A Review to Consider the Threats to Marine Biodiversity

www.defra.gov.uk

Unlicensed Activities: A review to consider the threats to marine biodiversity

Building the evidence base for the Marine Bill

November 2006

Unlicensed Activities: A review to consider the threats to marine biodiversity

CRO354 Living Land and Seas Science Division

Suzanne Boyes, Daryl Burdon and Michael Elliott

Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies, University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX

Disclaimer: The content of this report does not necessarily reflect the views of Defra, nor is Defra liable for the accuracy of information provided, or responsible for any use of the reports content.

Executive Summary

A review of unlicensed activities has been undertaken and an assessment made as to whether any are likely to pose a threat to marine biodiversity in the UK. Unlicensed activities reviewed included: water-based activities; wildlife watching (ecotourism); diving; hovercraft usage; land-based activities; recreational fishing; bait digging/collection; unlicensed commercial fishing activities; military activities; unlicensed dredging; and education and research. Although land based unlicensed activities have the potential to affect marine biodiversity (e.g. unlicensed discharges), these were not considered in this report.

The likely risks of these unlicensed activities to marine biodiversity were identified generically and more specifically using case study evidence from territorial waters around England and Wales and UK offshore waters. Based on the documented and anecdotal evidence gathered through a consultation exercise (and expert opinion when no evidence was available), a matrix was produced which provided a systematic assessment of the unlicensed activities assessed by their spatial extent, timing of activity, scale and intensity. Activities of concern raised by the consultees were also considered within the analysis. This assessment, in addition to evidence on actual impacts from the literature, allowed the various unlicensed activities to be categorised into high, medium and low concern based on their impacts on marine biodiversity.

A general lack of reported evidence regarding the impacts of unlicensed activities was uncovered as part of this review, with very few specific studies having been undertaken to assess particular impacts on marine biodiversity. Case study evidence (from both literature and anecdotal sources) indicates that while some unlicensed activities are having a localised effect on a number of important habitats and species, there is no compelling evidence to suggest any of the activities are having an overall detrimental effect on UK marine biodiversity.

From the assessment of unlicensed activities occurring in UK marine waters: (i) motorised water-based recreation and anchoring of recreational craft; (ii) bait digging/collection; and (iii) other unlicensed commercial fishing activities were highlighted through the matrix, in literature, anecdotal evidence and by stakeholders as posing the greatest concern and potential impacts to marine biodiversity in the UK. While all unlicensed activities are known to occur around the UK, these three activities show a high intensity on either a local or regional scale, coinciding with sensitive times of the year for marine wildlife.

Motorised water-based recreation was identified as an activity of concern. The issues of noise, deliberate harassment or indirect disturbance of marine wildlife (e.g. cetaceans, seals and basking sharks) from motor boats and Personal Watercrafts (PWC) were raised. A second issue was associated with the impact to habitats and species as a result of mechanical disturbance from anchor chains (from both motorised and non-motorised vessels). Although there was some research and anecdotal evidence to support some of the concerns, this evidence tended to be site specific.

Bait digging/collection is known to occur on a regular basis throughout the year, and although this activity is undertaken on a local scale, it is known to be intense. Bait digging is regarded as a potentially damaging activity within UK SAC/SPAs, and has been the subject of a number of reviews, both on a site specific nature and at a UK scale. This activity has been shown to have a localised but direct impact on the species of interest, a potential indirect effect on associated intertidal communities, migrant and wintering waterfowl populations and may cause disturbance to seal populations during certain times of year. Research undertaken elsewhere has demonstrated that bait digging/collection and associated trampling can significantly reduce density, biomass and size of both the infauna and epifauna, alter particle size distribution and influence carbon content and microalgae abundance. Due to the nature of bait digging, i.e. it is undertaken throughout the year and is an intensive activity, it has the potential to pose a threat to marine biodiversity in UK coastal waters by causing disturbance and a reduction in food availability for over-wintering birds.

The public right to fish continues to be a significant issue and does not reflect the nature of modern fisheries and their impact on the marine environment. Although there are well documented studies on the impact of consented fisheries, the problems of unlicensed commercial fishing activities as a high impact activity has been based on anecdotal evidence and expert opinion. Issues of concern include the hand collection of shellfish, the growing potential for a UK sea bass fishery, crab tiling, and rock-hopper trawling from boats less than 11m in length, all of which at present do not require a licence. It is a common understanding that unlicensed commercial fishing activities are having a negative impact on marine biodiversity, however the potential issues raised within this report may require further investigation regarding their impact on marine biodiversity in the future.

To put the threat of activities into context, a comparison of risk to marine biodiversity from unlicensed activities and consented activities was attempted. Given that little research has been carried out to investigate low level, chronic and cumulative impacts of unlicensed activities, the report provides an informed opinion based on the available evidence and stakeholder views. The activity of fishing is still regarded by many as the single greatest threat to both inshore and offshore marine areas. Due to the variety of unlicensed activities occurring at different intensities around England and Wales, the key issue is not which groups of activities cause the greatest impact but rather the cumulative and combined impacts of all activities within a specific area. These will be dependent on location, scale, intensity and seasonality.

The mechanisms currently used to manage unlicensed activities, include codes of conduct, voluntary approaches and byelaws. Case study evidence from around the UK was gathered on the strengths and weaknesses of these mechanisms with alternative approaches to management highlighted.

Licensing was not necessarily considered appropriate or proportionate to the level of impact anticipated for the three unlicensed activities identified. It was found that using codes of conduct which are well defined and with local support may be the best way to ensure protection of the marine environment against most unlicensed activities. A voluntary code of conduct approach may be the most effective mechanism to manage a variety of recreational and other activities, however, in

areas of intense activity pressure or where stakeholders cannot agree on methods of control, codes of conduct could be underpinned by byelaws.

The following recommendations address the future management of the three unlicensed activities identified as posing the greatest risk to marine biodiversity within this report.

Motorised Water-based Recreation and Boat Anchoring Evidence suggests that codes of conduct work effectively for water-based activities, especially those championed through national bodies such as the Royal Yachting Association and the British Marine Federation. Further promotion of codes of conduct should be encouraged at launch sites, popular beaches and estuaries to disseminate good practice to the ad hoc user. In high intensity areas, codes of conduct could be given further support/prominence by byelaws. Although voluntary ‘no anchor zones’ have had limited success, compliance could be ensured through byelaw support and enforcement considerations. Awareness raising and education should also not be underestimated in terms of the role it plays in ensuring the success of such schemes.

