method/technique 5.6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity 5.7. Removal from the fishery 5.8 Retaining fish in excess of a bag limit 5.9 Fishing without permit

6. Fishing methods

6.1 Potting 6.2 6.3 Dredging 6.4 Netting 6.5 Rod & Line (Recreational and commercial) 6.6 Diving 6.7 Hand gathering

7. Resources which are the focus of management

7.1. Finfish 7.2. Shellfish 7.3. Conservation features 7.4. Migratory fish (Salmon and Sea Trout)

8. Appendix A Example Risk Assessment

9. Appendix B Risk Based Enforcement Priorities

9.1. Area A 9.2. Area B 9.3. Area C 9.4. Area D 9.5. Area E

3 of 19

1. PURPOSE OF THE COMPLIANCE RISK REGISTER The Compliance Risk Register provides focus for enforcement activities and is a keystone document forming part of the Compliance and Enforcement Framework. The Register identifies strategic priorities for enforcement based responses that inform the development and delivery of operational plans making the best use of resources and providing the best possible protection regarding sea fisheries sustainability and the marine environment. The Register is regularly reviewed and updated.

2. RISK BASED ENFORCEMENT PROCESS

2.1 What is risk assessment? Risk assessment is a process used to identify and evaluate risks and their potential effect.

2.2 Why use a risk based enforcement process? So that together with key stakeholders and the wider community we can accurately gauge whether enough precautions are being taken or more should be done to prevent or reduce the harm to the sustainability of a fishery and/or the marine environment. This is the basis of Southern IFCA’s risk based enforcement strategy.

2.3 Risk Based Enforcement Framework To help analyse risks and develop proportionate enforcement action, Southern IFCA uses a matrix scoring system to identify the extent of the risk, its impact and the probability of such an occurrence.

By using a risk based approach to our fisheries (which include the stock/conservation feature and method of fishing), this enables us to assess current enforcement activities and/or develop alternative initiatives where resources can be tasked efficiently against an accurate understanding of sustainability and emerging trends for both its regulatory infringement risk and conservation impact upon those fisheries and the marine environment.

The overall risk level for each hazard is generally calculated as the mathematical product of the impact and likelihood levels (risk = impact x likelihood). From this product, which is called the Risk Value, each issue can be assigned a Risk Ranking, depending upon where a risk value falls within one of a number of predetermined categories. Colour coding denotes the overall risk level for each fishery/conservation feature and fishing method and gives guidance on whether the risk is low, medium or high. This makes it a simple procedure to highlight within the risk matrix how regulatory enforcement will be prioritised.

2.4 Risk Matrix The following tables 1 & 2 explain the factors to be taken into consideration when scoring each risk value and table 3 is the risk matrix indicating the risk rankings and suggested outcomes.

For example, for a risk where there is a major threat to the marine environment or stock and the likelihood is a common occurrence, a risk ranking of 20 is scored (impact 5 x likelihood 4) categorised as high risk and action would be necessary.

Or, for a risk where there is no immediate threat to the marine environment or stock but it could occur, a risk ranking of 3 is scored (impact 1 x likelihood 3) categorised as medium risk and therefore light touch approaches such as education, self-regulation or even taking no action and just monitor the situation could be considered.

4 of 19

2.5 Table 1 Impact Definitions

The Impact Table has a qualitative criteria that range from ‘no immediate threat’ to ‘extreme threat’ to the stock/marine environment or fisheries/conservation management system and reputation.

Level General

No immediate threat to the stock 1 No immediate threat to the marine environment * No immediate threat to fisheries/conservation management system and reputation † Minor threat to the stock 2 Minor threat to the marine environment Minor threat to fisheries/conservation management system and reputation Moderate threat to the stock 3 Moderate threat to the marine environment Moderate threat to fisheries/conservation management system and reputation Major threat to the stock 4 Major threat to the marine environment Major threat to fisheries/conservation management system and reputation Extreme threat to the stock 5 Extreme threat to the marine environment Extreme threat to fisheries/conservation management system and reputation

2.6 Table 2 Likelihood Definitions

The Likelihood Table has qualitative criteria that range from ‘remote’ to ‘common or repeating occurrence’.

Level Descriptor

1 Occurrence practically impossible (remote risk)

2 Not likely to occur or ‘haven’t heard of it happening’

3 Could occur, or ‘I’ve heard of it happening’’

4 Known to occur, ‘it has happened in the past’

5 Common or repeating occurrence

* conservation feature/habitat/eco system/other species and/or endangered, threatened or protected species † fisheries management system is the community led approach supported by industry and government institutions

5 of 19

2.7 Table 3 Risk Matrix

Risk Matrix – multiplication of numbers indicate risk value, the colours/shades indicate risk rankings, High - Act, Medium – Monitor and Low - Observe

5 Act

4

3 Monitor

Impact 2

1 Observe

1 2 3 4 5 Likelihood

3. RISK ASSESSMENTS There are a number of factors to take into consideration when developing a risk assessment for a fishery or conservation feature. Southern IFCA has carried out a risk assessment for specific areas within the District. Each fishery or conservation feature is assessed against a number of pre-determined risk classifications, the relative fishing method and the existing regulations. It is from these risk assessments that our strategic priorities are identified and at what time of the year are the highest risks.

Risk assessments will be regularly reviewed and/or updated if the risk value changes, new management measures are introduced or emerging trends are identified.

The next sections provide an explanation of the individual components and provide an example of a risk assessment for one of the specified areas within the District.

4. THE DISTRICT The coastal waters of the Southern IFCA District contain a wide range of habitat and species. Fishing methods vary throughout the District, and landings occur in many ports. To enable risk assessments to be carried out that reflect our diversity and identify and evaluate risks accurately, the District has been divided into the following five main areas and are demonstrated in table 4;

Area A Dorset/Devon border to Kimmeridge

Area B Kimmeridge to Mudeford

Area C Mudeford to Warsash

Area D Warsash to Hampshire/Sussex border

Area E Isle of Wight

6 of 19

4.1 Table Four – Area map

5. CLASSIFICATION OF RISK

5.1 Removal of Undersized Removal of undersized fish can have a deleterious effect on the fish stocks by removing animals before they have had a chance to reproduce. A consequence of the removal of undersized fish may be growth . One type of growth overfishing occurs when animals are harvested at an average size that is smaller than the size that would produce the maximum yield per recruit. This can reduce the yield in fisheries and is associated with economic impacts.

5.2 Fishing within a Prohibited Area Protected Areas may be used to manage ecosystem overfishing. Marine Protected Areas are "Any area of the intertidal or sub tidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment." (IUCN) examples of marine protected areas include Marine Conservation Zones, Special Protection Areas, and Special Areas of Protection (amongst others). Protected areas may also be used or be associated with fisheries stock management benefits e.g. where they protect resources from exploitation at particularly vulnerable periods in their life history, or where they protect essential fish habitats from degradation.

5.3 Fishing within a Prohibited Period Restricting the time that fishing can occur is used to reduce fishing effort and therefore mortality. Management by this mean can also be applied as an aid to compliance. Limiting the

7 of 19

amount of time when a fishery is exploited influences the economic potential of a fishery and in so doing alters the types of fisheries which may be undertaken.

5.4 Fishing within a Prohibited Season Management measures which create prohibited season (temporal restrictions) are used to protect resources from overexploitation at times when a species is particularly vulnerable to overexploitation or degradation. Examples of such times include when fish congregate to spawn.

5.5 Fishing with a Prohibited Method/Technique By restricting certain fishing methods and techniques it is possible to reduce fishing effort to avoid growth, recruitment or ecosystem overfishing. This may be achieved by restricting larger, more efficient and/or damaging methods or by restricting certain gear configurations i.e. net mesh sizes so as to control the type of size of fish caught.

5.6 Fishing with Prohibited Gear Configuration/Quantity By restricting certain fishing methods and techniques it is possible to reduce fishing effort to avoid growth, recruitment or ecosystem overfishing. For example, this may be achieved by restricting the length of which may be used.

5.7 Removal from the fishery Restrictions on the removal of fish from the fishery may be as a consequence of a harvest control rule i.e. so as to avoid recruitment overfishing. Examples include the establishment of Total Allowable Catches (and their associated quotas), or to close fisheries in the advent of disadvantageous economic or resource conditions. They may also be used to ensure complete prohibition where species are unable to support economic harvest; this may be due to the animals’ life history or prior overfishing.

5.8 Retaining fish over a daily bag limit A bag limit refers to the total number of fish an individual can legally take and have in their possession on a per day basis. These limits serve several purposes in that; conserve heavily- exploited species; conserve species that are susceptible to capture; share the catch more equitably among anglers; reduce the illegal marketing of fish; send out a message promoting ethical and responsible behavior when using a limited natural resource.

5.9 Fishing without a permit Southern IFCA currently issues permits to licensed fishing vessels to fish within the District that applies to vessels under 12m in length. Permits are also issued to selected fisherman who have undergone an evidence based application, including history in the fishery, proof of ownership of a licensed fishing vessel and have been subjected to an interview and approval through a select panel of the Authority and have purchased a permit will only be allowed to dredge for shellfish within Poole Harbour.

6. FISHING METHODS The following is a categorised list of fishing methods that have been used in the compilation of the risk assessments.

6.1 Potting 6.2 Trawling 6.3 Dredging 6.4 Netting 6.5 Rod & Line (Recreational and commercial) 6.6 Diving 6.7 Hand gathering

8 of 19

7. RESOURCES WHICH ARE THE FOCUS OF MANAGEMENT The following is a categorised list of resources that have been used in the compilation of the risk assessments.

7.1 Finfish 7.2 Shellfish 7.3 Conservation features 7.4 Migratory fish (Salmon and Sea Trout)

9 of 19 8. Appendix A SOUTHERN IFCA RISK BASED ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES AREA A ‐ SCALLOP Risk 1: Removal of undersized Fishing method Impact Likelihood Area/Season Existing Risk strategy Owner Key Resources Risk Key evaluation (including stock, management actions (Partners) status/ranking criteria marine method environment and management) Scallop dredge 4 3 All year EU tech con Education IFCA/MMO Officers 12 Number of Monitoring Patrol vessel inspections/ Land/Marine Intel (MCSS & compliance Ops NIMIC) ratio Inspections VMS Risk 2: Fishing in a prohibited area Scallop dredge 4 3 All year Byelaw/SI Education IFCA/MMO Officers 12 Number of Monitoring Patrol vessel inspections/ Land/Marine Intel (MCSS & compliance Ops NIMIC) ratio/reduction Inspections in incursions VMS Risk 3: Fishing within a prohibited period Scallop dredge 3 4 All year Byelaw Education IFCA/MMO Officers 12 Monitor Monitoring Patrol vessel Land/Marine Intel (MCSS & Ops NIMIC) Inspections VMS Risk 1: Removal of undersized Diver 2 3 All year EU tech con Education IFCA/MMO Officers 6 Monitor Monitoring Patrol vessel Land/Marine Intel (MCSS & Ops NIMIC) Inspections VMS Risk 3: Fishing within a prohibited period Diver 2 3 April to Byelaw Education IFCA/MMO Officers 6 Monitor September Monitoring Patrol vessel Land/Marine Intel (MCSS & Ops NIMIC) Inspections VMS

SOUTHERN IFCA RISK BASED ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES

AREA A

Fishing method Species/feature Risk Regulatory Considerations J F M A M J J A S O N D Scallop dredge Scallop 1. Removal of u/s EU ‐ Tech Con3/SI Scallop Order4 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Scallop 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw –Bottom towed gear SI‐Scallop Order 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Scallop 3. Fishing within prohibited period Byelaw – Scallop fishing prohibition 1900 to 0700 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Potting Brown & spider crabs 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Lobster 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Lobster 7. Removal from the fishery SI – V notching5 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Lobster 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw / SI – Protection of berried hens 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Potting & Rod & line Whelk 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Wrasse 1. Removal of u/s SIFCA Code of Conduct 16 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 Wrasse 2. Fishing in a prohibited area SIFCA Code of Conduct 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Wrasse 3. Fishing within prohibited period SIFCA Code of Conduct 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Wrasse 4. Fishing within a prohibited season SIFCA Code of Conduct 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Wrasse 5. Fishing with prohibited method/technique SIFCA Code of Conduct 16 12 12 12 16 16 16 16 Wrasse 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity SIFCA Code of Conduct 16 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 Potting Cuttlefish 1. Removal (pots) SIFCA Code of Conduct 9 9 Cuttlefish 3. Fishing within prohibited period SIFCA Code of Conduct 9 9 Fixed and drift net Bass 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Bass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area SI – Bass Nursery Area6 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Bass 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Fixed net Bass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – May to July 16 16 16 Finfish – sole/plaice/skate 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con/byelaw 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Finfish – sole/plaice/skate 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Finfish – sole/plaice/skate 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw – Tech Con 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Migratory fish ‐ Salmon 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Migratory fish – Sea trout 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Diving Seabirds 1. Removal (Net) SIFCA Code of Conduct 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Diving Seabirds 3. Fishing within prohibited period SIFCA Code of Conduct 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Drift net Migratory fish ‐ Salmon 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Migratory fish – Sea trout 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Bass 1. Removal EU – Council regulation 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Trawl Finfish – sole/plaice/skate 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con/byelaw 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Finfish – sole/plaice/skate 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Bottom towed gear 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Finfish – sole/plaice/skate 4. Fishing within a prohibited season Byelaw – Fishing under mechanical power closed area 8 8 8 8 Finfish – sole/plaice/skate 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Finfish – sole/plaice/skate 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw – Tech Con 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Rod & Line (rec & Bass 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 commercial Bass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area SI – Bass Nursery Area 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

3 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2019/1241 technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms 4 The Scallop Fishing (England) Order 2012 5 SI 2000 874 The Lobsters and Crawfish (Prohibition of Fishing and Landing) Order 2000 6 The Bass (Specified Areas) (Prohibition of Fishing) (Variation) Order 1999

SOUTHERN IFCA RISK BASED ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES

Bass 4. Fishing within a prohibited season SI – Bass Nursery Area – Council regulation 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Rec and charter Bass 8. Retain over bag limit EU – Fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks 20 20 20 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 20 20 Rod & line (rec) Migratory ‐ Salmon 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 20 20 20 20 20 20 Migratory – Sea trout 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 12 12 12 12 12 12 Dive Scallop 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Scallop 3. Fishing within prohibited period Byelaw ‐ Scallop fishing prohibition 1900 to 0700 6 6 6 6 6 6 Electro Fishing Razor Calm 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity Byelaw‐Electric Current/EA legislation/licence condition 16 16 16 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 16 16 AREA A

9.2 Appendix B SOUTHERN IFCA RISK BASED ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES AREA B

Fishing method Species/feature Risk Regulatory Considerations J F M A M J J A S O N D Pump assisted dredge Clam 1. Removal of u/s Minimum size/ EU ‐ Tech Con 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Eel grass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaws – Prohibition on using dredge/Bottom towed gear 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 Shellfish7 2. Fishing in a prohibited area (permanent closures) Byelaw – Poole Harbour Dredge Permit condition 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Shellfish 3. Fishing within prohibited period (1800 – 0600) Byelaw – Poole Harbour Dredge Permit condition 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Shellfish 4. Fishing within a prohibited season Byelaw – Poole Harbour Dredge Permit condition 16 16 16 16 16 Shellfish 4. Fishing within a prohibited season (specified areas) Byelaw – Poole Harbour Dredge Permit condition 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Shellfish 5. Fishing with prohibited method/technique Byelaw – Poole Harbour Dredge Permit condition 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Shellfish 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity Byelaw – Poole Harbour Dredge Permit condition 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Shellfish 9. Fishing without a permit Byelaw – Poole Harbour Dredge Permit condition 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Cockle 1. Removal of u/s Byelaw – Cockle 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Aquaculture Shellfish 1. Removal of u/s Poole Harbour Several Order 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Shellfish 5. Fishing with prohibited method/technique Poole Harbour Several Order 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Shellfish 7. Removal from the fishery (non‐leaseholder) Poole Harbour Several Order 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Handrake/gathering Shellfish 1. Removal of u/s Byelaw – Cockle & minimum size/EU Tech Con 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Shellfish 2. Fishing in a prohibited area (specified areas) Byelaws – Poole Harbour Shellfish Handgathering Byelaw 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Cockle 4. Fishing within a prohibited season Byelaw – Cockle 8 8 8 Cockle 5. Fishing with prohibited method/technique Byelaw ‐ Cockle 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Cockle 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity Byelaw ‐ Cockle 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Eelgrass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Prohibition of gathering (seagrass) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Bait 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Memorandum of agreement 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Bait 4. Fishing within a prohibited season Memorandum of agreement 12 12 12 12 12 Potting Brown crab 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Spider crab 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Lobster 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Lobster 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw / SI – Protection of berried hens 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Whelk 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Cuttlefish 1. Removal (pots) SIFCA Code of Conduct 9 9 Cuttlefish 3. Fishing within prohibited period SIFCA Code of Conduct 9 9 Drift net Bass 1. Removal EU – Council regulation 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Fixed net Bass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Fixed engines 12 12 12 12 12 12 Bass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area SI – Bass Nursery Area 12 12 12 12 12 12 Bass 4. Fishing within a prohibited season SI – Bass Nursery Area 12 12 12 12 12 12 Bass 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Salmon 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Sea trout 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Drift net Salmon 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Sea trout 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Beam trawl Finfish – sole/plaice 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Finfish – sole/plaice 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Bottom towed gear 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Stern trawl Finfish – sole/plaice 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Finfish – sole/plaice 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Bottom towed gear 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