Bait Digging/Collection Although codes of conduct have been established for bait digging/collection around the UK, these have had limited success due to the ‘unaffiliated’ nature of anglers to a governing body and the commercial nature of the activity. Byelaws may be an effective mechanism to manage this activity in sensitive environments but must be locally focussed and flexible to deal with changing circumstances. It was considered that the mechanism to establish byelaws needs to be updated to allow the process to be faster and sufficiently flexible to deal with situations as they arise. Various systems, e.g. temporal, effort control should be considered as part of controlling this activity.

Unlicensed Commercial Fishing Activities Some control over the public right to fish should be considered if appropriate management controls are to be applied to intertidal fisheries. It is recommended that all currently unlicensed commercial fisheries come under a licensing regime, which would include all shore-based fishing activities. These include the capture of fish from the shore by, for example, angling, staked nets, rod and line, hand gathering of shellfish or mechanical dredging and gathering of shellfish under the public right for own consumption does not require any permit or licence and are therefore all unlicensed. The money derived from the licences could then be used to ensure better enforcement measures. The use of Several Orders should be more widely applied to manage intertidal shellfisheries and provide greater environmental protection. In the context of marine spatial planning, a system of open access, permit areas and closed areas should be included to manage all fishing activities.

iii

Contents

Executive Summary i

Chapter 1 - Introduction 1

1.1 Project Background 1 1.2 Aims and Objectives 2 1.3 Scope 2 1.4 Report Structure 3

Chapter 2 - Approach Adopted 4

2.1 Literature Review 4 2.2 Consultations 4 2.2.1 Defra Marine Bill Consultation 4 2.2.2 IECS Consultation and Questionnaire 5 2.2.3 Stakeholder Workshop 5 2.3 Prioritisation / Assessment 5

Chapter 3 - Identification of Activities 7

3.1 Unlicensed Activities 7 3.1.1 Recreation - General 7 3.1.2 Water-based Activities 7 3.1.3 Wildlife Watching (Ecotourism) 8 3.1.4 Diving 9 3.1.5 Hovercraft 9 3.1.6 Land-based Activities 9 3.1.7 Bait Digging / Collection 10 3.1.8 Sea Angling 10 3.1.9 Unlicensed Commercial Fishing Activities 10 3.1.10 Military Activities (Low Frequency Sonar (LFS) & Explosives Testing) 11 3.1.11 Dredging Activities 11 3.1.12 Education and Research Activities 11 3.1.13 Other Unlicensed Activities 12 3.2 Licensed / Consented Activities 13

Chapter 4 - Identification of Impacts on Marine Biodiversity 14

4.1 Evidence Base for the Impacts of Unlicensed Activities 14 4.2 Activities of Concern 17 4.3 Summary 19

Chapter 5 - Consented vs Unlicensed Activities 20

5.1 Assessment 20

Chapter 6 - Current Management Mechanisms for Unlicensed Activities 24

6.1 Summary of Sectoral Codes of Conduct 24 6.1.1 Water-based Activities 24 6.1.2 Wildlife Watching (Ecotourism) 25 6.1.3 Diving 26 6.1.4 Hovercraft 26 6.1.5 Land-based Activities 26 6.1.6 Sea Angling 26 6.1.7 Bait Digging / Collection & Unlicensed Commercial Fishing Activities 27 6.1.8 Military Activities (Low Frequency Sonar (LFS) & Explosives Testing) 27 6.1.9 Dredging Activities 27 6.1.10 Education and Research Activities 28 6.2 Voluntary Approaches 28 6.3 Advisory Groups / Coastal Fora 28 6.4 Byelaws 28

Chapter 7 - Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 29

7.1 General 29 7.2 Voluntary Initiatives 29 7.3 Codes of Conduct 30 7.4 Coastal Fora & Partnerships 31 7.5 Byelaws 32

Chapter 8 - Alternative Management Approaches 34

8.1 Further Promotion of Codes of Conduct 34 8.2 Marine Wildlife Watching Code 34 8.3 Biodiversity Stop Orders (BSOs) 35 8.4 Licensing / Registration Schemes 35 8.5 Byelaws 35 8.5.1 Further Byelaw Making Powers 35 8.5.2 Fisheries Mechanisms 36

Chapter 9 - Conclusions 37

References 40

Acronyms 51

Annexes Annex 1 Identification of Impacts 53 Annex 2 Evidence Base for Disturbance 55 Annex 3 Examples of General Management Mechanisms 71 Annex 4 Evaluation of Management Mechanisms 82 Annex 5 Key Contacts for Consultation 86 Annex 6 Unlicensed Activities Consultation 87

List of Tables

Table 1 Types of unlicensed activities and examples of the disturbance caused Table 2 Matrix of spatial extent, timing, scale and intensity of each unlicensed activity and summary of evidence base Table 3 Prioritisation of unlicensed activities based on available evidence Table 4 Environmental pressures of maritime licensed / consented activities Table 5 Environmental pressures of maritime unlicensed activities Table 6a Strengths and Weaknesses - Voluntary Initiatives Table 6b Strengths and Weaknesses - Codes of Conduct Table 6c Strengths and Weaknesses - Coastal Fora and Partnerships Table 6d Strengths and Weaknesses - Byelaws

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 Project Background

1.1 The UK Government is committed to introducing a Marine Bill to help to deliver the vision of ‘clean, healthy, safe, productive & biologically diverse oceans and seas’. The UK Government is currently developing policy in a range of areas that will lead to new legislation in the marine environment. The drafting of a Marine Bill offers an opportunity to introduce marine nature conservation provisions (if deemed appropriate) for improved protection for marine biodiversity.

1.2 The success of the proposed Marine Bill may require some changes to the present administrative and legislative system. Any changes will need to be made against a sound and reliable evidence base. A broad spectrum of activities currently take place in the marine environment ranging from recreational to commercial extraction operations. Most commercial activities in the marine environment are regulated via existing management regimes through the issue of consents and licenses and the completion of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs1). However, some activities are not formally consented including (but are not limited to) some forms of fishing, eco-tourism and a diverse range of recreational and leisure activities.

1.3 In Defra’s Marine Bill consultation exercise (Defra, 2006) the case for the control of unlicensed activities (which pose a threat to marine biodiversity) was considered together with what regulatory (or non-regulatory) approaches should be used (see Section 10 of the consultation document). In particular, questions proposed in the consultation document pertained to the potential introduction of byelaw-making powers and what alternative regulatory approaches are available to control these impacts.