7 Clams/cockles and any shellfish

9.5 Appendix B SOUTHERN IFCA RISK BASED ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES Ring net Bass 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Bass 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Mullet 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Mullet 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Rod & Line (rec & Bass 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 commercial) Bass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area SI – Bass Nursery Area 16 16 16 16 16 16 Bass 4. Fishing within a prohibited season SI – Bass Nursery Area 20 20 20 20 20 20 Rec and charter Bass 8. Retain over bag limit EU – Fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks 20 20 20 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 20 20 Rod & line (rec) Salmon 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 20 20 20 20 20 20 Sea trout 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 12 12 12 12 12 12 Bait Digging Worms 2. Fishing in a prohibited area SIFCA Code of Conduct 15 15 12 12 Worms3. Fishing within prohibited period SIFCA Code of Conduct 15 15 12 12 Worms4. Fishing within a prohibited season SIFCA Code of Conduct 15 15 12 12

9.3 Appendix B SOUTHERN IFCA RISK BASED ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES AREA C

Fishing method Species/Feature Risk Regulatory Considerations J F M A M J J A S O N D Oyster 1. Removal of u/s Byelaw – Minimum size 20 20 20 20 Oyster 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw –Bottom towed gear 20 20 20 20 Oyster 3. Fishing within prohibited period Byelaw – Solent Dredge Fishing Byelaw 2016 20 20 20 20 Oyster 4. Fishing within a prohibited season Byelaw – Solent Dredge Fishing Byelaw 2016 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Oyster 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity Byelaw – Oyster dredges 12 12 12 12 12 Clam dredge Clam 1. Removal of u/s Byelaw – Minimum size/ EU ‐ Tech Con 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Clam/Eelgrass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Bottom towed gear 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Cockle 1. Removal of u/s Byelaw ‐ Cockle 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Cockle/Eel grass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaws – Prohibition on using dredge/Bottom towed gear 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Clam / Cockle 3. Fishing in Prohibited Season Byelaws – Solent Dredge Fishing Byelaw 2016 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Handrake/gathering Cockle 1. Removal of u/s Byelaw ‐ Cockle 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Cockle/Eel grass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaws – Prohibition handgathering 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Cockle 4. Fishing within a prohibited season Byelaw ‐ Cockle 8 8 8 Cockle 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity Byelaw ‐ Cockle 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Potting Brown crab 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Spider crab 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Lobster 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Lobster 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw – Protection of berried hens 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Whelk 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Cuttlefish 1. Removal (pots) SIFCA Code of Conduct 9 9 Cuttlefish 3. Fishing within prohibited period SIFCA Code of Conduct 9 9 Fixed net Bass 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Bass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Fixed engine 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Bass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area SI – Bass Nursery Area 16 16 16 16 16 16 Bass 4. Fishing within a prohibited season SI – Bass Nursery Area 16 16 16 16 16 16 Bass 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Finfish – sole/plaice 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Finfish – sole/plaice 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Finfish – sole/plaice 4. Fishing within a prohibited season Byelaw 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Finfish – sole/plaice 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Salmon 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Sea trout 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Drift net Bass 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Bass 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Drift net Bass 1. Removal EU – Council regulation 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Mullet 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Mullet 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Salmon 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Sea trout 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Beam trawl Finfish – sole/plaice 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Finfish – sole/plaice 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Bottom towed gear 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Stern trawl Finfish – sole/plaice 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Finfish – sole/plaice 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Bottom towed gear 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

9.5 Appendix B SOUTHERN IFCA RISK BASED ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES Rod & Line Bass 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con/SI Bass Nursery Area 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 (recreational & Bass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area SI – Bass Nursery Area 16 16 16 16 16 16 commercial Bass 4. Fishing within a prohibited season SI – Bass Nursery Area 20 20 20 20 20 20 Rec and charter Bass 8. Retain over bag limit EU – Fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks 20 20 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 20 Rod & line (rec) Salmon 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity Byelaw/EA legislation 20 20 20 20 20 20 Sea trout 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 12 12 12 12 12 12

9.4 Appendix B SOUTHERN IFCA RISK BASED ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES AREA D

Fishing method Species/Feature Risk Regulatory Considerations J F M A M J J A S O N D Oyster dredge Oyster 1. Removal of u/s Byelaw – Minimum size 20 20 20 20 Oyster 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw –Bottom towed gear 20 20 20 20 Oyster 3. Fishing within prohibited period Byelaw – Solent Dredge Fishing Byelaw 2016 20 20 20 20 Oyster 4. Fishing within a prohibited season Byelaw – Solent Dredge Fishing Byelaw 2016 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Oyster 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity Byelaw – Oyster dredges 12 12 12 12 12 Clam dredge Clam 1. Removal of u/s Byelaw – Minimum size/ EU ‐ Tech Con 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Clam/Eelgrass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Bottom towed gear 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Cockle 1. Removal of u/s Byelaw ‐ Cockle 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Cockle/Eel grass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaws – Prohibition on using dredge/Bottom towed gear 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Clam / Cockle 3. Fishing in Prohibited Season Byelaws – Solent Dredge Fishing Byelaw 2016 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Handrake/gathering Cockle 1. Removal of u/s Byelaw ‐ Cockle 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Cockle/Eel grass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaws – Prohibition handgathering 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Cockle 4. Fishing within a prohibited season Byelaw ‐ Cockle 8 8 8 Cockle 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity Byelaw ‐ Cockle 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Scallop dredge Scallop 1. Removal of u/s EU ‐ Tech Con 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Scallop 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw –Bottom towed gear 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Scallop 3. Fishing within prohibited period Byelaw – Scallop fishing prohibition 1900 to 0700 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Scallop 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity Byelaw – Scallop fishing/SI Scallop order 2012 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Potting Whelk 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Cuttlefish 1. Removal Code of Conduct 9 9 Cuttlefish 3. Fishing within prohibited period Code of Conduct 9 9 Fixed net Bass 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Bass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Fixed engine 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Bass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area SI – Bass Nursery Area 16 16 16 16 16 16 Bass 4. Fishing within a prohibited season SI – Bass Nursery Area 16 16 16 16 16 16 Bass 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Finfish – sole/plaice 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Finfish – sole/plaice 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Finfish – sole/plaice 4. Fishing within a prohibited season Byelaw 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Finfish – sole/plaice 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Salmon 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Sea trout 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Drift net Bass 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Bass 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Bass 1. Removal EU – Council regulation 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Mullet 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Mullet 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Salmon 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Sea trout 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Beam trawl Finfish – sole/plaice 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Finfish – sole/plaice 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Bottom towed gear 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Stern trawl Finfish – sole/plaice 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Finfish – sole/plaice 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Bottom towed gear 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

9.5 Appendix B SOUTHERN IFCA RISK BASED ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES Finfish – sole/plaice 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Rod & Line Bass 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con/SI Bass Nursery Area 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 (recreational & Bass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area SI – Bass Nursery Area 16 16 16 16 16 16 commercial Bass 4. Fishing within a prohibited season SI – Bass Nursery Area 16 16 16 16 16 16 Rec and charter Bass 8. Retain over bag limit EU – Fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks 20 20 20 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 20 20 Rod & line (rec) Salmon 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 20 20 20 20 20 20 Sea trout 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 12 12 12 12 12 12

9.5 Appendix B SOUTHERN IFCA RISK BASED ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES

AREA E

Fishing method Species/feature Risk Regulatory Considerations J F M A M J J A S O N D Oyster dredge Oyster 1. Removal of u/s Byelaw – Oysters minimum size 20 20 20 20 Oyster 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Bottom towed gear 20 20 20 20 Oyster 3. Fishing within prohibited period Byelaw – Oyster Prohibition of night fishing1600 to 0800 20 20 20 20 Oyster 4. Fishing within a prohibited season Byelaw – Oyster closed season 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Oyster 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity Byelaw – Oyster dredges 12 12 12 12 12 Clam dredge Clam 1. Removal of u/s Byelaw – Minimum size/ EU ‐ Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Clam/Eelgrass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Bottom towed gear 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Cockle/Eel grass 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaws – Prohibition on using dredge/Bottom towed 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 gear Clam / Cockle 3. Fishing in Prohibited Season Byelaws – Solent Dredge Fishing Byelaw 2016 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Scallop dredge Scallop 1. Removal of u/s Byelaw – Minimum size/EU – Tech Con 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Scallop 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Bottom towed gear SI – Scallop order 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Scallop 3. Fishing within prohibited period Byelaw – Scallop fishing prohibition 1900 to 0700 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Scallop 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity SI – Scallop order 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Potting Brown crab 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Spider crab 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Lobster 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Lobster 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw / SI – Protection of berried hens 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Whelk 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Cuttlefish 1. Removal (Pots) SIFCA Code of Conduct 9 9 Cuttlefish 3. Fishing within prohibited period SIFCA Code of Conduct 9 9 Fixed net Bass 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Finfish – sole/plaice 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Finfish – sole/plaice 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Sea trout 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Drift net Bass 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Bass 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Mullet 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Mullet 6. Fishing with prohibited gear configuration/quantity EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Salmon 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Sea trout 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Beam trawl Finfish – sole/plaice 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Finfish – sole/plaice 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Bottom towed gear 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Stern trawl Finfish – sole/plaice 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Finfish – sole/plaice 2. Fishing in a prohibited area Byelaw – Bottom towed gear 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Rod & Line Bass 1. Removal of u/s EU – Tech Con 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Sea trout 7. Removal from the fishery Byelaw/EA legislation 12 12 12 12 12 12 Rec and charter Bass 8. Retain over bag limit EU – Fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks 20 20 20 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 20 20

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

ITEM M OFFICER’S REPORT

COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT REPORT

Report by Deputy Chief Officer Richardson

A. Purpose of the Report

To report to Members on the compliance and enforcement activities for the quarter November 2020 to January 2021.

B. Recommendation

That Members note the report.

1. Compliance and Enforcement Summary

1.1 This report contains information relating to our enforcement activity for this reporting period in statistical format for inspections, patrols and offences detected and a monthly summary of key enforcement operations.

Neil Richardson Deputy Chief Officer 23rd February 2021

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985 List of Background Papers

Compliance and Enforcement Report

Compliance and Enforcement Report

Nov 20 to Jan 21

Prepared by DCO Neil Richardson

Contents

1. Purpose

2. Scope

3. Background

3.1 Risk Based Enforcement 3.2 Intelligence Led Approach 3.3 Operational Planning 3.4 Tactical Coordination Group

4. Enforcement Activity

4.1 Information reports 4.2 Enforcement Activity Table 4.3 Offence reports 4.4 Offence Outcomes 4.5 Annual Enforcement Reporting

5. Summary of key enforcement operations and activities

5.1 November 2020 5.2 December 2020 5.3 January 2021

1. Purpose

The purpose of this document is to provide the Committee with an overview of the development of a risk-based enforcement framework and report on the compliance and enforcement activities for the quarter November 2020 to January 2021.

2. Scope

The scope of the document includes the Authority’s compliance and enforcement activities for land and sea-based patrols and inspections.

3. Background

3.1 Risk Based Enforcement A risk-based enforcement framework has been developed to analyse risk and develop proportionate enforcement action using a matrix scoring system to identify the extent of the risk, its impact and the probability of such an occurrence. The outcomes of risk assessments for specified areas within the District will maximise the efficient use of resources and prioritise enforcement activities that can be delivered pro-actively in the right place at the right time. A key document, ‘The Risk Register’ will contain the annual compliance and enforcement strategic priorities for each area from which operational plans will be developed through a tactical coordination group taking into consideration ‘on the ground’ intelligence and available online. The Register has and will continually be taken to industry and groups for comment, value adding and approved through the TAC and reviewed annually or updated if risk values change or as emerging trends are identified. A hard copy of The Risk Register is available from the office or can be viewed online at the Authority’s website by clicking on the following link: http://www.southern-ifca.gov.uk/enforcement

3.2 Intelligence Led Approach Information reports (IRs) are the Authority’s method of recording, storing, collating and the dissemination of intelligence that complement our risk-based approach. Additional intelligence together with access to the UK Fisheries Monitoring, Control and Surveillance System1 (MCSS) and Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) is maximising the efficient use of resources and reflects the current issues on the ground and is being utilised in preparing operational plans. Collating and storing of IRs process has been reviewed and centralised to enable officer’s access and record outcomes. The National Intelligence Project that follows the National Intelligence Model and had incorporated a tasking and coordination process has been very successful with its National roll-out. Southern IFCA has led and examples of good practices used during the training process.

3.3 Operational Planning Since the introduction of operational planning documents and case management running sheets for all land and sea-based patrols, objectives based on the Authority’s strategic priorities and local intelligence been met. Patrol outcomes are recorded and utilised for future planning and monitoring.

1 The UK reporting database of sightings, boarding, positions of vessels, prosecutions and other actions against infringements of UK and EU Fisheries. This system is managed by CEFAS on behalf of the MMO (also see RNSS). This also contains access to VMS data. 3.4 Tactical Coordination Group Southern IFCA has two such groups – an internal TCG and an external group. TCG meeting is chaired by a principal or senior officer and is attended by a small group of senior managers who can make resourcing decisions. The aim of this meeting is to drive the business of the MMO and IFCA in accordance with the control strategy. Make decisions around business planning and resource allocation and decide on what operational tactics will be deployed. It is also responsible for commissioning problem and subject profiles. In order to risk assess and evaluate information an Intelligence Report (‘3x5x2’ form) is used, the intelligence report (IR) allows an agency to record, evaluate and disseminate information. When information is risk assessed and evaluated it is sanitised (details removed that explicitly or indirectly identifies the source of the information) in order to protect the source of the information. If everyone uses the same process then the information can be shared, by using the dissemination code the source will receive the appropriate protection.

4. Enforcement Activity

4.1 Intelligence Reports The following table demonstrates the information reports submitted for this reporting quarter.

Intelligence Reports November December January Total IFCO’s 31 20 46 97

4.2 Enforcement Activity Table The following table demonstrates the enforcement activity and offences detected for this reporting quarter. Fluctuations that occur in statistical figures can be as a result of a number contributing factors i.e. number of land based as opposed to sea-based patrols in any given month, staff resources, weather and other duties, the objectives of the patrol. Government guidance on Covid-19 restriction has affected some of our operational duties. Boarding and inspection have continued in line with Standard Operation Procedures (SOP) and associated Risk Assessments and only carried out if essential.

Category MetricNovember December January Total Vessel patrols 10 7 7 24 Inspections at sea Boarding’s/inspections 6 9 0 15 Metric November December January Total Shore patrols 12 12 10 34 Port visits 40 33 28 125 Inspections ashore Premises inspections 0 0 0 0 or in a port Landing inspections 7 6 5 18 Vehicle inspections 0 2 0 2 Gear Inspections 0 1 0 1 Person Inspection 1 0 0 10 Offences Detected Per report November December January Total Verbal warnings 310 4 Written warnings 100 1 Advisory letter 000 0 FAP 000 0 Offence Reports 11 0 2

4.3 Offence reports The following table demonstrates the offence reports submitted by officers for this reporting quarter. Date of Offence Action Offence 07.11.20 Obstruction, undersized bass & EU bass regs Official Written Warning 08.12.20 Targeting Bass with nets MMO Pending Outcome

4.4 Offence Outcomes The following table demonstrates offence outcomes for this reporting quarter.

Date of Offence Action taken and date offence 12.12.19 Retention of undersized clams Obstruction and First hearing Covid issues delayed firsr failing to comply PHDP Catch return appearance. New date set for first requirements hearing for March 2021 12.01.20 Obstruction, failing to comply of PHDP byelaw Full trail date set April 2021 03.09.20 Failing to comply x 2 First hearing waiting to be set 07/11/20 Angler dumped illegal catch and obstructed 27/11/20 SIFCA Official Written officers Undersized found and more fish than Warning allowed under the recreational limit

5. Summary of key enforcement operations and activities

5.1 November

Enforcement focus

The Solent clam dredge season started on the 1st November, where compliance patrols have been conducted at sea checking out for possible infringements. During one of patrols, the Officers went to come alongside a recreational angling vessel as they came alongside bass were discarded over the side of their vessel, therefore obstructing the Officers conducting the inspection. On further inspection of the vessel office found bass in excess of the recreational limit and bass below the minimum conservation reference size of 42cm, this fisher was reported to the Authority.

On a separate patrol of the Solent Officers carried out a inspection on one of the clam dredge fishermen and found a small percentage of undersized clams. This fisherman was given a verbal waring and told to be more cautious when measuring their clams. Officers have continued to monitor the scallop fishery in the Osborne Bay to Ryde Pier part of the Solent as there is prohibition on the use of bottom towed fishing gear in this area of the Solent with a network of MPAs. On observation they could see that one of the fishing vessels was in the prohibited area, but was not fishing, As they came alongside and noticed that there was a mechanical issue with the vessel and that it had drifted into the prohibited area unintentionally.

There were quite a few patrols during December on the land and out on the water carrying out compliance and enforcement checks of Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Fishery. During these patrols Officers detected a couple of permits holders retaining small percentages of undersized clams They were given verbal warning instructing them to be more vigilant when measuring their catch.

During a shore patrol in the Gosport area Officers came across some bags of pacific oysters that had been stored on the slipway, they carried out further checks with the Local Authority Environmental Health were made in regard to traceability and shellfish classicisation’s, no further action was required.

Officers launched PV protector in Weymouth Bay on a joint EU exit exercise with the MMO’s FPV Osprey. This was a great opportunity to carry out some joint working in readiness for the EU Exit at the end of December, on how to deal with possible incursions inside British territorial waters.

Green Island in Poole Harbour has a sensitive Salt Marsh habitat that surrounds the island. Towards the end of the 2019 fishery a Green Island Salt Marsh Management Area was developed and agreed by permits holder and Southern IFCA, that this area would not be fished. The agreement continued into the 2020 season and another leaflet with the management area with the coordinates of the salt marsh was issued to permit holder in May 2020 with the permits. We received information that there had been some incursions into this area. When patrols were conducted during November officers spoke to some of fishers who had been seen fishing in the closed areas advising them not to fish inside the prohibited area and the importance of the salt marsh.

Outcomes

Offence Report A vessel was boarded and reported for obstruction fishery Officers by throwing illegal catch over the side of their vessel fishing while targeting bass

Official Warning Letter: In line with the Southern IFCA Compliance and Enforcement Framework a recreational angler who was reported for discarding some of their bass and retaining more fish than the recreational limit and undersized, was given an Official Written Warning Letter explaining what would happen if Officers came across them carrying out illegal fishing again.

Verbal Warnings 2 x Poole Dredge Permit Holders and 1 x Solent clam fisherman were inspected and found to be retaining clams below the minimum conservation reference size of 35mm.

5.2 December Enforcement focus

We received information that there have been further incursions into the Green Island Salt Marsh Management Area. Patrols were increased and fishers spoken to in regard to the impact and important of the salt marsh habitat. The Owners of the Island were spoken to and a meeting was agreed to take place at the end of the season. On one of the patrols officers detected a permit holder landing a small percentage of undersized clams below the minimum conservation reference size of 35mm. This fisher was issued with a verbal warning to be more vigilant when measuring their catch

Poole Fishery Dredge Permit holders were written to reminding them that the dredge season would be season closed on 23rd December 2020 recapping on what they needed to do to comply with their permit conditions in removing any dredges and ancillary equipment. A patrol took place to ensure that all the gear was removed as per the permit condition. The Fisher were happy to finish and felt that they had had a good season despite the Covid-19 restrictions to the market. Rather than just removing their dredge and ancillary equipment, some of the fishers removed their vessels from the water completely.

Patrols have continued throughout the District and where possible recreational anglers have been approached and advised and given leaflets on current bass regulations and minimum conservation reference sizes.

A shore patrol was convened in the Portland area after receiving information that birds were being caught up in surface nets. The Authority introduced a Code of Practice to avoid the bycatch of diving seabirds. The code asks fishermen to only shoot and haul nets in the dark, when birds are not diving blow the surface of the sea. The weather may have impact of not being able to retrieve nets and to seek assistance from other fishermen if you can’t get to sea to retrieve the nets. The officers observed the nest being hauled off Portland and inspected the vessels on their return to port and provided advise to the fishermen in relation to the Code of Practice for future reference.

Outcomes

Offence Report Officers detected an MMO offence of a fisherman targeting bass at sea using nets. MMO Marine Enforcement Officers were informed and inspected the fisher on their return to port.

Verbal Warnings: 1 x Poole Dredge Permit Holder was inspected and found to be retaining clams below the minimum conservation reference size of 35mm.

5.3 January

Enforcement focus

Officers found a couple of weather windows to enable them to get out and patrol the Lyme Bay area out to the 12mile fisheries line. This was as a result of an agreement between the Marine Management Organisation and the IFCAs in EU Exit tasking patrols carrying out surveillance for possible incursion from European vessels that have not been granted a licence to fish within the UK to fish in British territorial waters.

As a result of the incursions to the Green Island Salt Marsh Management Areas agreement, an online meeting was set up with the land owners and a representative of the Poole and District Fishermens Association and Southern IFCA to discuss the incursions that had occurred during the 2020 PHDP season. The meeting was very useful and it was agreed that a plan would be put in place by Southern IFCA to monitor any incursions during the 2021 season and that more buoys would be put out by the owner s of Green Island to delineate the profile of the management area. They felt that this would help the permits holder to identify the closed area when fishing. A pre PHDP holders meeting was going to be set before the beginning of the 2021 season, where they will be advised of the additional buoys and the damage that can occur, when dredges go through the salt marsh.

Outcomes There was no infringement to report for this month.

A hard copy of The Risk Register is available from the office or can be viewed online at the Authority’s website by clicking on the following link: http://www.southern-ifca.gov.uk/enforcement

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

OFFICER’S REPORT ITEM N

QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE CHIEF OFFICER

Report by the Deputy Chief Fishery Officer

A. Purpose of the Report

To inform Members of the activity throughout the IFCA District for the period 1st November 2020 to 31st January 2021.

B. Recommendation

That Members receive the report.

Neil Richardson Deputy Chief Executive Officer 8th March 2021

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985 List of Background Papers

There are no background papers to this report

Unit 3 Holes Bay Park, Sterte Avenue West, Poole, Dorset, BH15 2AA

Report of the Chief Officer 1st November 2020 – 31st January 2021

For the

Authority Meeting

18th March 2021

IFCA Vision “Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities will lead, champion and manage a sustainable marine environment and inshore fisheries, by successfully securing the right balance between social, environmental and economic benefits to ensure healthy seas, sustainable fisheries and a viable industry.”

Contents

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IAN JONES ...... 4 REPORT OF DCO NEIL RICHARDSON ...... 6 REPORT OF DCO PIA BATEMAN ...... 10 REPORT OF DEBBIE VIVIAN ...... 13 REPORT OF SENIOR IFCO DAVID MAYNE ...... 14 REPORT OF SENIOR IFCO SIMON PENGELLY ...... 17 REPORT OF IFCO SARAH BIRCHENOUGH ...... 19 REPORT OF SENIOR IFCO SAM DELL ...... 21 REPORT OF IFCO PATRICK COOPER ...... 25 REPORT OF IFCO CHLOE SMITH ...... 27 REPORT OF IFCO ADAM PARRY ...... 29 REPORT OF IFCO BEN TAYLOR ...... 31 REPORT OF IFCO ISABEL GRIFFITHS ...... 33 REPORT OF IFCO JAMIE SMALL...... 36 SOUTHERN DISTRICT FISHING EFFORT ...... 38 Glossary/Acronyms ...... 39

2

Membership of the Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

Chairman Prof John Humphreys MMO Appointee

Vice Chairman Cllr Mrs A E McEvoy BSc (Hons.) Hampshire County Council

MEMBERSHIP APPOINTED BY CONSTITUENT AUTHORITIES

Hampshire County Council Cllr Mr M White

Dorset Council Cllr Mr M Roberts Cllr Mr R Hughes

Isle of Wight Council Cllr Mr S Hastings

Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council Cllr Mr P Miles Cllr Mr R Rocca

Southampton City Council Cllr Mr J Savage

Portsmouth City Council Cllr Mr M Winnington

APPOINTED BY THE MARINE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION (MMO) Mr G Wordsworth MMO Mr R Stride MMO

Vacant MMO Mr S Kershaw MMO

Dr A C Jensen MMO Mr T Legg MMO

Ms L MacCallum MMO Dr S Cripps MMO

Mr N Fisher MMO Mr L Stantiford MMO

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY Dr K Sims

REPRESENTATIVE OF NATURAL ENGLAND Dr R Morgan

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MARINE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION Ms R Irish

3 REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IAN JONES

I have now settled into my role and during this period I had my mid-term probationary period appraisal with the Chairman and provided evidence of reaching my performance targets in a number of key selected areas. My end of year appraisal will be conducted in March 2021 where my permanent appointment will be considered by the Executive Committee. I will also be providing a survey for officers to comment on my performance as part of a 360-degree transparent process.

This period also saw the introduction of a further national lockdown, the end of the transitional period for EU Exit and the passing of the new Fisheries Act 2020. We continued progressing through reviews; a) our management measures; and b) our marine assets to ensure that we are developing regulations that are well evidenced and aligned with the Authority’s duties under the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009 and that are supported by sufficient resources to carry out those duties, both in the current and likely future landscapes.

I am very pleased and proud with what the team and I have achieved in my first five months and the continuing support I have received from everyone and I hope this report provides Members with a flavour of, but not limited to, some of the key priorities and deliverables.

COVID-19 I have ensured that we continue to support industry where we can, provide intel to DEFRA and have been continuing operationally, although boarding operations are limited unless there is an essential need. We are continuing to operate under the Covid-19 Joint Protocols and within our Team Bubbles in accordance with the SOP and associated risk assessments. It has been particularly important to recognise the wellbeing of the team through these difficult times and I provided an online mental health training course to support our officer’s. The purpose of the training, delivered by MHFA England was how to identify, understand and others who may be experiencing mental health issues in the workplace. The training was well received by officers.

Organisational Structure, Line Management & Administration The changes I introduced to our organisational structure continue to bed in with the line management of workstreams and the continuing development of quarterly priorities being very well accepted by officers. Feedback was positive in relation to clear lines of management that reflect the work being carried out in the actual workstreams.

This quarter also saw the development and preparation of our focus and priorities for the Annual Plan for 2021/22 which will be brought before the Authority at the March meeting.

Members Recruitment Two Members joined the Authority, Nick Fisher and Lyle Stantiford and were provided with updated Member handbooks and I followed up with virtual meetings to explain the roles and responsibilities of the Authority and its Members. I also sat on the interview panel for Sussex IFCA members recruitment.

NLTO and Training I sat on an interview panel for the AIFCA National Lead Training Officer (NLTO) where Steve Travis has been appointed the NLTO role and he will be responsible for the identification and delivery of training needs and solutions for all staff throughout the ten IFCAs in England. Through the National Training Group (for which I am Member), we are now in a strong position to build upon and further develop our IFCA officers by assessing and accrediting them with a national marine enforcement qualification as well as branch out into other areas of training such as safety and co-management

4 Marine Asset Review I Chaired an inaugural Marine Asset Review working group where a proposal for a two phased approach to the review was recommended and approved by the Authority.  Phase One - refit selected vessel/s and maintain remaining vessel/s until replacement procurement

 Phase Two – outcomes of central Govt’s funding contributions and EU-Exit negotiations will determine the procurement of an appropriate vessel with capabilities relating to jurisdiction, roles and responsibilities and with appropriate design for enforcement and scientific equipment  The procurement of a drone was also approved to support operational and scientific activities

Meetings and stakeholder engagement It’s been essential meeting several Members, industry and the community through a variety of meetings that have included the Marine Conservation Group, South Coast Fishermen’s Council, Poole Harbour Steering Group and the Recreational Sea Angling Group.

This period saw my first TAC meeting and second December Executive and Authority meetings. Nationally I am linked into a number of groups; Chief Officers Group, Marine and Fisheries Chief Officer (MAFCO a monthly dial-n with Defra), AIFA Members Forum and Directors, these groups are currently discussing and developing guidance for the Fisheries Act, spending review and IFCA jurisdiction, roles and responsibilities. In addition, I have also joined/taken part in a number of other groups and meetings; DEFRA/IFCA export of wild caught shellfish, Lyme Bay Fishery and Conservation Group, and am continuing to engage throughout our District with industry on the coast. I also attended the Coastal Futures Ocean Recovery 2021 – Online Conference.

We continue to play our part in signposting industry, particularly in relation to exporting shellfish and the latest updates from the Marine Management Organisation and advice from Defra through direct contact and the use of our social media platforms.

Fisheries Management and Policy It has been a steep learning curve processing the progress of our review of management measures and five-year legislative plan, particularly with attending working groups and preparations for the TAC meeting in early November for both the netting and potting reviews. I am pleased with industry engagement with our call for information for the Solent scallop fishery to inform possible management measures.

Fisheries Protection The first phase of a review of the Authorities marine assets is now being developed with phase one of the approach and identifying vessel refits and maintenance. I have continued to provide technical support for the procurement of a drone to support our operational and research activities. We have also conducted sea patrols in the 6-12nm adjacent to our District whilst licensing for EU vessels was being agreed.

Finance The December Authority saw the approval of a standstill budget for 2021/22 and I will continue to ensure that our roles, responsibilities, priorities and our resources are delivered cost effectively and within budget.

5 REPORT OF DCO NEIL RICHARDSON

Introduction During this quarter I have continued to work from home with a few days out assisting Officers with marine related work such as taking Endeavour round to a boat yard for her annual lift out and removing the Aquadock from her berth in OES ready for some remedial work when lockdown is lifted. With the return to lockdown in November I have been working towards prep on December Exec and Authority papers. Working from home has certainly brought some professional challenges in especially in virtual meetings and IT and home internet not being reliable at times.

Ian introduced some structural changes which have been clear in the duties, with some clear internal organisational simplicity to the role that everyone has to do. I must say that I am very pleased with this work progress that it is bringing to the work that is being produced especially during what seems surreal working conditions.

Fisheries Protection Team Strategy Plan 2021 - 2022 I have been working on planning next year’s Fisheries Protection Team Strategy Plan since November, to be clear on the Authority’s responsibilities and duty’s inline with the Annual Plan success criteria. Some parts have been challenging especially working from home and not having the information at one’s fingers tips, as it would have been in the office and not being able bouncing ideas of colleagues, it doesn’t work the same way remotely. This will be a key document in the delivery of the team’s functions throughout the year, with clear priorities been set out with deliverable dates to get this wok completed and who is responsible for certain work streams. This is mostly focusing on the operational delivery of the Fisheries Protection Team’s work between April 2021 to March 2022. Depending on Covid restrictions as lockdown eases especially on the work that Officers carryout in team bubbles. It difficult to predict how this might impact on the plan as the pandemic changes work timetables and deliverables.

Asset Register Calendar All the current assets which include the vehicles vessels, have different renewal dates for LSA compulsory certification to go to sea, vehicle servicing and MOTs and office requirements. These all needed to go into a calendar with reminders as some of these renews are important to keep everything in service and operational and that includes Officers.

Reserve Account ten-year forecast I assisted Ian in proving some figures for the marine and IFCA assets for the next ten years. I found this interesting in that Covid may have an impact on some of the predicted prices forecasted and may increase more than inflationary percentages which have been applied. However, this is a forecast and not set-in stone as it’s prediction of cost that may be incurred on replacement vehicles and vessels.