1.4 To assist in building the evidence base for the need for new policy in the marine environment, Defra commissioned the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies (IECS) at the University of Hull to conduct the review on unlicensed activities (Research Contract CRO354). The scope of this work was to review unlicensed activities which were likely to have an impact on marine nature conservation, and to assess the risk such activities pose to marine biodiversity. A complimentary research report on marine species protection has also been addressed by Hemingway et al. (2006) under the same research contract.

1.5 The purpose of this assessment was to determine whether (and if so what) unlicensed activities are currently likely to threaten or impact on the health and status of marine biodiversity in UK waters.

1 A list of all acronyms used in this report is provided on pages 50-51.

1.2 Aims and Objectives

1.6 This research aimed to review current and potential unlicensed activities which are likely to have an impact on marine nature conservation and assess the risk such activities pose to marine biodiversity2 and to present its findings in a scientifically robust manner.

1.7 The key objectives were to:

i. undertake a review of unlicensed activities likely to affect marine nature conservation currently occurring/planned/likely to occur in the future of the marine environment;

ii. assess the likely risk the unlicensed activities identified pose to the health and status of the marine biodiversity (species, habitats and/or ecosystem structure and functioning);

iii. provide a considered response to the threats posed by unlicensed activities in relation to consented activities;

iv. provide case studies on mechanisms currently used to manage unlicensed activities and their success and shortcomings.

1.8 Using case studies and discussions with stakeholders, an evidence base was collated to demonstrate whether any unlicensed activities pose a risk to marine biodiversity. This information was used to assess whether there is a case for legislative provisions for any unlicensed activities in the UK, or if adequate protection could be secured via alternative and innovative non-regulatory compliance mechanisms.

1.9 This report presents the key findings from the review in a form considered accessible to marine policy makers, managers, stakeholders and the wider public.

1.3 Scope

1.10 The geographical scope of the project relates both to territorial waters around England and Wales and to UK offshore waters. Territorial waters of Scotland are outside the scope of this report.

1.11 The overall project scope was to provide an additional evidence base for the finalisation of the drafting of the Marine Bill and whether unlicensed activities do pose a significant risk to marine biodiversity. This document forms part of a series of reports commissioned by Defra to assess whether further legislative provisions are required within the Marine Bill to improve marine nature conservation delivery.

2 Marine biodiversity is regarded here as relating to habitats and species and marine ecosystem structure and functioning.

1.12 Significant disturbance is described as the impacts of an activity, which affect the viability of a species or habitat and/or impair its functioning. Significance depends on the sensitivity, resilience and recoverability of the area, habitats and species, in addition to the intensity, frequency, seasonality and extent of the activity. Therefore the focus here is not on threats to individual species.

1.13 Unlicensed activities occurring from land based sources which have the potential to impact on marine biodiversity (e.g. unlicensed discharge consents) are not considered within the confines of this report, but should be considered under the implementation of the Water Framework Directive.

1.4 Report Structure

1.14 The report is structured firstly to review the types of unlicensed activities and provide a brief overview of licensed activities occurring in the marine environment; secondly to provide evidence of the threats to marine biodiversity; thirdly to put the risk posed by unlicensed activities into context with licensed activities; fourthly to consider how they are currently managed and their effectiveness; and finally to provide an assessment as to whether there are any unlicensed activities requiring regulation or whether voluntary measures could be effective. Case study evidence is provided in the Annexes.

Chapter 2. Approach Adopted

2.1 Literature Review

2.1 An extensive literature search was undertaken of published, ‘grey’ and web- based literature on unlicensed activities affecting marine nature conservation currently occurring, planned and/or likely to occur in the future. This allowed a list of unlicensed activities together with their temporal and spatial extent to be identified from which key representative case studies could be further investigated through consultation to derive the evidence base.

2.2 Evidence of disturbance to marine diversity from unlicensed activities was derived from literature and targeted stakeholder consultation. Evidence to allow a relative comparison of unlicensed to consented activities was derived from the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN) environmental factors matrices (MarLIN, 2006a). These matrices consider the sensitivity (i.e. intolerance and recoverability potential) of species and habitats (and subsequently biotopes) to a variety of environmental factors and how they can be linked to human activities.

2.3 Good practice guides and codes of conduct compiled by stakeholder groups and promoted through recreational and sporting organisations, information boards and websites have also been evaluated to give the evidence base for this report.

2.4 Due to the large number of currently unlicensed activities identified in UK waters, the activities have been classified into 12 general categories.

2.2 Consultations

2.2.1 Defra Marine Bill Consultation

2.5 Copies of the responses to questions 69 to 73 on unlicensed activities and their management were provided by Defra:

Q69. Do you consider that unlicensed activities currently threaten the conservation of marine ecosystems and biodiversity? If so which activities are of most concern and why? Q70. What are your views on the introduction of byelaw-making powers for the control of unlicensed activities? Q71. Are there alternative regulatory approaches to the control of such activities that we should consider? Q72. Should any powers to control unlicensed activities be related to marine protected areas, or capable of wider application? Q73. What do you think are the most important improvements that the Government could make to the prevention of marine nature conservation offences and the enforcement of relevant legislation?

2.6 Responses were received from stakeholders representing industry, government, non-governmental organisations, recreational organisations and individuals. These initial responses were used as a focus for this present research and contacts were used to follow up key areas of interest.

2.2.2 IECS Consultation & Questionnaire

2.7 Whilst the responses to the Defra Marine Bill consultation paper provided useful information as a basis for the overall project, further consultation with key practitioners, non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders was required to identify actual case studies of unlicensed activities, their impacts on marine biodiversity and their current management. Comments made in the Marine Bill Consultation exercise were also followed up.

2.8 A consultation document was developed and circulated to a number of key contacts identified by both Defra and IECS. A table was provided on the generic impacts of different types of unlicensed activities on marine biodiversity, with subsequent questions requesting case study evidence (references, reports, studies, and/or anecdotal etc) of significant impacts of unlicensed activities on marine biodiversity, any current management mechanisms (e.g. codes of conduct, best management practices, non- statutory (‘non-legally binding’) and regulatory measures) and their effectiveness. Finally, consultees were asked to give an informed opinion on the relative threats posed by unlicensed activities in relation to licensed/consented activities. 39 responses were received from the consultation documents.

2.9 Reponses from both the Defra consultation and IECS questionnaire were collated, evaluated and used to inform the findings presented in this report. The organisations contacted are listed in Annex 5 with the consultation questions provided in Annex 6.

2.2.3 Stakeholder Workshop

2.10 A stakeholder meeting was held in London on 14th September 2006 to discuss the adopted approach, the case study evidence of impacts and the potential mechanisms to manage unlicensed activities. A number of key practitioners from statutory conservation agencies, relevant authorities and stakeholder groups were invited to participate to discuss the initial findings and discuss the gaps in knowledge in further detail. Workshop attendees are also listed in Annex 5.

2.3 Prioritisation / Assessment

2.11 Based on the documented and anecdotal evidence gathered (and expert opinion when no evidence was available), a matrix was produced which provided a systematic assessment of the unlicensed activities assessed by their:

• spatial extent - occurring in the fringe area (saltmarsh and dunes), intertidal area, territorial waters or offshore area; • timing of activity throughout the year - intermittent or constant within a short term or long term timeframe; • scale – as all activities are carried out on a national scale an assessment was made as to whether the activity was predominantly on a localised basis (e.g. mudflat or beach) or a regional basis (e.g. estuary or coastline) within the national context; • intensity - ranging from sparse activity (low effort and/or small number of participants) to dense activity (high effort and/or large number of participants).

This assessment, in addition to evidence on actual impacts from the literature, allowed the various unlicensed activities to be categorised into high, medium and low risk impacts on marine biodiversity.

2.12 As little research has been carried out to investigate the low level, chronic but wide-spread impacts of unlicensed activities versus the well monitored impacts of consented activities, an informed opinion based on the evidence, expert opinion and stakeholder views is presented.

2.13 As no current guidance or evaluating criteria could be found on the assessment of success or failure of environmental codes of practice, the management initiatives were assessed by reported success in the literature and through the consultation exercise.

Chapter 3. Identification of Activities

3.1 Unlicensed Activities

3.1 There has been much discussion and consultation regarding the anthropogenic impacts on the marine environment, which has included unlicensed or unregulated activities. It is necessary to first define unlicensed and unregulated. An activity could be unlicensed, i.e. it has not been given a licence under a relevant piece of legislation, but it may still be regulated by another form of control e.g. byelaw or international agreement.

3.1.1 Recreation - General

3.2 It has been reported that in recent years there has been a large increase in the number, intensity and variety of recreational activities at the coast and while some areas have the resources available to absorb growth without any increased risk to the environment or other users, most activities will require some form of management (Defra, 2004a). Over a hundred recreational activities take place at the coast ranging from walking to power boating and including new activities such as hoverpods and kite surfing. Land-based activities include bird watching and kite boarding, whilst water-based pursuits include personal watercraft (PWC), motor-boating and wildlife watching (i.e. whales, seals etc). Many activities are supported through clubs and the membership of formal organisations. However, many of the activities are informal and hard to quantify, with ad hoc users of the coast being unaware of the damage they may be causing to marine biodiversity.

3.1.2 Water-based Activities

3.3 The demand for water-based recreation in ecologically sensitive coastal areas has long been recognised as a potential source of conflict (see Gubbay & Welton, 1995; Burger, 1998; Sorensen, 1997). Unlicensed water-based activities include motor-boating, water skiing and jet-skiing, all of which are extremely popular along the UK coast. In September 2005, the British Marine Federation with MCA, RNLI and the RYA conducted a survey of 12,000 people in the general population. This established that the UK watersport3 participation figure is up to 3.5 million people (BMF et al., 2005). It was also found that approximately 451,000 leisure craft (over 2.5m in length) are kept in the UK and 90,000 UK-owned boats are kept abroad. The number of foreign- owned boats kept in the UK is estimated at c.16,000 (source: BMF 2004 data). Up to 70% of recreational boating occurs on the south coast of England. The greatest amount of recreational water skiing takes place along the coast with water ski racing in the UK held either in offshore waters, for example Weymouth and Lyme Regis on the South coast or in estuarial waters at All- hallows in Kent and Dunoon in Scotland (British Water Ski, 2004).

3 In the context of the survey, watersport includes Small sail boat racing, Small sail boat activities, Yacht racing, Yacht cruising, Power boating, Motor boating/Cruising, Personal Watercraft, Rowing, Canoeing, Water skiing and Windsurfing

3.4 Small motorboats and PWC are highly manoeuvrable and can attain great speeds thus contributing to potential damage. The ownership of PWC in the UK is currently estimated at around 17,000 (UK CEED, 2000). However, it is difficult to provide accurate estimates of numbers of participants of jet-skiing around the coast of the UK as few participants are members of established clubs (Hughes & Andrews, 1996) and participants are generally “outsiders” to local communities (Nichols, 1999). PWC users in the UK are subject to few controls, with no registration scheme and no proficiency requirement needed nationally (Anderson & Johnson, 1998).

3.5 Non-motorised water sports, such as sea canoeing, yachting, dinghy sailing, surfing, snorkelling, swimming, windsurfing and kite surfing are all popular and currently unlicensed. In 1990, there were 10,000 regular surfers and an equivalent number of seasonal surfers, a 69% increase since 1980 (Fowler, 1992); consequently, it is likely that this level of participation is now a large underestimate. Snorkelling and swimming are largely informal activities and participation rates are unquantifiable, although in 2005 under the EC Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC), England and Wales had 494 designated bathing waters at which bathing is traditionally practised.

3.1.3 Wildlife Watching (Ecotourism)

3.6 Whale watching4 activities occur in various locations around the English coast, such as the Farne Islands in Northumberland but the majority are concentrated along the coast of southwest England (Cornwall, Devon and Dorset). Whale watching activities in Wales occur in Cardigan Bay, Pembrokeshire and off the Llŷn peninsula, where bottlenose dolphins, harbour porpoises and Risso’s dolphins are the primary species (Defra, 2006). Accessible colonies of seals along the UK coast are also coming under increasing pressure from visitors (UK CEED, 2000); for example the easily accessible Grey Seal breeding colony at Donna Nook, Lincolnshire annually attracts several thousand visitors during the period mid October to end December.