Compliance You will find the current compliance for this quarter for the Fisheries Protection Team in my Compliance report in the agenda papers.

Dispensations During this quarter we received eight dispensation applications, mostly for scientific survey/research work within the Authority’s District, the table below gives an indication into what the dispensation is for and who has applied and the type of activity they wish to carry out:

Applicant Byelaw(s) dispensation Type of Activity Date of was applied for commencement

6 Ecospan Minimum Fish Sizes To provide additional 1st May- 30th June Environmental information on fish 2021 Ltd species, abundance and age classes for measure against baseline data from 2017 and proposed changes in development in an area off Tippner Portsmouth University Minimum Fish Sizes To collect 50-60kg of Covid Revised Portsmouth Mullet size discarded catch biota dates 1st Sept – 31st March 2021 Langstone Minimum Fish Sizes Small Fish Survey 1st Dec 2020 – Harbour Board 31st Jan 2021 Lakeside PHDPB Access to lease ground 24th Dec 2020 - Shellfish Ltd with dredge onboard May 24th 2021 Univesity of Minimum Fish Sizes Small Fish Survey 1st March 2021- Portsmouth 31st Dec 2021 Portsmouth City Temporary Close of Designated Shellfish water 1st Jan 2021 - 31st Council Port shellfish beds, Oyster Classifications Dec 2021 Health Closed season, Oysters, American Hardshell clams, Fishing for cockles & Solent Dredge Fishing JHC Research PHDPB & Minimum Fish Scientific sampling and 1st Jan 2021 - 31st Sizes research Dec 2021 Southampton Temporary Close of Designated Shellfish water 1st Jan 2021 - 31st Port Health shellfish beds Classifications Dec 2021

Marine Operations & Patrol Vessels At the Authority meeting in December Members agreed to a two phased approach to the Marine Asset Review in which the first phase was to look at the current fleet and to see what needed to be replaced, maintained or refitted and the second part of that phase to purchase a new vessel. Since the working Group Authority meeting December I was asked to put an Marine Rational paper together based on the options above, ready for the March Authority meeting

Endeavour – was taken out of the water in December for her annual engine service and hull clean and re-antifouled. The engine service went well with no issues. The anode on the transom was pretty mush completely eroded, so there was a requirement to put a bigger anode in its place, this is the first time this has eroded this far. Whilst out of the water and being cleaned down the boat yard noticed that there was a serious ding in the hull just on the water line on the port side forward quarter. There was no puncture to the hull, so it could be repaired at the yard. This vessel has continued high profile compliance patrols up to the end of the clam season in December.

Protector – has been carrying out some very important Brexit patrols on behalf of the MMO out to the 12mile zone, checking for incursions by foreign vessels. During one of the Patrols in Lyme Bay during some inclement weather the fabricated mast that holds the new camera up broke loose and needed to be repaired. Marine Matters on the Hamble who initially fitted the camera, were happy to take this work on a short notice and fabricate a new mast and replace the housing on the camera. The

7 camera was replaced and was fitted back onto the new mast however the replacement camera still has teething problems and is still awaiting replacement but due to Covid restriction there is a delay in getting this work completed.

Stella Barbara – has continued to carryout high-profile patrols of the Solent especially with the start of the clam fishery at the beginning of November and monitoring possible incursions into Bottom Towed Fishing Gear Byelaw prohibited areas, from scallop vessels in Osborne Bay to Ryde Pier. There still and ongoing issue with port engine overheating which may be an issue caused by re-berthing the vessel onto the aquadock, so we have taken the decision not to put her on there and monitor any further overheating and report the message that is brought up on the engine management system to Marine Matters.

Aquadock – there was some issues identified with the aquadock as some of the pods seems to be staying underwater so Adam and I went to the OES and took half of it apart and noticed that some of the pods had failed and were full of water. We took the failed pods off and rearranged some of them but this didn’t work. We contacted the suppliers as the dock was still under warranty and due to Covid restrictions they are not working, so when these are lifted we can arrange for the rebuild of the dock. It was taking a berth space up at the OEC, which they needed so it was decided to lift it out until it is repaired

Diary

Nov 20 Covid -19 with Part lockdown Restrictions 2nd SMT meeting followed by a Team Meeting 2nd Poole Harbour Fishery Order NE/Southern IFCA meeting 3rd HOF FPT meeting 4th Covid – 19 Meeting 5th TAC Authority meeting 6th Rebuild Aquadock at OES 7th Shoreside weekend SPOC 9th SMT meeting followed by a Team Meeting 13th TCG External 13th Deputy Officer Meeting - Annual Plan priorities 16th SMT meeting followed by a Team Meeting 17th HOF FPT meeting 17th PV Working Group 20th Poole Order Meeting 23rd SMT meeting followed by a Team Meeting followed by Investigatory training 27th TCG Internal and Green Island meeting prep 30th SMT meeting followed by a Team Meeting followed by a Marine Ops meeting

Dec 20 Covid -19 with part lockdown Restriction 1st HOF FPT meeting 7th SMT meeting followed by a Team Meeting 10th Executive and Authority Meetings 11th TCG External 14th NR Midyear PDP & Senior Management Team Meeting 15th SD, DM, AP & BT Midyear PDP 16th IG Midyear PDP 17th Dorset Rural Crime meeting 23rd PHDP End of season patrol

Jan 21 Covid – 19 with lockdown Restriction 4th SMT meeting followed by a Team Meeting 5th HOF FPT meeting

8 7th PV Endeavour lift out 8th TCG External & Endeavour lift in 11th SMT meeting followed by a Team Meeting 15th Mobile Phone provider meeting 18th SMT meeting followed by Wellbeing training followed by Marine Ops meeting 19th HOF FPT meeting 21st Deputy Officer meeting FMP/FP Teams strategy alignment meeting

22nd TCG Internal 25th SMT meeting followed by a Team Meeting 26th Remove Aquadock from berth at OES for repair 27th Green Island meeting 30th Shoreside SPOC 31st Shoreside SPOC

9 REPORT OF DCO PIA BATEMAN Main areas of work: August 2020 – October 2020 (inclusive) Main areas of work: November 2020 – January 2021 (inclusive) During this period, I have been continuing to work from home as a result of the Government COVID-19 intervention. Following a brief easing of lockdown measures in late autumn, on the 5th November we returned to lockdown and navigating both the challenges and opportunities lockdown creates professionally.

Following on from my previous update in December – I am pleased to report that despite operating in remote conditions, the revised approach to internal communications, which Ian introduced and championed, is going from strength to strength, providing greater clarity and focus across the team – a vital ingredient to support coordinated delivery and team work whilst remote working.

My main areas of focus this quarter were:

Fisheries Management and Policy Team Strategy (‘The Strategy’) I have been writing this since November 2020 (the outcomes of which you can see at the Authority Meeting). This document is a key paper for the FMP Team, drawing from the delivery priorities identified in the Southern IFCA Annual Plan for the period April 2021- March 2022. The Strategy translates these delivery priorities into clear, outcome-focussed objectives for the FMP Team, with detailed resourcing and timelines for each area of work. The added complication this year has been factoring in the on-going pandemic and its impact on delivery, in particular the impact on the Authority’s Monitoring Programme, recognising that timetables must remain subject to change in order to adhere to the latest Government guidelines. The overall aim of The Strategy, in addition to providing a direction for FMP officer in their work delivery, is to provide a sound evidence base to aid the Authority in its decision-making process, in order to achieve successful and sustainable management, whilst protecting the marine environment.

When writing this year’s Strategy, I have tried to capture the three core functions of the FMP Team, being: (1) Monitoring Inshore Fisheries, (2) Developing Inshore Fisheries Management interventions, (3) Reviewing Fisheries Management Interventions.

Solent Scallop Fishery I have been developing a plan which will inform possible future management of the Solent scallop fishery, following an industry led request for the Authority to consider whether there is a need for management intervention in this fishery. The first stage of this process began with an initial ‘Call for information’, which Patrick and Ben undertook in November 2020; the outcomes of which informed a Working Group held in January 2021. This was the first Working Group I have chaired - Members discussed the evidence presented and concluded that the fishery could be managed in the short term via a voluntary code with both seasonal and gear specific conditions introduced, prior to a review of the code once the SDPB is implemented in November 2021. This recommendation was taken to the TAC in February.

Poole Harbour Lease Beds I have been working with Sarah during the late autumn/early winter on the provision of suitable, high-resolution evidence for Natural England to ensure that the current management of the aquaculture beds (specifically three beds which were re-allocated under Tranche 2 in direct response to the presence of Sabella) remain consistent with the conservation objectives of the site. Discussions with Natural England reached a conclusion in late December/early January and I will continue to work to ensure that the Management Plan is up to date and appropriate lease conditions are in place (where relevant) to ensure that the ‘Stop notice’ placed on these beds in 2020 can be lifted. A summary and update of this area of work will be presented to the May TAC for decision.

10 Poole Clam and Cockle Fishery Project ‘The Project’ Following confirmation of funding from the Ocean Stewardship Fund (OSF) program of the MSC in October 2020, I have been working with partners (DWT, PDFA and Noctiluca Marine Consulting) on setting up the Poole Clam and Cockle Fishery Partnership Project, which is due to begin in March 2021, running for 11 months. As Project Manager, I have held the first meeting of the partners to ensure a smooth transition into the project following the release of funds.

The Project aims to (1) establish, through a system of co-management via a partnership approach, a process by which fishers can minimise interactions with Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species, (2) increase awareness of ETP species in Dorset and promote the benefits of fishers as sentinels for the recording of ETP interactions via a voluntary approach rather than through the introduction of fishing restrictions, (3) demonstrate a model of best practice for MSC fisheries in the management of ETP interactions, and (4) provide a blue print approach to support the attainment of MSC certification in other fisheries within MPAs.

Mid Year Reviews Due to a change in timetable, the FMPs Mid-Year Reviews were undertaken in late December. This was a busy time for all line managers to help ensure that the staff remain on target with achieving the delivery of their work in line with the appraisals (as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020-2021 reporting year began on the 1st August 2020).

Diary SMT meetings – every Monday at 09:00 rolling (IJ, NR) Whole team meeting: every Monday at 10:00 rolling FMP Heads of Function meeting– every second Wednesday rolling (SP) 04th November COVID meeting 05th November TAC Pre meeting 13th November Deputy Officer meeting – Annual plan priorities Senior Management Team 19th November Pre-Netting WG meeting Meetings 17th December NE/Southern IFCA pre meeting brief 08th January Quarterly priorities update/Green Island POA/staffing 21st January Deputy Officer meeting- FMP/FP Strategy alignment

02nd November Poole Harbour Fishery Order 2015 10th November Poole Harbour Fishery Order 2015 10th November Netting scoping advice 12th November Netting Byelaw meeting 20th November Poole Harbour Fishery Order 2015 30th November Netting meeting Fisheries Management & 07th December Netting meeting Policy Team 09th December Netting meeting 15th December MCRS Byelaw QA 05th January TAC agenda 06th January Poole Harbour Fishery Order 2015 07th January FMP Team Meeting 11th January Solent Scallops POA

02nd November Poole Harbour Fishery Order 2015 (NE/Southern IFCA) 18th November Warsash Stakeholder External Meetings 23rd November Warsash Stakeholder 17th December NE/Southern IFCA 21st January National Trust/Southern IFCA 27th January Poole HBR ETP Project (DWT, PDFA) 29th January Poole lease holder

5th November Technical Advisory Committee 19th November Netting Working Group Authority & other 10th December Executive Committee Meeting 10th December Meeting of the Full Authority 14th December PB Mid-Year Review 11 14th December SP Mid-Year Review 16th December CS Mid-Year Review 16th December SB Mid-Year Review 16th December PC Mid-Year Review 17th December Netting Working Group 18th December JS Mid-Year Review 14th January Solent Scallop Working Group 18th January MHFA Aware Training

12 REPORT OF DEBBIE VIVIAN Finance and Administration Manager

The office has remained closed to the public through this period. I generally work from the office and the Chief Officer is in on average, two days a week. Officers are calling in for equipment, paperwork, PPE and to drop off admin. Otherwise they are working from home or from their patrol vehicles. In this quarter we held a Technical Advisory Committee and an Authority meeting virtually. I attend these meeting to take notes and compile the Minutes.

The Website Review and Redesign. This quarter a small working group started pulling together what IFCO Smith had been working on throughout the latter half of the year. She had completed all the hard, preliminary work, sourcing website designers, quotes and requirements. The working group looked at the pages in detail, discussed what we wanted on the website, what was required legislatively and what users would expect to find on the site. The review was required to update the content and make the website more user friendly for stakeholders to access via mobile phones and tablets. This is increasingly becoming the standard way people access the internet. The website is nearly there and will be ready to launch in March 2021.

Even though we were in lockdown some of us took part in a Christmas ‘party’ from the comfort of our own homes. On the plus side no driving, no high heels and no dodgy meal. On the minus side having to make your own drinks, supply your own music and stay in one spot staring at a screen. We had a good laugh and a Christmas quiz. Thank you to the Christmas Fairy.

In January we all took part in a mental health awareness training course hosted by Marie Clarke from Dorset Coast Forum for Mental Health First Aid England who offer training and support to raise mental health awareness amongst the general population. We took part in a half day course that explained some of the mental health indicators, the different types of illness, associated stigma and looking after our own mental health.

We are all becoming more familiar with the procedures, terminology and guidelines generated to help fight covid-19. I have learnt what a lateral flow test is and how it works, why you would use it and how effective they are. IFCO Dell has been investigating access to these tests for operational staff either through NIMEG or the local councils. Further details will be made available in the following months. I also purchased for myself and my family something that I am told all home first aid kits should include – a pulse oximeter. As important as a thermometer, a finger pulse oximeter measures the level of oxygen in your blood (also used by athletes in training as it can check heart rate as well). This can be used to identify the first signs of a worsening condition before you start to feel really unwell.

Continuation of phase 2 improvements – Further electrical work was required to add an outside light and remove some unwanted electrics. Our handyman called in, moved some noticeboards, put up pictures and leaflet holders. Further reorganization of the downstairs area is being looked at by the Fisheries Protection Team. All contractors adhered to our current office guidelines to wear face coverings, cleansing hands regularly, maintaining distances and keeping doors and windows open for good ventilation. SIFCA takes part in the NHS test and trace, so all callers to the office sign in and use the QR code for the office to comply with government guidance.

13 REPORT OF SENIOR IFCO DAVID MAYNE Patrol area Mudeford to Kimmeridge Senior Compliance & Marine Operations Specialist

Introduction Fishers and the fishing industry have always impressed me with their ability to adapt, and whilst there have been casualties of the Covid-19 crisis, the industry has not ground to a complete halt. In fact, some of those fishers reaching out to their local communities and offering delivery services have thrived.

At the time of writing this report the industry are experiencing additional difficulties associated with our leaving the European Union. In particular, some are struggling with new restrictions and a big increase in bureaucracy when exporting produce to Europe. Hopefully these are just teething problems and governments will find solutions to any serious long-term issues. Whatever the future holds I suspect that the ability of fishers and the fishing industry to adapt will continue to be tested. Changes are occurring not just politically, socially and economically but environmentally too.

Like most of the population, Inshore Fisheries & Conservation Officers have also had to adapt. Working as a team from home brings its own set of challenges. Perhaps most notable is the reduced ability to communicate. We are lucky to be living in the era of the online video conference call, but these encounters have their limitations.

I have no doubt that we will return to some semblance of normality at a point in the future and I continue to appreciate that I am far more fortunate than many are in the current climate. I am grateful to the Authority for employment and to the management team for steering a safe and productive course through this ongoing situation.

Incidents of Note  November 6th 2020 – I attended Poole Magistrates Court, on behalf of the Southern IFCA, for the first hearings of 2 cases involving 5 individuals. The 2nd case, involving 3 defendants, was adjourned to 13/01/2021 & has since been adjourned again until 09/04/2021. The defendants for the first case both entered pleas. A full trial has been scheduled for 21/04/2021 at Poole Magistrates Court as a result of not guilty pleas from one of the defendants. The other defendant entered guilty pleas as follows:

Mr. Ashley Whiffen of Poole pleaded guilty to two counts of Common Assault (charges laid by ) and to Failing to Comply with an enforcement officer (charges laid by the Southern IFCA).