3.7 Until recently the main legislation for the protection and conservation of species in the UK was the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, which transpose the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and affords protection to several animal groups, including cetaceans. All cetaceans are listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and Annex IV(a) of the Habitats Directive and, therefore, receive the full range of protective measures offered. In addition, the bottlenose dolphin and the harbour porpoise are listed on Annex II of the Habitats Directive and so are eligible for the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). While this legislative framework will protect such interest features from plans or projects which are likely to threaten the designated species and habitats, it does not address the more subtle and

4 The term “whale watching” is used to denote a wide range of activities involving human interaction with various species of whales, dolphins, and porpoises, collectively known as cetaceans.

ubiquitous pressures associated with the unlicensed activity of wildlife watching, whether as dedicated commercial activities or associated with general outdoor leisure activities (Hambrey Consulting, 2005).

3.8 Bird watching is a popular recreational activity around the UK coastline, with membership of the RSPB exceeding 1 million. Almost three million adults go bird watching every year in the UK (Target Group Index, BMRB International 2004) especially to the many estuary, firth, bay and sea loch SPA and Ramsar sites which support internationally recognised concentrations of seaduck, geese and shorebirds over winter.

3.1.4 Diving

3.9 There are approximately 120,000 active scuba divers in the UK with 52,247 members affiliated to the British Sub-Aqua Club (BSAC) and 51,700 members associated to the Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI) (House of Commons Environment Committee (1994); UK CEED (2000)). Although this activity contains self-regulation through training of members associated with clubs or national bodies, once the participant has gained the level of ‘sport diver’ there can be a move away from clubs to more informal participation. Diving occurs all around the UK coast with popular areas along the Pembrokeshire, Northumberland and Devon coastlines.

3.1.5 Hovercraft

3.10 No official licence is required at present under UK law to own a hovercraft and providing that there are no local byelaws or statutes prohibiting their use, they can be used in rivers and estuaries and on the open coast, where they are capable of crossing deep water, shallow water, beaches and mudflats. Hovercraft races are organised at coastal locations e.g. Morecambe Bay, The Wash, Severn estuary and Medway, although these are generally small meetings and permission is obtained from the appropriate authorities (e.g. harbour authority, local council).

3.1.6 Land-based Activities

3.11 Many land-based motorised recreational activities are unlicensed and occur along the entire UK coastline, including off-roading with 4x4s and quad biking. Over the last five years, quad bikes have increasingly been used for recreation and predominantly on dunes and sandy shores.

3.12 Examples of unlicensed non-motorised activities which potentially threaten marine biodiversity include beach activities, walking, wildfowling, dog walking, horse riding, cycling, climbing and land yachting. Coasteering is becoming an increasingly popular recreational activity off the St David’s area of the Pembrokeshire Marine SAC and along the Cornish coastline. Most participants in all of these activities are unlikely to be associated with local clubs and/or national representative organisations and so will be both unmanaged and unregulated.

3.1.7 Bait Digging / Collection

3.13 The public right to collect bait is ancillary to the right to fish in intertidal waters and is limited to personal use only. Collection is not licensed by fisheries legislation or by any other statute although some bait digging has been regulated through byelaws, particularly when occurring within a SAC. Bait collection for sea angling occurs in many coastal areas especially estuaries, although some locations are more plentiful for bait species than others and may attract commercial collectors. Different bait species are targeted according to the species of fish being caught as well as the location and time of the year. The main collecting techniques are digging, boulder turning and bait dragging (the latter is undertaken from a boat). Bait digging, especially for lugworms, is carried out at low tide over the lower part of muddy and sandy shores (Fowler, 1999). Peeler crabs (those undergoing shell replacement) are popular bait in the UK and are collected from beneath boulders in the low shore area of rocky coasts.

3.1.8 Sea Angling

3.14 The definition of marine recreational fishing is much broader than the popular but somewhat misleading synonym of ‘sea angling’ would suggest. It ranges from beachcasting and inshore angling from boats within 5km of the shore, to deep sea fishing, the use of long lines and nets to diving with spear guns. All fall within the definition of recreational fishing, the essential feature of which is that no part of the catch is offered for sale (Symes & Boyes, 2005). Angling is a popular sport with an estimated 3-4 million anglers in Britain and the governing body in England, the National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA), has approximately 570 affiliated clubs with some 33,000 individual members (Drew Associates, 2004). The scale of sea angling in the south west of England is extensive and is widespread. 240,900 residents of the south west go sea angling and visitors spend 750,000 days sea angling in the region (Nautilus, 2005). At present, there have been no calls to restrict and regulate the activities of fishermen, anglers and bait collectors on the shore (NESFC, 2006).

3.1.9 Unlicensed Commercial Fishing Activities

3.15 Although most fishing activities are regulated and licensed under various legislation, some activities are still unlicensed or are permissible by gaps in the current legislation and are considered by many to pose a significant threat to marine biodiversity features. All commercial fishing from a boat, including beam trawling and clam dredging, must be licensed by a Government fishing licence required for the boat (not the individual). It is illegal to sell fish of any sort caught from an unlicensed vessel but recreational fishing from a boat is unlicensed. There has been considerable debate over whether commercial fishing can be categorised as an unlicensed activity, particularly in relation to the management of fishing activities in SACs. However, for the purposes of this report, all fishing which is licensed (as above) is regarded as a licensed activity even if effort is not restricted.

3.16 In contrast, the capture of fish and shellfish from the shore by, for example, angling and bait collection (as discussed in 3.1.7), staked nets, rod and line, hand gathering of shellfish or mechanical dredging and gathering of shellfish under the public right for own consumption does not require any permit or licence and are therefore all unlicensed. Some of these activities such as netting are relatively well regulated by means of SFC byelaws, authorisations and permits. In areas subject to fishery orders, intertidal shellfish harvesting is licensed under the order and therefore better regulated (C. Eno, CCW; S. Atkins, NWNWSFC pers. comm., 2006).

3.17 Other unlicensed activities include seaweed harvesting (for lava bread) and placing of fisheries structures on the seabed (e.g. trestles for aquaculture, tiles for crab collection and tyres for ragworms). The placing of fisheries structures on the seabed is exempt from Food and Environment Protection Act (FEPA) and Coast Protection Act (CPA) licences.

3.1.10 Military Activities (Low Frequency Sonar (LFS) & Explosives Testing)

3.18 Low frequency sonar (LFS) systems are used to detect and track foreign submarines and the high levels of sound from a single LFS system can be detected over large distances. These military sonars have been tested by the British navy in UK waters in recent years (WDCS, 2006). These systems send out medium and low-frequency impulses known as “Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low-frequency Active Sonar (LFAS)” which have a noise level in excess of 200 dB. Underwater explosives and depth charge testing are also unregulated.