The court heard how on the night of 12th January 2020 in Poole Harbour Mr. Whiffen was fishing from an unregistered, unlicenced fishing boat. When Mr. Whiffen was intercepted by Southern IFCA officers aboard the Fisheries Patrol Vessel he failed to stop to allow an inspection of his vessel and catch. Mr. Whiffen became abusive, hurling handfuls of shellfish at the enforcement officers as they repeatedly directed him to stop his vessel. Two of the enforcement officers sustained minor injuries during the incident.

14 In relation to the assault on the two officers, Mr. Whiffen was conditionally discharged for 12 months. For failing to comply with the directions of the Southern IFCA officers, Mr. Whiffen was fined £100, ordered to pay £50 towards costs and a victim surcharge of £34.

 November 7th 2020 - IFCOs Ben Taylor, Patrick Cooper & I completed a weekend patrol of Southampton Water, Portsmouth Harbour and the Solent, aboard the Fisheries Patrol Vessel Stella Barbara. During the patrol we intercepted a recreational angler who discarded a small quantity of bass overboard on our arrival. This was in contravention of the European recreational 2 bass bag limit and the minimum conservation reference size limit of 42cm. The suspect was cautioned and spoken to and evidence was gathered at the scene. On conclusion of the investigation the previously unknown offender was issued an Official Warning Letter.

 November 11th 2020 – IFCO Ben Taylor and I intercepted a Southern IFCA Poole Harbour Dredge Permit holder as they landed their catch of manila clams. A small percentage of the clams were below the minimum conservation reference size of 35mm. The fisher was issued a verbal warning.

 November 16th 2020 – IFCO Ben Taylor and I conducted a low water sea patrol of the Southern IFCA lease beds in Poole Harbour. This was at the request of the Southern IFCA Fisheries Management & Policy Team who wished to confirm that the beds did not become exposed on one of the biggest low water spring tides of the year. Most Southern IFCA sea patrols of Poole Harbour are conducted over the high- water period to accommodate most of the fishing activity, so this patrol was interesting, especially as low water coincided with dusk. Our findings were that the beds remain covered, albeit in less than a foot of water. Returning the patrol vessel to its berth without grounding was challenging but thankfully accomplished without mishap.

A November evening in Poole Harbour

 November 20th 2020 – I delivered an online investigations refresher training presentation to colleagues from both the Southern IFCA Fisheries Protection Team

15 and the Fisheries Management & Policy Team. There was an absence of snoring and eyes remained open, so I deduced that it was well received.

 November 25th 2020 – I met with the Authority’s solicitor to hand over a prosecution file relating to a case involving a fisher and IFCOs Sarah Birchenough & Adam Parry. This case has been listed for a first hearing at Poole Magistrates Court on 11th March 2021.

 December 4th 2020 – I posted 44 letters to Southern Poole Harbour Dredge Permit holders. These letters provided end of season information. On the same evening, IFCO Ben Taylor and I distributed end of season notices at Lytchett Bay, Lake Road and Fisherman’s Dock, Poole.

On arriving at Fisherman’s Dock we inspected a fish merchant who had just taken possession of a quantity of clams from a local fisher. A small percentage of these were found to be below the minimum conservation reference size. The fish merchant was issued with a verbal warning.

We then headed to Boscombe Pier. Here we spoke to 15 recreational anglers, providing education and leaflets concerning the EU bass regulations and minimum conservation reference sizes.

 December 21st 2020 – I conducted my final patrol of Poole before the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit fishery closed for the year (closed from 24th December). It was a good opportunity for me to catch up with some of the fishers who unanimously reported a good 2020 season, despite the difficulties resulting from the Covid-19 situation. For some of the season, particularly at the beginning (during the first national lockdown) markets were limited and unreliable, but generally fishers were able to sell their catch, with markets for clams being mainly in Europe. The price paid to fishers for manila clams throughout the season averaged at £3.50 per kg. Perhaps most pleasing of all was that the health of the clam fishery appears to have be good throughout. Sizeable clams were relatively plentiful this year with a fisher reporting a catch rate of 70 kg per hour on the last day of the season.

 January 7th 2021 – Deputy Chief Officer Neil Richardson and I took the Fisheries Patrol Vessel Endeavour for its annual lift out, jet wash, antifoul and engine service (see photograph below).

 January 27th 2021 – Deputy Chief Officer Neil Richardson and I met online with representatives from Green Island and the Poole fishers. The meeting was to discuss the Green Island Saltmarsh Management Area and suspected infringements of the voluntary agreement that had occurred during the 2020 Poole Harbour Dredge Permit season. The meeting was very productive. A plan of action was agreed by all and the Southern IFCA looks forward to working with local fishers, land owners, Poole Harbour Commissioners and other partners during the 2021 season.

Till next time,

David Mayne

16 REPORT OF SENIOR IFCO SIMON PENGELLY Evidence Team Leader, Patrol Lead for West Dorset

Fisheries management measures The FMP Team has, over the past quarter, progressed the review and development of a range of fisheries management measures.

As part of the Authority’s Netting Review papers have been brought to the Authority and Technical Advisory Committee summarising progress to date, including the refinement of management recommendations following the second round of public consultation. The aim is to move forwards with making a new byelaw as part of this review during 2021.

The recently made Minimum Conservation Reference Size Byelaw has undergone MMO QA and will shortly be considered by the Secretary of State for confirmation. We hope this process will be relatively short, enabling the measures to come into force for Spring 2021.

The Authority, between November 2020 and January 2021 undertook a consultation for the management of pot fisheries in the District. This consultation was largely web-based, although considerable efforts were made by Officers to engage with pot fishers by telephone and during compliance patrols. An incredible 110 responses were received to this consultation, enabling the Authority to now look at how measures can be developed within these fisheries. This will continue into 2021, with an aim of bringing a byelaw to the Authority before the end of the year.

Officers continue to assess the impact of fishing activities within MPAs, with a current focus of working through activity-feature assessments for the most recently designated Tranche 3 Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) on a risk-prioritised basis. There has been a disproportionate number of newly designated sites and associated features in the Southern IFC District and, as a consequence, this represents a significant and ongoing workstream for

Figure 1: An immature female Gilthead bream specimen (top) and its gonads (bottom) forming part of a scoping study to gather evidence on size of maturity for the species off the South Coast of England.

the FMP Team. We are now in a position whereby the most potentially damaging activities involving the use of bottom towed fishing gears and intertidal gathering have been assessed fully, enabling the Authority to move ahead with the development of appropriate management in the near future.

The work to review the existing evidence for species biology, including size of maturity, continues and additional opportunities for evidence gathering to address knowledge gaps have been identified. This work will be integral to the planned review of minimum conservation reference sizes within the District.

17

Compliance activities As part of the increased fisheries patrol efforts associated with the UK’s departure from the EU the Authority has been undertaking patrols afloat to the 12nm limit under contract by the MMO. My participation in these patrols on board FPR Protector have represented the majority of my compliance effort over the past quarter, as social distancing restrictions have limited my participation in these activities. When possible, I have been able to maintain regular contact with fishers and those associated with the commercial and industries in West Dorset, mainly through telephone calls. The industry has experienced significant disruption as a result of the combined effects of the EU exit border controls on exports and Covid and it has been sad to see how hard- hit some individuals and companies have been hit. My hope is that there will be a period of stabilisation as measures lift or bed-in and UK markets establish and Figure 2: A frosty FPR Protector at dawn on a very cold mature. This may be too long to wait for New Year’s Day. some fishers and I fear that the industry may feel the effects of this. Hopefully we will see more positive news over the next quarter!

18 REPORT OF IFCO SARAH BIRCHENOUGH Patrol Area ROAMING Evidence Specialist

For the quarter November 2020 to January 2021 due to COVID-19 restrictions and ill health in November 2020 I have not undertaken much compliance/enforcement activity. I have focused on my Fisheries Management and Policy work instead, working from home.

Review of Net Fishing Management The majority of my work in the last quarter has been focused on the review of net fishing management that the Southern IFCA is currently undertaking. I have worked with IFCO Pengelly to prepare documents for the Working Group meeting in November, with my focus being on the Habitats Regulations Assessments, Site of Special Scientific Interest Assessments and the Monitoring and Control Plan which will accompany any management measures. Since the Working Group I have continued to develop these documents, working towards the meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee in February 2021. Writing these documents has been a challenge and a learning experience as the assessments and a Monitoring and Control Plan have not previously been done for inshore net fishing therefore there is no specific template to work from. I have appreciated the opportunity to work on something challenging and I think that my ability to carry out these types of assessments has developed and improved from this workstream.

The Poole Harbour Fishery Order 2015 – 2020 to 2025 Leases I have also continued to work on the Habitats Regulations Assessment for the issuing of leases for 2020-25 under The Poole Harbour Fishery Order 2015. I have worked closely with Natural England to develop the HRA for this fishery and have produced three evidence packages for specific lease beds and the farming of Pacific oysters to accompany the overall HRA. I have also been working with the University of Southampton to develop a Pacific oyster monitoring survey which we aim to commence in the summer of 2021 to monitor the presence of wild Pacific oysters in the Harbour. This survey work will provide data to inform management of fishing activity within Poole Harbour and will provide monitoring data to inform periodic reviews of existing management measures.

Website I have worked with IFCO Smith on preparing content for the new version of the Southern IFCA website. Over the last quarter I have created pages on the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit fishery, aquaculture in Poole Harbour, the review of net fishing management and an information page on general net fisheries across the Southern IFCA district. I have enjoyed this work; I took the lead on developing our current website back in 2013 and it is good to see the website have a re-boot and become more accessible for a wider audience.

MHRA Awareness Training In January, as a team, we completed a half day mental health awareness course with MHFA England. I found this course very beneficial and I am grateful to the IFCA for providing this type of training for the staff. I have struggled with my mental health, particularly over the last quarter, in light of COVID-19 and I found the course very useful and very interesting. I have implemented some of the strategies that were discussed by the trainer which have been of benefit to me.

The following pie chart illustrates the time I have spent on various aspects of work over the past quarter. This data is pulled from the electronic timesheets we have been issued which breaks time at work into Admin, Compliance, Evidence, Marine Operations, Management and Training. Note that the decline in time dedicated to compliance work compared to previous quarters is due to COVID-19 restrictions and a period of ill health.

19

20 REPORT OF SENIOR IFCO SAM DELL Mobile Enforcement Team Lead Patrol Area ROAMING Senior Marine Operations and Compliance Specialist

I have been employed at Southern IFCA since November 2011. The majority of enforcement work I engage in is carried out in Marine Protected Areas within the Southern IFCA (SIFCA) District. My time is spent carrying out core duties which include shore patrols, landing inspections, enforcement afloat and investigating fisheries offences; the rest of my time is spent working on tasking and co- ordination, intelligence reports and attending enforcement related meetings. I also have additional duties as Senior IFCO which I highlight in the report.

Senior Marine Operations and Compliance Specialist In May 2016 I was appointed as a senior marine operations specialist. Since my appointment I have been working with senior managers and Authority Members to oversee the management and procurement of a new patrol vessel asset in partnership with Southampton University, updates have been provided to the senior management team. This project has since been terminated in January 2021. I am still working and supporting the senior management team through an asset review programme, which include the procurement of a drone, I am currently lead this project. My Senior Officer role was expanded throughout 2016 and was made permanent in December 2017, this was to reflect the additional compliance and enforcement work, I have taken on. I am responsible for the Tactical Co-ordination Group (TCG), Intelligence, Operational Planning & Operational Delivery for compliance at Southern IFCA and work alongside Senior IFCO Mayne who is responsible for Investigations. Another part of my role is line management for three of the Fisheries Protection Team members which includes IFCO Parry (Marine Operations Specialist), IFCO Taylor (Compliance Specialist) and IFCO Griffiths (Compliance Specialist), these officers carry out intelligence led risked based enforcement across the district as directed by the TCG as well as extensive engagement with the fishing fleet. I also provide direction to the IFCOs in the Fisheries Protection Team on day-to-day taskings as well as other on-going work streams that are aligned to the quarterly priorities and Annual Plan.

November Incidents of Note: 5-11-20 Officers attended Gosport Hardway in relation to reports of 50 bags of Oysters being stored on the slipway. When the officers arrived, they identified them as Pacific’s not Natives which can legally be fished and retained. Various checks and liaison with the local authority was carried out in relation to traceability and supply chain. Officers also spoke with the Fisherman directly. No further action required.

7-11-20 IFCOs conducted a FPR Protector patrol of Lyme Bay on returning back through Portland Harbour a Kite-Surfer who was in distress was rescued, due to the situation with Covid-19 officers had to put on full PPE and take the Kite-Surfers details for track and trace. The Kite-Surfer was returned to the beach safely.

11-11-20 Officers launched FPR Protector for an EU Exit exercise with the MMO charter vessel FPV Ocean Osprey as part of a day 1 readiness exercise in Weymouth Bay.

23-11-20 During a FPR SB patrol 1x local fishing vessel was boarded Clam Dredging in the area of Calshot, a verbal warning was issued to the master for retaining small quantities of undersize Manila Clam. During the same patrol officers boarded a scallop dredger in the Bottom Towed Gear Closure North of the Isle of Wight, on investigation the vessel had suffered mechanical failure so no further action was taken. During both boarding IFCOs were wearing full PPE and maintaining social distancing. 21 December Incidents of Note: 3-12-20 Officers attended an address in Weymouth to issue Official Written Warning for breaches of the recreational Bass limit. The officers at the time of the offence were given false details and the persons did not reside at the address. Officers has liaised with Dorset Police but the offenders address is still unknown. The warnings still remain of file.

8-12-20 During a patrol on FPR Protector in the Portland area officers observed a local vessel netting and retaining large quantities of Bass, officers liaised with the MMO and the vessel was inspected upon landing. The investigation remains on-going.

30-12-20 IFCOs conducted a patrol onboard FPV Endeavour in Poole Harbour during the patrol officers conducted an unattended vessel search and found a small quantity of undersize American Hardshell Calms, the owner has been in touch and was issued a verbal warning.

31-12-20 Officers conducted a shore patrol in at Portland in relation to reports of seabird capture in nets in contravention of the voluntary netting code of conduct, officers observed a number of nets being hauled in the area and inspected the fishing vessels on returning to Port to provide advice and guidance in relation to the code of conduct. IFCOs have continued to monitor the situation.

January Incidents of Note: 1-1-21 Officers carried out an EU Exit Tasking on FPR Protector on behalf of the MMO, IFCOs carried out surveillance between the 6-12 nautical mile limit.

2-2-21 IFCOs conducted a second day of surveillance on FPR Protector on behalf of the MMO between 0-12 nautical miles offshore down to the Devon/ Dorset Border.

Additional Working and Meetings

3-11-20 Fisheries Protection Team Heads of Function meeting. 4-11-20 Covid-19 briefing CEO. 4-11-20 Defra Blue Fin Tuna CHART programme meeting. 6-11-20 IFCA Technical Advisory Group 9-11-20 NFCU & Portsmouth City Council EHO meeting. 10-11-20 National Inshore Marine Enforcement Group. 12-11-20 Defra Blue Fin Tuna CHART programme meeting. 13-11-20 Southern IFCA TCG (External) 16-11-20 Team meeting. 17-11-20 Patrol Vessel Working Group 17-11-20 Covid-19 briefing CEO 23-11-20 Team meeting. 23-11-20 Investigations Training.

1-12-20 Drone Trial Poole. 1-12-20 Fisheries Protection Team Heads of Function meeting. 2-12-20 MMO South Marine Team TCG. 4-12-20 IFCA Drone Taskforce meeting. 9-12-20 EU Exit Operations Standard Operating Procedures. 10-12-20 Authority meeting. 11-12-20 Southern IFCA TCG (External) 14-12-20 Team meeting. 15-12-20 PDPs IFCOs FPT. 16-12-20 PDPs IFCO FPT.

5-1-21 MMO Operations meeting. 5-1-21 Fisheries Protection Team Heads of Function meeting.

22 6-1-21 IFCA EU Exit Chief Officers Group briefing. 8-1-21 Southern IFCA TCG (External) 11-1-21 Team meeting. 14-1-21 South West Regional Crime meeting. 18-1-21 Mental Health Training. 19-1-21 Fisheries Protection Team Heads of Function meeting. 20-1-21 IFCA Drone meeting. 21-1-21 MMO South East Marine Team TCG. 22-1-21 Southern IFCA TCG (Internal)

Southern IFCA Covid-19 From the 17th March IFCOs at Southern IFCA were instructed to work from home and those identified as vulnerable were instructed too self-isolate. A number of procedures were put in place including regular video calls with staff, these have continued. Local Covid-19 protocols, risk assessments and procedures were put into place within 72 hours and a small number of officers remained operational. Very quickly the local effort fed into IFCAs nationally as IFCAs organised a “Strategic Response Group” in which I was allocated a role to be a National Covid-19 Operational Lead, in this role I have been responsible in writing joint MMO/ IFCA national Covid-19 protocols, procedures and guidance along with IFCA and MMO colleagues. These national protocols, procedures and guidance documents now form our approach to control and enforcement in fisheries nationally. I also assisted the MMO and provided guidance to IFCA Operational Leads on the national intelligence requirement relating to Covid-19 this information was passed and continues to be escalated to Defra to inform their response to the pandemic. I have developed Risk Assessments and set out the Southern IFCA approach to Covid-19 with the main focus being officer safety whilst still maintaining essential operational delivery. I provided a short verbal briefing to Authority Members at the meeting on the 11th June. I have also written a section to be included in the Southern IFCA annual report on the effects and response to Covid-19. As of week, commencing the 15th February I have organised for Southern IFCA staff to access the Rapid Testing Programme in Dorset, this adds an extra layer of protection for our staff that cannot work from home, it requires them to attend a test centre on a weekly bases to be testing for Covid-19. I remain the Covid-19 lead at Southern IFCA.

NIMEG (National Inshore Marine Enforcement Group) On the 14th July I was made Chairman of NIMEG, I was voted in by IFCA and MMO colleagues in recognition of my efforts nationally during the Covid-19 pandemic. NIMEG does not have any statutory functions, the main purpose of the group is to bring together expertise in the field of regulation and enforcement within inshore fisheries and marine conservation in order to develop and support joint working and consistency; identify and share best practice; and to promote professionalism and competence. The main membership is made up of officers who hold a decision-making mandate with operational responsibility for regulation and enforcement from the following organisations: Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCA) Environment Agency (EA) Marine Management Organisation (MMO) Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS). The group also has an Associate Membership which comprises of other relevant organisations which may be invited to join the group where it is considered to be appropriate this includes the following organisations: Defra, Channel Islands State Fisheries Departments (Guernsey & Jersey) Isle of Man Fisheries Department Marine and Fisheries Division, Welsh Government Natural England.

Conclusion The majority of my time at work is spent carrying out enforcement throughout the Southern IFCA District. In addition, I also carry out other duties which include patrol vessel maintenance, operating vessels for survey operations, promoting multi-agency partnerships, attending court, social networking/media liaison and working on National Projects through the National Inshore Marine Enforcement Group. My role has continued to expand to include mentoring new entrant officers as well as other additional work streams highlighted in this report. I have taken on the additional work and am hoping there will be a change in my job role to reflect the supervisory duties I have taken on since April 2020.

23

This concludes my quarterly report for the November to January quarter. For further information if you would like to contact me, please email me at sam.dell@southern- ifca.gov.uk

24 REPORT OF IFCO PATRICK COOPER Patrol Area ROAMING Evidence Specialist

This report describes the work I have been involved with this quarter. I have detailed a number of areas of particular interest or that I have spent a significant amount of time on. Training, meetings, surveys and stakeholder events attended Event Date Technical Advisory Committee 27/08/2020 Langstone Harbour Advisory Committee 03/09/2020 SEMS Management Meeting 24/09/2020 Authority Meeting 24/09/2020

Fisheries Management and Policy Work

Solent Scallop Review This quarter I have been particularly working with colleagues on the Solent scallop fishery review. This involved drafting and distributing a call for information, which aimed to better understand the fishery, gather data and get feedback from fishers on how they wanted the fishery to be managed. I then collated this information and fed it into a summary of responses document highlighting and analysing the responses. This was fed into a working group which considered the summary and made recommendations to the Technical Advisory Committee. At the end of January I drafted a report to the Technical Advisory Committee, based on recommendations from the working group these included: - That the TAC recommends to the full authority that a code of conduct is adopted in the fishery from April 2021 including dredge number and a closed season. - That the TAC accepts the Summary of responses document. - That the TAC approves a timeline for proposed management of the Solent Scallop fishery post code of conduct.

Bottom Towed Fishing Gear This quarter I have continued working on the Bottom Towed Fishing Gear in MPAs workstream. This involves for my part, considering options for management in advance of working groups to be undertaken by members considering the outcomes of the HRAs and MCZ assessments. Currently this involves working my way through feature, regulation and activity data to gather together the necessary information to inform management of these sites. This will be presented to members of the Authority to consider the most appropriate form of management in the various sites.

Survey Planning As a requirement to adapt to COVID-19, I have been working with colleagues to consider undertaking surveys in light of the new requirements. Unfortunately, the 2020 schedule of surveys has predominantly been cancelled mainly due to the social distancing requirements and necessary measures that would have made undertaking the surveys impractical. Moving forward I have been working with other members of the fisheries management and policy team considering our surveys for 2021 against our existing protocols and where appropriate developing new methodologies to bring our procedures in line. The aim is to develop methodologies in time for the next survey season in 2021, by adapting where possible, but

25 aiming to try and collect the data in as similar a manner as possible. A report has been drafted for the February TAC meeting highlighting a survey plan for the year and proposed changes to methodologies.

Compliance Early this quarter I have been involved in a number of patrols, particularly to the East of the district. This has focused both on recreational and commercial fisheries. Of particular interest has been the scallop fishery in the Solent. As we moved into winter this presented a useful platform to disseminate information, and gather more feedback on the Solent scallop review whilst we were on the ground. The feedback provided useful context outside of the more structure call for information. We were also working with recreational fishers, educating individuals regarding the minimum sizes and catch limits for fish species, and providing regular updates on the current situation regarding bass regulations and the recreational sector.

26 REPORT OF IFCO CHLOE SMITH Patrol Area ROAMING Evidence Specialist

Live Wrasse Fishery This quarter I have completed the analysis of the 2020 wrasse fishery catch return form data and produced a report which was submitted to the February Technical Advisory Committee. I worked with other IFCAs and Lauren Henley (PHD student) to statistically analyse our data from 2018, 2019 and 2020. The data was quite complex. It didn’t follow ideal data characteristics such as having a normal distribution, and had multiple factors that could affect the Landings Per Unit Effort (LPUE). Therefore, in order to analyse it with good confidence in the outputs I used R- Programming statistical software to carry out Generalised Linear Models analysis. I found the process of analysing this data really rewarding as I was aware that the results will help determine the management of the fishery in future. Writing the report took me back to my University days feeling much like writing a dissertation. Particularly, interesting was the consistent difference in LPUE between areas fished, a trend that other research has also found and is most likely linked to the different wrasse species habitat preferences. I look forward to analysing the data next year.

Pot Fisheries Review Gladly this quarter the potting review kicked off once again. I developed a stakeholder contact list and wrote emails to, and posted the consultation out to many potential respondents. Once the Consultation was open, I spent several days telephoning stakeholders to notify them of the Potting Review Consultation and encourage them to respond. We received really good feedback on this approach, often finding that individuals hadn’t had the opportunity to speak to and IFCO in many months or even years! Once this was complete, I began preparations for the Summary of Responses document, working out how best to describe the findings given the style of questions asked in the consultation and, ensured that the responses submitted via post and email were considered in the Summary. Once the consultation had closed, I began the analysis of the responses, a challenge made a lot easier than last time, because of the excel spreadsheet that Google forms produces. Of course, the process itself is still complex when there are over 100 varied responses to consider. Overall, I was surprised by how much support there was for management measures across all the pot fisheries.

Marine Protected Area Assessments With work focused mostly on the TAC papers for the wrasse fishery and potting review, I have spent relatively less time compared to usual on MPA Assessments. However, I have continued the assessment of fishing activities in our six new MCZs and the additional features in our older MCZs. My focus has been on the Pot/ Trap fishing Part B MCZ assessments of which there will be six detailed assessments of the fishing activities scale, location and intensity with the location of the features of the MCZs. A fairly good amount of

27 research has been conducted over the past five years or so on the impacts of potting to benthic habitats and therefore I have drafted a revised literature review for these assessments.

Website Redesign Following the work, I did on the assessment of our current website in Summer 2020, this quarter as per the 2020 budget, I initiated our website redesign project. Two key initial stages of this project were creating a website map of the sections and pages the new design would contain, as well as deciding the new websites theme/style and home page layout. Working with Management and other colleagues we created a website map which includes everything the IFCA needs to include on our website, but which utilises fewer number of pages than we do currently. This will save the Authority costs on a monthly basis for as long as the website is live. Once this was approved the process of working with our designer could begin, with a focus on the home page and overall theme of the website. I have held a number of ‘working groups’ with my colleagues during which we have decided how the website should look and function. As the project lead, I have been responsible for communicating with our designers and managing input from my colleagues. The writing of page content for the website was assigned to appropriate team members. For myself, this included, drafting a number of ‘Fisheries’ pages such as the Pot & Trap Fisheries page as well as some of the ‘Conservation’ pages. All page content has then been QA’d internally before being sent to our designers. Our designers have been brilliantly helpful to date and I am looking forward to launching the new website for the Authority at the meeting in March.

Whelk Working Group Once again on the 14th January, I represented Southern IFCA at the virtual Whelk Working Group meeting. However, this time I attended the meeting as Vice Chair with a role to take minutes of the meeting and run through the group’s actions and progress. The group is a helpful group of IFCAs, Conservation Organisations, other National Government Organisations and Universities this is a really useful platform to find out how other organisations are approaching the management of whelks as well as a platform for sharing information gained from research. Discussions focused around the great level of research that is going on across the UK on whelks and their biology as well as the progress of many management organisations in creating and monitoring effective management measures within the whelk pot fishery. Compliance 12 November 2020 – Sea Patrol on FPV Endeavour 25 November 2020 – Land Patrol Isle of Wight – Potting review engagement. 03 December 2020 – Sea Patrol on Stella Barbera, clam and scallop vessel inspections. 09 December 2020 – Land Patrol West Hampshire, netting and rod & line vessel inspections and potting review engagement. Following the introduction of England’s third lockdown I have worked from home and therefore have not participated in patrol work.

28 REPORT OF IFCO ADAM PARRY Mobile Enforcement Team Patrol Area Roaming Compliance Specialist I started in the post as a compliance specialist on the 2nd of January 2019. I left a similar role within the MMO where I had been working out of the Poole office as a warranted marine enforcement officer. Since starting I have completed a variety of tasks most of them being orientated around my induction into the organisation including both mine and the Sothern IFCAs expectations. I have had a thorough induction on the FPVs and have had the opportunity to helm Stella Barbara, Endeavour and Protector. I have also worked closely with other officers on shore patrol as I familiarised myself with the Southern IFCA district. NOVEMBER 2nd- SIFCA HQ, MCSS and data entry. Thermal camera review on both vessels and EMMF claim. Quarterly report. 3rd- Case file review 4th- Zone 2 patrol covering Poole harbour. Due to changing restriction in the country due to Coronavirus Protector had to be moved from current location in WPNSA compound to slipway so that access could be maintained. 5th- Case file review and data administration 6th- Aqua dock maintenance. 9th- Team meeting, case file and data administration 10th- SIFCA HQ cover. Case file review. Vessel maintenance review. 11th- Case file review, data admin. 12th- Patrol on FPV Endeavour covering Poole harbour.

DECEMBER 1st- Data administration and case file review 2nd- Patrol on FPV Stella Barbara covering Southampton water, the Solent and South west of the Isle of Wight. Various fishing vessels engaged with included several recreational angling vessels fishing near the needles. 3rd- Shore patrol Poole harbour including responding to incursion to green island voluntary closed area on FPV Endeavour. 7th- Southampton NOC, aqua dock maintenance. 8th- SIFCA HQ for data administration and take vehicle in for annual service. 9th- Shore patrol in Poole harbour. Engagement with PHDP holders on current market strength. 10th- Follow up sample requirement by BCP. Followed by shore patrol in Poole harbour. 11th- External Tactical coordination group. 14th- Team meeting, vessel maintenance review and Therma camera follow up work. 15th- Data administration and case file review. 16th- Z2 patrol covering Poole harbour. 17th- Data administration. Vessel maintenance review, camera fitting follow up. 18th- Z2 patrol covering Poole harbour. 21st- Team meeting, vessel maintenance review. MCSS input and intel submission. 22nd- Collect FPV Protector from marine matters following maintenance and camera work ready for EU exit planned patrols. 23rd- Z2 patrol with DCO Richardson to check on compliance with the PHDP byelaw. 24th- Follow up calls to PHDP holders with gear still on FVs. MCSS input. 30th- Z2 patrol on FPV Endeavour to check on compliance with PHDP byelaw and removal of gear.

JANUARY 2nd- EU exit sea patrol on FPV Protector covering Lyme bay. 4th- EU exit patrol on FPV Protector covering Weymouth bay and 7d/e line. 29 5th- At home working following recent government announcement and guidelines. Review of MCSS data input. Patrol report and intel submission. 6th- MCSS data submission. Vessel maintenance follow up. Case file review. 7th- MCSS data submission, Marine ops Y drive reconciliation. 8th- Tactical co-ordination group meeting with external partner agencies. Follow up work on EMMF camera. 11th- MCSS data input, specifically patrol vessel logs and data of sightings of vessels along with activity observed. Presentation on EMMF equipment. 12th- Training course review for officers without PPR course. Correct course found and officers signed up. 13th- FPV certification review 14th- MCSS data administration review. Work on assignments for fisheries enforcement course. 18th- Mental health first aid training. Marine asset review to decide stages and plan on how to proceed with refit, maintain and procure. 19th- Follow up with three independent Suzuki installers for potential engine replacement. 20th- Data administration and compliance input on MCSS. Follow up with Bourne Romsey fire for required LSA for FPV Protector. 22nd- Internal Tactical coordination group meeting. Follow up with call for information. 25th- Team meeting. Call to local fishers based in Poole to follow up on call for information for COVID/EU Exit intelligence. Meeting with IFCO’s Mayne and Richardson for FPV Endeavour review. 26th- Intelligence submission, Drone project risk assessment. Learner management system review for outstanding assignment submission. 27th- Vessel maintenance review, follow up with MECAL. Intelligence submission. 28th- Presentation work on thermal camera upgrades, quarterly report. CPD training and LMS modules. 29th- Internal TCG.

Incidents of Note.

On the 18th of January we had a team training session on Mental health first aid. This was a valuable course during a time where it is extremely difficult to maintain positivity during very difficult time. It was engaging and extremely worthwhile. It highlighted how colleagues may be feeling and that sometimes just listening to issues is enough to support someone.

30 REPORT OF IFCO BEN TAYLOR Mobile Enforcement Team Patrol Area Roaming. Compliance Specialist I joined Southern IFCA as an Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Officer in 2019 from the Marine Management Organisation. My role in SIFCA is as a compliance specialist within the Fisheries Protection Team. I also process and disseminate intelligence reports and maintain SIFCA’s Intelligence Register, enabling SIFCA to effectively monitor and locate relevant intelligence for a given person, vessel, area or activity. During this quarter I have continued to function as part of one of SIFCAs COVID 19 team bubbles, helped to deliver the SIFCA Solent Scallop Call for Information, engaged with industry about the impacts of EU Exit, continued to target recreational angling spots to ensure compliance with seabass fishing restrictions and maintained a SIFCA presence along the coast of Hampshire and east Dorset. Below is a summary of activities I have been involved with during this quarter, with specific examples illustrated.

November 2020 During November, SIFCA received reports of significant numbers of dead fish washed up along the coast in the area of Milford-on-Sea. I liaised with local EA officers and conducted a patrol in the vicinity of the reports, nothing was found to indicate illegal activity – with the presence of dead fish being likely attributed to lost pot-bait. I also conducted a patrol on the Isle of Wight with IFCO Smith, which provided to opportunity to engage with members of the fishing industry who are less often seen. The visit to the Island facilitated the gathering of important input to the, then active, SIFCA potting review and further to provide reassurance to industry were required and improve my understanding of possible issues being faced by the industry. I also continued to engage with the recreational angling community, ensuing all participants were made aware of the change to catch-and-release only for seabass from the end of November.