3.1.11 Dredging Activities

3.19 The majority of dredging activities are licensed under FEPA, however, this licensing does not cover all dredging activities. For example, Water injection dredging ‘jetsed’ (WID) is a relatively new method of dredging which operates by injecting water into certain fine-grained sea bed materials, reducing their density to the point where they act as a fluid and flow over the bed through the action of gravity to lower levels. At present this practice is exempt from FEPA licensing, as the sediments are not raised from the surface of the water and therefore, in theory, no disposal occurs, as concentrated relocation takes place (ABP Research, 1999). However, this situation is now subject to review. Sea bed levelling and agitation dredging are also exempt from FEPA. There is also concern for the pre-dredging activities required for cable laying. Whilst it is necessary to have a FEPA licence to dump the dredged material, it is not necessary to have a licence to undertake the pre-dredging activity (JNCC pers. comm. 2006). A further exemption from FEPA occurs where dredged material is sold on after the dredging activity and not disposed at sea.

3.1.12 Education and Research Activities

3.20 Scientific research and study within the marine environment is allowed within all areas, although permits may be required in order to work safely on heritage grounds (e.g. English Heritage to dive on wrecks). Permits are needed for

research which has the potential to interfere with or is specifically looking at the effects of an activity on a designated habitat or species (e.g. a dispensation order is required for the taking of undersized fish). Ecological sampling which affects fish nursery areas also requires permission from SFCs under byelaws.

3.1.13 Other Unlicensed Activities

3.21 Microlights and other light aircraft have been identified in various areas of the UK as causing a disturbance to marine wildlife, in particular birds. Impacts include disturbance to feeding and roosting birds. This unlicensed activity is carried out either for recreational purpose or because the aircraft is used as a platform to film, photograph or view wildlife. Low flying aircraft and microlights have been reported in the Stour-Orwell SPA (Ravenscroft, 2005) and the Medway and Swale SPA (A. Smith, RSPB pers. comm., 2006).

3.22 Under the Offshore Petroleum (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001 it is necessary for the oil and gas industry to apply for consent (PON 14) from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to undertake seismic surveys on the UKCS (United Kingdom Continental Shelf). However, as these regulations only apply outside territorial waters (i.e. waters beyond 12 nm), no consent regime exists for seismic surveys within territorial waters. As oil and gas activities mainly occur outside territorial waters this has not caused concern until the last few licensing rounds where several areas closer to shore have been licensed. It is usual for JNCC to advise the DTI that the JNCC Guidelines for minimising disturbance to marine mammals should be followed (JNCC, 2004). These guidelines stipulate the need for Marine Mammal Observers, Passive Acoustic Monitoring in some instances and the use of a soft start (where airgun firing is built up slowly over a period of at least 20 minutes). These guidelines are mitigation measures and are aimed at minimising disturbance, not completely removing it. So far, seismic survey operators within territorial waters have been content to follow the JNCC guidelines and alter operations according to advice from the DTI and statutory nature conservation agencies however, there is always the potential that this will not be the case in the future. To this end, the DTI, Defra and the Scottish Executive have been discussing ways to set in place a consent regime within territorial waters (JNCC, pers comm. 2006). Therefore, this unlicensed activity is not addressed again within this review.

3.23 Unlicensed discharges derived from land based activities may also have the potential to impact marine biodiversity. Examples include The Highways Agency whom is exempt from the requirements for a discharge consent under the Water Resource Act. Such discharges therefore have the potential to introduce changes to environmental conditions with the introduction of freshwater and compounds from road surface runoff. If there is concern over a particular discharge, notice could be served by the regulator to require the discharger to apply for a consent or comply with set conditions, however, most discharges are not consented.

3.2 Licensed / Consented Activities

3.23 Licensed activities such as aggregate extraction, archaeology (protected wrecks), dredging and dredge disposal, military activities, nature conservation, oil and gas exploration, ports and harbours, recreation, sea fisheries, shipping, submarine cables and pipelines, and wind farm developments and the national legislative controls and local byelaws which regulate these activities, are examined in Boyes et al. (2005).

Chapter 4. Identification of Impacts on Marine Biodiversity

4.1 The impact of human activities on the critical marine processes have the potential to affect marine biodiversity depending on the frequency, timing and duration, scale etc of the activity (see for example Elliott et al., 2006). In general, the effects of human activities on marine biodiversity can be separated into three types: Type 1 - an introduction or increase of energy or materials into the system (all forms of pollution - chemicals, noise, heat, light, litter, organisms such as microbes, parasites and introduced species); Type 2 - the temporary or permanent removal of habitats (air space, water column and seabed); and Type 3 - the removal and/or harassment of target or non- target species. Further details on these forms of disturbance are provided in Annex 1. A summary of the unlicensed activities identified in Chapter 3 and the generic disturbance/perceived problems that they cause are shown in Table 1.

4.1 Evidence Base for the Impacts of Unlicensed Activities

4.2 A matrix was created from the evidence gathered during the review and consultation process (Table 2) and illustrates the spatial extent, duration, scale (local to regional) and intensity (effort) of each unlicensed activity (or group of activities). A ranking system was established for each criterion which allowed a comparison between the various unlicensed activities to be made. An explanation of the ranking for each criterion is provided in a footnote below Table 2.

4.3 Case study evidence on the likely impacts of these activities to the health and status of marine biodiversity in the UK, including both documented and anecdotal evidence, was collected for each of the unlicensed activities highlighted in Chapter 3. The evidence has primarily been drawn from English and Welsh examples and is presented in Annex 25. When this case study evidence is used in conjunction with the ranking criteria as discussed above, an indication of the potential threat of each activity to marine biodiversity in UK waters can be made. Based on the assessment shown in Table 2, this report only considers further those activities which are known/perceived to pose the greatest risk to marine biodiversity.

5 Although this report relates to ‘significant disturbance’, it is recognised that a few case studies presented in Annex 2 relate to individual disturbance events, with little indication of the long term impacts on the population viability.

Unlicensed activity Disturbance

Water-based recreation - Motorised activities • engine emissions (for motorised activities, including oils and sound); • antifouling paint leaching; Table 1TypesofUnlicensedActivitiesandexamplesthedisturbancecaused include: motor-boating, water skiing, jet-skiing, • sewage and other waste discharges; • disturbance/harassment of species; • erosion and turbidity; motor-towed inflatable etc. Non-motorised • direct physical impact – anchor and propeller damage; • proximity to roosting and feeding sites; • light activities include: sailing, dinghy sailing, disturbance; • littering canoeing, surfing, swimming, snorkelling etc. Wildlife watching • disturbance / harassment; • noise; • frequency of visits; • habitat disturbance e.g. birds, cetaceans, seals, turtles Diving • damage to biogenic reefs and physical reef structures; • flash photography (light disturbance) • substratum disturbance; • engine and noise emissions; • disturbance/harassment/removal of species; • erosion and turbidity; • direct physical impact – anchor and propeller damage Hovercraft • noise; • habitat disturbance; • engine emissions Land-based recreation - Motorised activities • littering, sewage and other waste discharges; • disturbance/harassment of species – birds, cetaceans and include: off-roading, quad biking, tractors etc. mammals; • noise emissions; • habitat damage; • engine emissions; • light; • direct physical impact – tyre Non-motorised activities include: beach activities, damage, erosion, trampling dog walking, horse riding, kite flying, land yachting etc Bait collection • trampling; • boulder turning; • removal of species; • disturbance to the marine community (habitats and species) structure in high impact areas; • removal of non-target species Sea Angling • trampling; • disturbance to the marine community structure in high impact areas; • littering; • damage to biogenic reefs, physical reef structures, sessile marine life such as anemones, sea fans, hard and soft corals etc by snagging with lines, hooks and weights; • injury and damage and subsequent risk of snagging of target fish species following parting of line during capture; • snagging and entanglement of mobile species (crustacean, fish) from lost or discarded equipment; • anchor damage Unlicensed Commercial Fishing Activities - • trampling; • disturbance to the marine community structure in high impact areas; • littering; • damage to placing fisheries structures on the seabed (e.g. biogenic reefs, physical reef structures, sessile marine life such as anemones, sea fans, hard and soft corals trestles for aquaculture) as exempt from FEPA; etc by snagging with lines, hooks and weights; • removal of non-target species • removal of marine clam dredging - uncontrolled in some areas organisms; • creation of infrastructure such as landing stages and slip ways Military activity • noise; • beaching of cetaceans; • physiological and behavioural responses (e.g. fish swim-bladder damage) (low frequency sonar & explosives testing) Unlicensed dredging activities • sediment disturbance; • release of contaminated sediments; • damage to seabed and associated species; • temporary removal of habitat Education and research activities • noise; • sediment disturbance; • trampling; • boulder turning; • disturbance to the marine community (habitats and species) structure in high impact areas; • removal of species; • engine emissions; • light Other Activities e.g. Low Flying Aircraft • noise; • specific disturbance to birds

Table 2 Matrix of spatial extent, timing, scale and intensity of each unlicensed activity and summary of evidence base

Spatial Evidence Base l y a l ed it e al s r ore nt o id Unlicensed Activities e dota h mpor nge ten Scale c i Key Case Studies fs tert In Te Fr cum n Of I o Ane Nearsh D

Motorised water-based Case Study 2.1 (Disturbance to seal colonies from water-based recreation (motor boats & 333 10+ 5 activities), Case Study 2.2 (Disturbance to cetaceans from water- PWC) based activities) Non-motorised water-based Case Study 2.1 (Disturbance to seal colonies from water-based 333 3+ 1 recreation (canoes, yacht etc) activities) Case Study 2.3 (Impact of anchoring small craft on Zostera Boats - anchors 333 34beds), Case Study 2.4 (Impact of anchoring small craft on fanshells) Other water-based recreation Case Study 2.1 (Disturbance to seal colonies from water-based (e.g. swimming, kite surfing 33 10 activities) etc) Case Study 2.5 (Disturbance to seals from wildlife watching), Wildlife watching 3333 63Case Study 2.6 (Disturbance to cetaceans from wildlife watching), Case Study 2.7 (The Dolphin Space Programme)

Diving 333 01

Hovercraft 333 12

Case Study 2.8 (Impact of recreational disturbance to waterfowl roosts), Case Study 2.9 (Human disturbance to seal Land-based recreation 33 83populations), Case Study 2.10 (Coasteering, Pembrokeshire Marine SAC), Case Study 2.11 (Access and disturbance from recreational activities in the Solway Firth)

Case Study 2.12 (Impacts of boulder turning for bait collection), Case Study 2.13 (Disturbance to seals from bait digging Bait collection 33 22+ 5 activities), Case Study 2.14 (Disturbance to waterfowl from bait digging activities)

Sea Angling 333 12

Unlicensed commercial fishing 333 5+ 10 activities Military activities (LFS & 33 21 explosives testing)

Unlicensed dredging activities 33 34

Education and research 3333 00 activities Case Study 2.15 (Impacts of low flying aircraft on estuarine Low Flying Aircraft 3333 13 wildlife)

Temporal Intermittent Short-term - occurs sporadically over a short period of time (e.g. seasonally) Constant Short-term - occurs on a regular basis within a short period of time (e.g. seasonally) Intermittent Long-term - occurs sporadically but throughout the year Constant Long-term - occurs on a regular basis throughout the year

Scale - (It is recognised that all activities occur at a national level, however some occur on a local level whilst others occur on a regional level) Local (occurring only on a local level e.g. mudflat or beach) Regional (occurring on a wider level e.g. coastline or estuary)

Intensity Sparse activity (low effort and/or small number of participants) Moderate activity (medium effort/or average number of participants) Dense activity (high effort and/or large number of participants)

4.2 Activities of Concern

4.4 Using the results of the assessment, the unlicensed activities were prioritised as being of high, medium or low concern, with the results presented in Table 3. The risk matrix indicated three unlicensed activities to be potentially causing a threat to marine biodiversity: (i) motorised water-based recreation and any anchoring recreational craft6; (ii) bait digging/collection; and (iii) other unlicensed commercial fishing activities and were prioritised as high concern.

Table 3 Prioritisation of unlicensed activities based on available evidence

High Concern Medium Concern Low Concern Bait digging/collection Unlicensed dredging Diving activities Motorised water-based Wildlife watching Military activities recreation (ecotourism) (LFS & explosives testing) Unlicensed commercial Non-motorised water-based Hovercraft fishing activities recreation Land-based recreation Education and research Sea angling Low flying aircraft * Note activities listed in each column are in no particular order/rank

4.5 The unlicensed activities of medium concern include unlicensed dredging, wildlife watching (ecotourism), sea angling, non-motorised water based recreation and land-based recreation. Although these activities have the potential to threaten the marine biodiversity of UK waters, based on the available evidence, spatial extent, duration, scale and intensity of these activities, they are considered to be of a lesser threat than the activities identified as high concern.