December 2020 In December I continued my targeted engagement with the angling sector, both on the coast and at sea, to ensure awareness of, and compliance with, the requirement for catch-and-release of seabass. December sees the closure of the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Fishery, in preparation for which I assisted IFCO Mayne to ensure industry were aware of the upcoming closure. This included the mounting of closure Notices placed at key locations within Poole which would be seen by fishers. I also continued to be involved in patrols targeting activity in Poole and the Dredge Fishery. Including carrying out inspections of catch being landed by vessels as led by our intelligence picture and assessed risks – with all inspections conducted as per SIFCAs Covid19 Policy. 31 By the end of December, I had engaged with a broad selection of members of the fishing industry in regards to the Call-for-Information, to ensure as many views were captured from the outset of the project. The resulting call-for-information data provided input from all current fishers engaged in the fishery plus a large number of those who may be involved in the future or will interact with it during their usual fishing activity.

January 2021 During January, patrols continued in Hampshire and east Dorset, during which I located unattended sacks of American Hardshell clams, on a couple of occasions. On both, occasions an inspection of the clams found a significant percentage of them to be undersize – inspection forms were left on both occasions for the owner the clams to improve their measuring of their catch to ensure those clams below the prescribed minimum size are not being removed from the fishery. I continued to join IFCO Mayne during at sea patrols in on board FPR Stella Barbara, during which we conducted checks of the various spatial restrictions of the Solent area and engaged with the industry, gathering information on their views and the current fishing and market situations they were facing. This information was required as part of a national effort to improve the high-level understanding of possible issues facing industry.

32

REPORT OF IFCO ISABEL GRIFFITHS Mobile Enforcement Team Patrol Area Roaming. Compliance Specialist I have been employed by Southern IFCA since January 2020, working as a Compliance Specialist within the Fisheries Protection Team. My role involves working operationally across the Southern IFCA district, conducting both shore and sea patrols to monitor compliance with fisheries legislation, in addition to working on a number of other administrative workstreams for the Fisheries Protection Team. Although operational work has been restricted this quarter due to the COVID-19 pandemic’s second and third national lockdowns, I have remained operational where necessary while continuing to work from home in a number of other areas, such as the Fisheries Protection Team’s input into the new website design, creating materials for industry relating to the MCRS byelaw, inputting and streamlining patrol sightings data, and concluding the PHDP 2020-21 season with the collection and checking of the final PHDP catch returns. This quarter has seen a re-shuffle of the Southern IFCA COVID ‘Team Bubbles’, where myself, Sam Dell and Simon Pengelly (Team B) have been joined by Adam Parry and Sarah Birchenough, in order to increase our operational capabilities, whilst limiting officer interactions to be solely within our team bubble. Within this team bubble, we’ve continued to apply COVID-safe working procedures, such as social distancing and appropriate use of PPE. Compliance During this quarter, I have been present for 10 sea patrols and 5 shore patrols, including one evening shore patrol and joint agency work with the MMO in preparation for the EU exit. In addition to compliance and enforcement patrols, I’ve also assisted with two BCP sampling runs in Poole Harbour. The enforcement priorities I’ve actioned during this period include observing fishing activity prior to and after the UK’s exit from the EU, monitoring netting activity in West Dorset, monitoring the closure of the 2020-2021 Poole Harbour Dredge Permit season and conducting checks for illegal clam fishing activities. After the closure of the PHDP 2020-2021 season, I made my final checks of the submitted catch returns for the season, and have since been working with officers to plan for the 2021- 2022 season. Myself and IFCO Dell assisted the MMO with an EU exit training exercise prior to the UK’s departure from the EU. On board FPR Protector, we acted as a French vessel fishing inside the 12nm limit, in order for MMO officers to act out a scenario that may arise once the UK has left the EU. Since this operation, we have also been tasked by the MMO to conduct sea patrols out to the 12nm in order to monitor and give feedback on fishing activities, On board FPR Protector for EU both from UK flag and non-flag vessels, between 0- Exit training exercise with MMO 12nm. I’ve been present on two of these patrols in (FPV Ocean Osprey) January and February, where we have monitored fishing activity out to 12nm but have not observed any non-flag vessels or incursions within the 12nm limit. Other work and meetings In addition to operational work, I’ve been working on a number of other workstreams, including monitoring the Poole Harbour Dredge Permit catch returns, writing content for the new website, making materials for industry regarding the new Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) byelaw, and streamlining the patrol vessels’ sightings data. 33 Following the closure of the 2020-2021 Poole Harbour Dredge Permit Season on the 24th December, I monitored the final month’s catch returns for compliance with the permit conditions. Overall, the compliance with the catch return permit conditions in 2020 was good, with there being a general improvement in the quality of catch returns as we progressed through the season. I’ve also worked with the Website Working Group this quarter to redesign the website structure and write content. I’ve been responsible for writing the Fisheries Protection Team’s pages, including the Management pages and the Compliance and Enforcement pages, where I’ve updated and reorganised the content to make more streamlined, user friendly web pages. For the introduction of the new MCRS byelaw, I have created new materials for both industry and Southern IFCA officers. This included creating an MCRS page for the IFCO crib and writing a Compliance Direction for IFCOs, in addition to making materials for industry, such as writing MCRS FAQs, getting a new MCRS Fish Sticker designed, creating an MCRS handout sheet and making a new Wheelhouse Card. During this quarter, I attended two internal and two external TCG meetings, which have all been held remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. With the reintroduction of a national lockdown, we recommenced weekly team meetings this quarter, in order to remain communicative and support each other. In January, I also undertook Mental Health Training along with the rest of the team, to better understand mental health and therefore be able to take care of our own and others’ mental health. Additionally, I completed a Manual Handling training course and the RYA Professional Practices and Responsibilities course, which is a key course for individuals who work at sea to complete. November 03/11/2020 – BCP Sampling of Poole Harbour on board FPV Endeavour with IFCO Pengelly. 05/11/2020 – Shore patrol of Hampshire in company with IFCO Dell. 2x landing inspections carried out with no offences detected. 07/11/2020 – FPR Protector patrol of Lyme Bay in company with IFCO Dell and IFCO Pengelly. Checks of RSA and Bottom Towed Fishing Gear closures. 1x vessel close to BTFG closure due to a gear malfunction, but no incursion detected. IFCOs assisted a kite surfer in distress to shore. 11/11/2020 – On board FPR Protector in Weymouth Bay for MMO Ocean Osprey EU Exit training exercise with IFCO Dell. FPR Protector acting as a French fishing vessel fishing within the 6nm. 16/11/2020 – West Dorset evening patrol with IFCO Pengelly, targeting Ferry Bridge, Portland to conduct checks of RSA activity. Nil infringements detected. 18/11/2020 – Patrol of Poole on board FPV Endeavour with IFCO Dell, liaising with IFCO Parry on shore, in order to monitor Vessel of Interest activity. No infringements detected. 24/11/2020 – Shore Patrol of Weymouth with IFCO Dell and Pengelly. Completed a number of potting consultation questionnaires with industry in order to feed into the Fisheries Management and Policy Team’s Potting consultation. 25/11/2020 – Shore patrol of Poole with IFCO Parry. Attended both Boscombe and Bournemouth Piers for RSAs (2x individuals engaged with), and Poole observations of PHDP activity. 3x landing inspections and 1x RSA person inspection completed. Possible illegal fishing activity – intel gathered. 26/11/2020 – Patrol of Southampton Water and The Solent on board FPR Stella Barbara with IFCO Dell and IFCO Parry. Identification of 1x Bottom Towed Gear Closure incursion due to a gear malfunction and

34 Completing a boarding inspection, following COVID-19 Protocols. a Verbal Warning given to a vessel retaining a quantity of undersized manila clams. 27/11/2020 – Shore patrol of West Dorset with IFCO Parry, including attending FPR Protector to conduct maintenance checks and compass swing, and a port visit to Weymouth with 1x landing inspection. December 01/12/2020 – Patrol of Poole Harbour on board FPV Endeavour with IFCO Parry, working with IFCOs and drone pilot on shore to demo the drone being procured by Southern IFCA. Footage taken of FPV Endeavour and consenting PDHP vessels for demo video. 02/12/2020 – Shore patrol of Poole with IFCO Parry. Both piers along Bournemouth beach attended for checks of RSA activity, and checks conducted in Poole for PHDP and Vessel of Interest activity. No offences detected. 08/12/2020 – FPR Protector patrol with IFCO Dell and IFCO Pengelly. Identification of one vessel committing MMO offence re. targeting Bass. Worked with MMO officers on shore to deal with offence. 10/12/2020 – BCP sampling of Poole Harbour on board FPV Endeavour with IFCO Parry. Identification of one vessel within the Green Island Voluntary Agreement Closed Area and one vehicle transporting a hand dredge. Advice given and intel gathered in both instances. 17/12/2020 – FPR Stella Barbara Patrol of Southampton Water and the Solent with IFCO Parry. FPR Stella Barbara taken to Warsash for blue light refit. 1x onshore vehicle inspection at Warsash. January 04/01/2021 – FPR Protector patrol of Weymouth Bay and inshore waters east of Portland to St Aldhelm’s Head for engagement with vessels and monitoring of activity post EU Exit. 07/01/2021 – Attended FPR Protector at Portland for vessel maintenance and thermal camera refit.

.

35 REPORT OF IFCO JAMIE SMALL Evidence Specialist (MCRS Research Officer) Grey Mullet Research Minimum Conservation Reference Size Review Update During the last three months (Nov-Jan) I have created profiles for 14 species including 5 species of skate, 4 species of flatfish, black seabream, bass, gilthead seabream, conger eel and the American hard-shell clam. The majority of these profiles have been viewed at the November and February TAC. I am also very happy to share that I will be staying with SIFCA for another year - I look forward to the opportunity to help lead the MCRS byelaw review and hopefully at some point during the next year we will be able to complete some survey work. Very much looking forward to leaving my desk and breathing in some sea air! Primary Data Collection Update The literature reviews have helped to identify species where little is known about their size at maturity or in other cases identified species where we need additional information to help clarify maturity for stocks specific to the Southern IFCA district. I am currently leading projects to collect additional data for the following species: Grey mullet In November, two Masters students based at Plymouth University were confirmed to undertake research projects into the size at maturity for thin-lipped, golden- grey and thick- lipped mullet. Mullet collected in the summer (2020) will be transported to Plymouth University for the students to analyse the gonads and carry out additional data collection such as ageing and DNA sequencing. Unfortunately, due to Covid restrictions mullet analysis has been delayed and the students are currently working on desk-based activities. Gilthead sea bream Data collection for gilthead bream began in November. Working with fishers and merchants IFCO officers are collecting data from specimens before they then go onto market. This is a very cost-effective method. Sampling will continue until the end of the fishing season (around March) and the process will be repeated next year. Whelk During the last three months I have been investigating the possibility of undertaking a maturity project for whelk. Data has previously been collected across the district by Cefas and revealed that whelk populations vary greatly in their size at maturity (Portsmouth – 44.8mm; Poole – 66mm). We will therefore, collect additional samples from four locations across the district to confirm whether this is the case. I have been in contact with Kent and Essex IFCA to help produce a methodology for data collection as they have successfully completed similar work over the last few years. I have also been in contact with Cefas who undertook the previous study in our district. Skates and Rays After creating profiles for the main skate species in the district I was interested in how the minimum size of a detached skate wing was set for the existing byelaws (SIFCA along with Kent and Essex IFCA and North Western IFCA all have minimum size byelaws for skates and rays). However, after speaking to IFCAs it became apparent that each byelaw used slightly different methods to measure a detached wing and there wasn’t a clear method on how to set a detached wing size in relation to the total disc width. I was introduced to William Lart at Seafish who had previously worked on skate and ray research including minimum sizes for detached wings. A few years ago, data was collected for different skate and ray species to analyse the relationship between the different measurements of a specimen e.g. the total length and the total disc width. The research had concluded there was a 36 relationship between the posterior edge of a wing and the total length/disc width. Therefore, it is possible to work out the size of a skate/ray by only knowing the length of the posterior edge of the wing. At the moment data is only complete for a few species and more is required to help analyse the relationships of the posterior edge in all species. I have been scoping how we and other IFCAs could help collect data for this database as it would be extremely helpful in helping us to set minimum sizes for detached wings.

Other In January the whole team attended an online Adult Mental Health Awareness course. I found the course extremely helpful and learnt not only how to manage my own mental health but also how to recognise and help others who may be suffering. I am thankful to Ian for organising this course and feel it is something that should take place in every work place.

37

Annex “A”

SOUTHERN DISTRICT FISHING EFFORT – 31st July 2020

Vessels by Base Area

Bembridge 12 -2 Cowes 5 = Devon 43 -2 Gosport 9 = Hamble 12 +1 Hythe 2 = Keyhaven 3 = Langstone 13 = Lyme Regis 15 = Lymington 8 = Mudeford 15 -1 Portland 22 +2 Poole 72 -2 Portsmouth 26 +3 Sussex 7 -3 Swanage 11 -1 West Bay 19 +1 Weymouth 48 -1 Yarmouth 9 = Cornwall 8 -1 Wales _0 = 358 Vessels

Full Time 308 Part Time 50 Total 358

Percentages

Full Time 86% Part Time / Casual 14%

38 Glossary/Acronyms ABP Associated British Ports ACHS Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances ACOPS Advisory Committee on the Protection of the Sea AIS Automatic Identification of Ships ASCOBANS Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas AIFCA Association of InshoreFisheries and Conservation Authorities

BMF British Marine Federation BSO Biodiversity Stop Order BSFO British Sea FisheryOfficer BWD Bathing Waters Directive BSAC British Sub Aqua Club BS Balanced Seas BNA Bass Nursery Area

CA Conservation Agency CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CCS Carbon Capture Storage CEFAS Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science CED Centre for Ecology and Hydrology CFO Chief Fishery Officer CFP Common Fisheries Policy CHP Civil Hydrography Programme CoE Council for Europe CPA Coast Protection Act CROW Countryside and Rights of Way Act CRT Coastguard Rescue Team CSA Chief Scientific Advisor CSL Central Science Laboratory (Defra Executive Agency) CSS Countryside Stewardship Scheme (ERDP Scheme)

DA Devolved Administration DCMS Department for Culture, Media and Sport DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DETR Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions DFT Department for Transport DFR Directorate of Fisheries Research (now CEFAS) DG Director General DLG Dredging Liaison Group DSP Dolphin Space Programme DTI Department of Trade and Industry DTLR Department for Transport, Local Govern and the Regions (now DFT)

EA Environment Agency EC European Commission ECJ European Court of Justice EEA European Environment Agency EFF European Fisheries Fund EFQM European Foundation for Quality Management EH English Heritage EHS Environment and Heritage Service of North Ireland EIA Environment Impact Assessment EIG England Implementation Group 39 EMS European Marine Site EOMS European Offshore Marine Site EPR Environment Permitting Regulations ESA Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ERDP Scheme) ETAP Environment Technologies Action Plan EU European Union

FAC Food Advisory Committee FAD Fish Aggregate devices FEPA Food and Environment Protection Act FIFG Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (EU) FISG Fishing IndustrySafety Group F&EO Fishery and Environment Officer FO Fishery Officer FPV (Navy) Fisheries Protection Vessel FWL Fresh Water Limit FRM Flood Risk Management FRS Fisheries Research Service

GDPR General Data Protection Regulation 2018 GIS Geographic Information System GT Gross Tonnes GVP Government View Procedure

HEAT Human Element Assessment Tool HPMAs Highly Protected Marine Areas HPMR Highly Protected Marine Reserve HSC High speed craft HSE Health and Safety Executive

IACS International Association of Classification Societies ICCS Integrated Coastguard Communication System ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Seas ICZM Integrated Coastal Zone Management IECS Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies IEEP Institute of European Environmental Policy ILO International Labour Organisation IMO International Maritime Organisation IMS Incident Management System INCA Industry Nature Conservation Association IPC Infrastructure Planning Commission IRP Incident Recording Process ISM International Safety Management ISPFS International Ship and Port Facility Security

JMOCC Joint Maritime Operational Coordination Centre JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee

LDD Local Development document LDF Local Development framework LFS Low Frequency Sonar LGA Local Government Association LSP Laboratory Strategy Programme LWM Low Water Mark

MAIB Marine Accident Investigation Branch

40 MarLIN Marine Life Information Networkfor Britain & Ireland MARPOL Marine Pollution Convention MCA Maritime and Coastguard Agency MCS Monitoring Control and Surveillance MC Marine Conservation Zones MDIP Marine Data and Information Partnership MED Marine Equipment Directive MEO Marine Ecosystem Objective MESH Mapping European Seabed Habitat project MFA Marine Fisheries Agency MFSF Marine Fisheries Stakeholder Forum MLW or MLWM Mean low water mark MLWS Mean Low Water Springs MMO Marine Management Organisation MNR Marine Nature Reserves MO Marine Office MoD Ministry of Defence MOU Memorandum of Understanding MPA Marine Protected Area MRCC Marine Rescue Co-ordination Centre MRSC Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre MRL Maximum Residue Level MS Merchant Shipping MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSFW Making Space for Water MSP Marine Spatial Planning MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield MCZ Marine Conservation Zone

NAO National Audit Office NE Natural England ND Nitrates Directive NDBP Non Departmental Public Body NEAFC North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission NERC Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act NIMEG National Inshore Marine Enforcement Group NIMIC National InshoreMarine Intelligence Centre NFSA National Federation of Sea Anglers NM or Nm Nautical Miles NNR National Nature Reserve NRPB National Radiological Protection Board NSA Nitrate Sensitive Area NTZ No Take Zone NVZ Nitrate Vulnerable Zone

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister OMCR Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic

PACE Police and Criminal Evidence PADI Professional Association of Diving Instructors PAW Partnership Against Wildlife Crime PHDP Poole Harbour Dredge Permit PLA Port of London Authority PO Producer Organisation PSC Port State Control 41 PWC Personal Watercraft(i.e.jet skis) QPWS Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (Australia)

RAC Regional Advisory Council RBMP River Basin Management Plan RDR Rural Development Regulations RDS Rural Development Services (Defra) REG Red Ensign Group REZ Renewable Energy Zone RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisation RIA Regulatory Impact Assessment RIB Rigid Inflatable Boat RMNC Review of Marine Nature Conservation RNFPS Royal Naval FisheryProtection Squad RNLI Royal National Lifeboat Institution RO Regulating Order Ro-Ro Roll-on, Roll-off (relates to vessels) RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds RYA Royal Yachting Association RSA Recreational Sea Angling RSS Regional Spatial Strategy RSS Registry of Shipping and Seamen

SAC Special Area of Conservation SAR Search and Rescue SFI Sea Fisheries Inspectorate SFIA Sea Fish Industry Authority SPA Special Protected Area SPS Single Payment Service SRM Specified Risk Material SSC Scientific Steering Committee SSI Site of Scientific Interest SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest STCW Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping SWD Shellfish Waters Directive

TAC Total Allowable Catch TECFO Thames Estuary Cockle Fishery Order 1994

UK CEED UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Development UKCS United Kingdom Continental Shelf UKMMAS UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UWWTD Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

VMS Vessel Monitoring System VTS Vessel Traffic Service

W&CA Wildlife and Countryside Act WDCS Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society WFD Water Framework Directive WGECO Working Group on the Ecosystems Effects of Fishing WGFE Working Group on Fish Ecology WGMME Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology WGSE Working Group on Seabird Ecology WID Water Injection Dredging WoW Wildlife Observer Wales 42 WRA Water Resources Act WTO World Trade Organisation WWF World Wildlife Fund

43 Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

ITEM P OFFICER’S REPORT

SOUTH COAST FISHERMEN’S COUNCIL

Report by the Chief Executive Officer

A. Purpose of the Report

To inform Members of the activity undertaken by the South Coast Fishermen’s Council.

B. Recommendation

That the Minutes of the South Coast Fishermen’s Council be received.

1. Background

1.1 The Minutes of the (local) South Coast Fishermen’s Council are presented to the Joint Committee for Members consideration and to appraise them of its business.

1.2 The Authority has given a grant of £250 to the Fishermen’s Council in this financial year. It also offers the free use of a room, at the Committee’s office, for meetings.

Ian Jones Chief Executive Officer February 2021

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985 List of Background Papers

There are no background papers to this report.

SOUTH COAST FISHERMEN’S COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE 349th MEETING HELD VIA ZOOM AT 7.30PM ON WEDNESDAY 16th DECEMBER 2020

PRESENT: R. Stride - Mudeford & District FMA P. Dadds - Mudeford & District FMA L. Miller - Swanage & District FMA A. Banfield - Bridport & District FMA S. Postles - Lyme Regis FMA T. Russell - Poole & District FMA

IN ATTENDANCE I. Jones - CEO Southern IFCA R. Irish - Principal Marine Officer MMO S. Dean - Secretary Treasurer APOLOGIES B. Pool

I The Minutes of the November 2020 meeting Zoom Meeting were taken as read and members agreed they should be signed as a correct record. The Chairman was concerned that the time constraints on the free ZOOM meetings were too restrictive and asked if we should buy a subscription. The Treasurer stated the Council has limited funds apart from the Training grant budget which we try not to use other than on grants to young fishermen’s sea survival training. Rachel Irish offered to send out the invitations as she has unlimited ZOOM time this was gratefully accepted and the Secretary agreed to send her the distribution list.

II SHELLFISH INDUSTRY ADVISORY GROUP A. Banfield reported that there had been no update since last meeting. It was noted that Michael Kaiser of Herriot Watt University in Edinburgh was Chairman of SIAG. R. Stride stated L. Lawrence thought there were not many inshore fisheries representatives involved.

Richard had attended the Inshore Fisheries Management Opportunities meeting Organised by Seafish under the Fisheries Management Innovations Group. See separate e.mail for further details.

III STEERING COMMITTEE – FUTURE OF INSHORE FISHERIES Aubrey Banfield reported his thoughts on how to pull together and how things might change as so much has to be taken into consideration. He wondered how valid data is going to be in 5 – 8 years and everything was dependent on what happens after 1st January and what deals are negotiated.

IV DEFRA INSHORE FISHERIES WORKING GROUP R. Stride reported that the group had met twice since our last meeting and had set out their intention to split into groups with one being South from River Dart to Dorset/ Hampshire Border. Discussion took place on the viability of this split and it was thought this was just a starting point and surprise was expressed that the split was not in line with the Quota Groups. Views included the need for discussions to be separate for inshore and offshore. See separate e.mail for more details.

V QUOTAS A reply had been sent to the DEFRA consultation on how any additional quota that is gained by EU negotiations is allocated. The next SW quota group meeting is tomorrow 17th with the SE meeting on Monday 21st December.

VI HIGHLY PROTECTED MARINE AREAS Nothing further. A. Banfield left the meeting

VII SOUTHERN IFCA I. Jones reported that the IFCA is making plans for joint patrols with DEFRA post 1st January but until everything is settled no one knows what will be needed. The IFCA budget meeting passed tight spending measures including a wage freeze and a hold on a new vessel procurement until it is known whether patrols will be needed up to the 6 or 12 mile limits. Scientific Research capability might also be required. In the meantime drone patrols had been demonstrated at Rockley Sands witnessed by T. Russell. Ian Jones stated that the IFCA were operating under strict COVID rules with a skeleton staff at the office. POTTING REVIEW is underway this includes whelk pots. More information on SIFCA website. SOLENT SCALLOP FISHERY This call for evidence will last 8 weeks from 5/11 to 31/12/20. See website. NETTING REVIEW further monitoring underway. It was noted that two new Committee members had been appointed Nick Fisher, a film producer and recreational charter boat owner and Lyle Stantiford an owner of a Brixham Trawler and recreational angler representative. A voluntary code of conduct is being written on an exclusion zone for fishing boats around piers. In answer to a question regarding Southbourne Rough it was noted that there are no management measures in place on this newly designated MPA it is still being assessed.

VIII OTHER BUSINESS a) TRAINING S. Postles reported that training was cancelled in Tier 3 areas but continuing elsewhere under COVID rules. Training rooms at RNLI stations have been lost but a new venue added in Emsworth. S. Postles is liaising with Cornish Seafish. Funding from the MMO will continue for the 15day New Entrants Course.

b) An application had been received from Edgar Moxham on behalf of Jordan Coulter for grants of £365 for First Aid, Health & Safety and Fire Fighting. The application was considered but the Secretary was instructed to reply that at this time funding is only considered for Sea Survival training. Advice should be given to contact the Princes Trust or apply to Steve Postles for the 15 day course which is funded.

c) Steve Postles asked if a new cable to France had been given a Marine Licence Rachel Irish and Ian Jones replied they were not aware of it. S. Postles said he would await to see when tenders go out. He had been training safety boat staff.

d) Registration with Local Authorities to export fish and shellfish. EHO inspections were underway locally and it was thought to be a relatively simple process and one inspection needed.

e) R. Stride mentioned an All Party Safety Group relating to Clive Palfrey under INdiGO for biodegradable fishing gear and recycling.

f) Martin Sutcliffe is looking at setting up a FLAG 2, possibly covering a larger area.

The Chairman thanked everyone for attending and wished them a Happy Christmas.

VIII ARRANGEMENTS FOR ZOOM meetings in 2021 10th February, 10th March, 12th May, 9th June, 11th August, 15th September, 17th November, 8th December.

Chairman SOUTH COAST FISHERMEN’S COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE 350th MEETING HELD VIA ZOOM AT 7.00PM ON WEDNESDAY 10th FEBRUARY 2021

PRESENT: R. Stride - Mudeford & District FMA P. Dadds - Mudeford & District FMA L. Miller - Swanage & District FMA J. Miller - Swanage & District FMA A. Banfield - Bridport & District FMA B. Pool - South Devon & Channel Shellfishermen T. Russell - Poole & District FMA M. Golding - Poole & District FMA

IN ATTENDANCE S. Pengelly - Fisheries Officer Southern IFCA R. Irish - Principal Marine Officer MMO S. Dean - Secretary Treasurer APOLOGIES E. Baker, I. Jones

I The Minutes of the December 2020 meeting Zoom Meeting were taken as read and members agreed they should be signed as a correct record.

II SHELLFISH INDUSTRY ADVISORY GROUP R. Stride stated he had not had an update from Les Lawrence.

III FUTURE OF INSHORE FISHERIES WORKING GROUP A. Banfield stated that the fishermen taking part were quite subdued as they were unable to make progress and outnumbered by those who were being paid to attend. He was disheartened to see the waste of money evaluating certain stocks in locations where those stocks don’t exist. S. Pengelly confirmed that the Southern IFCA does not have a representative on this Committee nor have they been approached for any input of data but are represented by the Association of IFCAS.

IV QUOTAS There will be a South Eastern VIId Regional Quota Advisory Group meeting tomorrow and T. Russell agreed to attend and R. Stride would join later. Members felt there is a need to ring fence the quotas we have. There was detailed discussion on how these meetings are run and the areas covered and the representation of small inshore boats and the bigger boats. Plans to combine sector and non-sector were not supported and inshore small boat fishermen feel they are being overlooked in favour of the large boat interests possibly prior to the meeting. R. Irish did not think this was the case as she has chaired Quota Advisory Group meetings and said it is not discussed prior to the meeting. A. Banfield thought the QAG meetings were in danger of being hijacked by the Regional Fisheries Groups rather than used as a role model. Quota meetings for VIIe f and g will be held in late March.

V DEFRA/MMO -INSHORE FISHERIES WORKING GROUP R. Stride and B. Pool attend these meetings and 3 meetings have been held this year. There is both anger and disappointment that our Government gave way in the BREXIT talks but won’t acknowledge it. 72 Licences have been issued to EU vessels, mainly French, to fish in the 6-12 mile limit. The MMO will be responsible for policing. R. Stride stated there had been a lot of criticism of IFCAs who have not listened to stakeholders. Southern IFCA was an exception consulting widely and listening.

CONSULTATION ON SOUTH DORSET MARINE CONSERVATION ZONE R. Irish urged everyone to make their views known. It was noted that the boundary for this MCZ is near the 6 mile limit and will affect the French.

SEA FOOD DISRUPTION SUPPORT SCHEME R. Irish stated this £23million scheme is for small to medium size buyers unable to trade during January. Members pointed out that this disruption severely affected fishermen as well. P. Dadds gave examples of ridiculously low fish prices at auction and stated it was unviable to carry on and almost sold his boat but did not know what else to do but fish. All agreed it had been an exceptionally hard winter for small boats with weather and marketing problems. M. Golding had turned to crab picking as well as fishing. R. Irish stated an additional £100million scheme had been announced but to be shared UK wide. Details are not known but R. Irish urged fishermen to give the MMO local officers information on what is happening within the industry so that it can be fed through to the powers that be. This is the only way to get funding to those that need it. It was noted that B. Pool had been dealing with the tremendous marketing problems with crabs and lobsters. Members strongly felt that the capping of licences was seriously handicapping small boats who had lost their vital flexibility to change mode of fishing to suit both availability of species and market conditions. The only sensible way forward is to give back the license variations unfairly stolen in the capping disaster.

VI SOUTHERN IFCA POTTING REVIEW S. Pengelly reported that the SIFCA has received over 100 responses with many being against recreational potting and in favour of whelk and cuttlefish management. Management recommendations will go before the IFCA and sent out to stakeholders for consultation in due course.

SOLENT SCALLOP FISHERY Following requests from the Industry the IFCA will be developing a Code of Conduct for closed season and restrict the number of dredges in line with the planned Permit Byelaw being introduced next Autumn. R. Stride stated this is a good example of what can be achieved through the SIFCA and gives hope for other initiatives. T. Russell stated the Clam Permit in Poole had proved very successful and shown decent management has financial benefits.

NETTING REVIEW The substantial work on proposals had not produced sufficient evidence for the Technical Advisory Group to approve the recommended measures. S. Pengelly answered questions from J. Miller on the role of the Environment Agency who have responsibility for migratory fish such as Salmon and Sea Trout.

VII OTHER BUSINESS a) TRAINING Separate email sent out in January nothing further at present. b) It was noted that the £11,000 South Coast Training Association Bond had been re-invested. c) An application had been received from Edgar Moxham on behalf of Jordan Coulter for a grant of £150 for Sea Survial course. The application was considered and it was proposed by J. Miller and seconded by R. Russell that the grant be approved. All in favour. d) BEACH REPLENISHMENT BOURNEMOUTH. M. Golding, who is one of two Fisheries Liaison Officers working on the scheme, gave a comprehensive report on the background. It was noted that the BCP Council had applied to the MMO Licensing to extend the works beyond the agreed 31st March deadline and use a floating pipe which is totally unacceptable to the Fishing Industry as this will severely affect the cuttlefish and other spring fisheries. Both Poole and Mudeford Association have put in strong objections to the MMO and SIFCA. P. Dadds stated that when the dredging works took place a few years ago the cuttlefish season was wiped out as the Bay was a sand soup when the works ended and to continue after 3lst March would be a disaster. It was noted that the BCP had stated they are allowed to bring in an additional dredger – this needs to be checked. Currently the existing dredger collects sand from near Dover/Margate and makes a 30hour round trip with 3 loads completed so far. C. Mowlam, the other Fisheries Liaison Officer (FLO), is on the dredger as an observer. M. Golding stated there had been conflict over fishing gear and the wide corridors marked on the charts supplied. R. Stride who had also been in contact with the BCP understood the full extent of the corridors would not be used – this is not now the case. BCP have now stated there would be no compensation and the Contractor has been instructed to work through fishing gear. Although the work corridors have been changed the FLOs have not been given any new plans to advise the fishermen where the Contractor will be working. The sediment buoys which are supposed to monitor sand movement have, in the fishermen’s views, been incorrectly deployed and are unsuitable. One sediment Buoy was destroyed when deployed against advice. There has now been a complete breach of trust. Material could have been used from the Swash Channel but was said to be the wrong colour. Fishermen are at a loss to understand why this matters if there is an urgent coastal defence reason for the work. The beach is awash with sand which cannot be contained by the existing groynes. S. Pengelly confirmed that the SIFCA will be replying to the MMO request for views and are concerned for the nesting sea bream in the MCZ. R. Stride is keen to get video evidence from divers on Christchurch Ledge but it is understood this is very difficult as the lobsters and crabs live in the cracks, holes and sub-strata within the Ledge and it is these that it is believed are now full of sand denying the crustaceans a breeding ground. e) CRUISE SHIPS Members were concerned at the number of cruise ships anchoring on the South Coast and B. Pool reported serious problems and instances where one ship was asked to move and another came to the same spot. S. Pengelly was particularly concerned about the damage to the seabed in sensitive areas. It was thought there was a case to ask the MMO for emergency byelaws to stop the anchoring in certain areas.

The Chairman thanked everyone for attending and R. Irish for facilitating the meeting.

VIII ARRANGEMENTS FOR ZOOM meetings in 2021 ALL AT 7pm. 10th March, 12th May, 9th June, 11th August, 15th September, 17th November, 8th December.

Chairman