4.6 Of least concern are the impacts of diving, military activities, education and research, hovercraft usage and low flying aircraft. Although these low impact activities have been highlighted within the consultation exercise, there was no specific evidence to support significant disturbance within the marine environment, with most evidence provided being anecdotal in nature. This categorisation was based on a combination of the potential impact, spatial extent, duration, scale and intensity of these activities.

4.7 Although the activities highlighted in the medium and low categories may have a high disturbance locally, they were not considered by the authors to be sufficiently widespread and intensive to be deemed high risk, or the evidence was not available to support the risk posed to the marine environment. However should any of these activities become more intense or widespread, then further consideration of their impacts should be undertaken.

6 Although non-motorised craft, such as canoes and sailing boats may also cause disturbance in areas which are inaccessible to larger craft, the risk table showed this type of activity posed a lesser concern than motorised craft.

4.8 While all unlicensed activities are known to occur around the UK, the three identified activities showed a high intensity on either a local or regional scale. Bait collection and unlicensed commercial fishing also occur throughout the year, having the potential to impact on sensitive periods for birds and seals by reducing the availability of important food sources. Although unlicensed dredging activities can be intense in nature, these activities only occur on an intermittent basis and are therefore discounted from further discussion7.

4.9 Motorised water-based recreation was identified as a high risk activity. Although carried out on a regional basis around the UK, it is generally a seasonal activity peaking in the summer months. Motorised water-based recreation was the unlicensed activity of most concern to the consultees. However, the evidence considered was based on perceived rather than actual risk, with only anecdotal evidence provided. One issue was the potential impact caused by deliberate harassment or indirect disturbance of marine wildlife (e.g. cetaceans, seals and basking sharks) from motor boats and PWCs. Evidence for harassment or indirect disturbance incidents on seals and cetaceans around the UK coastline were based primarily on anecdotal evidence (see Annex 2 Case Studies 2.1 & 2.2). PWC can also operate in shallower water than many sailing craft and their engine sound can add to any potential disturbance. However, there has been little research carried out into the actual impact of this disturbance (ABPmer, 2006). Significant disturbance to marine biodiversity from motorised crafts will depend on the degree, timing and duration of the disturbance and the species involved. The majority of evidence documented in Annex 2 is anecdotal and there appears to be little compelling evidence on the long-term effect of such disturbance events.

4.10 The second issue related to boating was mechanical disturbance from anchor chains. A combination of documented and anecdotal evidence was obtained illustrating the potential and actual damage caused to Zostera (eelgrass) beds in the Pen Llŷn and Sarnau SAC (North Wales), Salcombe estuary (Devon) and the Fal & Helford estuaries (Annex 2, Case Study 2.3), and fanshells off Plymouth Hoe (Annex 2, Case Study 2.4) by swing moorings. As this evidence was site specific, further investigation would be required to investigate damage caused by mooring chains around the whole of the UK coastline.

4.11 Table 2 identified bait digging/collection as a high risk activity. This activity is known to occur on a regular basis throughout the year, and although occurring on a local scale, it is known to be a highly intensive activity. Baitdigging is regarded as a potentially damaging activity within UK SAC/SPAs and has been the subject of a number of reviews, both on a site specific nature (Mazik et al. 2005; Smith & Murray, 2005) and from a national perspective (Fowler, 1992 & 1999). This activity has been shown to have a localised but direct impact on the species of interest, a potential indirect effect on associated intertidal communities (Annex 2, Case Study 2.5) and may cause disturbance

7 Furthermore, as a non-statutory management protocol has been developed for WID and agitation dredging in the Thames estuary (see Chapter 6.2.9), it is considered that similar management initiatives as required under the Water Framework Directive will be considered for other estuaries to minimise potential impacts of these activities in the future.

to both seal (Annex 2, Case Study 2.6) and migrant and wintering waterfowl populations (Annex 2, Case Study 2.7) during certain times of year. Research undertaken elsewhere has demonstrated that bait collection/digging and associated trampling can significantly reduce density, biomass and size of both the infauna and epifauna, alter particle size distribution and influence carbon content and microalgae abundance (Wynberg & Branch, 1997; Contessa & Bird, 2004; Logan, 2005; Skilleter et al., 2005; Smith & Murray, 2005). Due to the nature of bait digging, i.e. it is undertaken throughout the year and is an intensive activity, it has the potential to pose a threat to marine biodiversity in UK coastal waters by causing disturbance and a reduction in food availability for over-wintering birds, particularly over the winter season.

4.12 Unlicensed commercial fishing activities were identified as a high priority activity as they occur on a regular basis throughout the year, cover a regional scale and have the potential to be highly intensive in nature. The public right to fish continues to be a significant issue and does not reflect the nature of modern fisheries and their impact on the marine environment. Although there are well documented studies on the impact of consented fisheries, the problems of unlicensed commercial fishing activities as a high impact activity has been based on anecdotal evidence as no documented evidence of these activities has been found within the timeframe of the current project. Issues of concern include the hand collection of shellfish, the growing potential for a UK sea bass fishery, crab tiling, and rock-hopper trawling from boats less than 11m in length, all of which at present do not require a licence. Unlicensed commercial fisheries removes both target and non-target species from the marine system affecting the viability of population functioning and can cause disturbance to the marine community structure in sensitive areas. It is a common understanding that unlicensed commercial fishing activities are having a negative impact on marine biodiversity, however the potential issues raised within this report may require further investigation regarding their impact on marine biodiversity in the future.

4.3 Summary

4.13 Case study evidence (from both literature and anecdotal sources) reports that while some unlicensed activities are having a localised effect on some important habitats and species, there is no compelling evidence to suggest individually any of the activities are having an overall detrimental effect on UK marine biodiversity. There was no assessment of cumulative impacts of unlicensed activities on marine biodiversity.

4.14 Although this report relates to ‘significant disturbance’, it is recognised that some research and anecdotal evidence presented in Annex 2 relate to individual disturbance events, with little indication of the long term impacts on the population viability. Lack of available evidence justified the inclusion of such case studies as they raised potential issues which may need further investigation in the future. Some case studies present site specific and isolated disturbance events, however, there is a lack of baseline and long term monitoring studies to investigate the impact of these unlicensed activities on the viability of species or habitats and/or impairment of functioning.

Chapter 5. Consented vs Unlicensed Activities

5.1 A considered response to the threat posed by unlicensed activities when compared to consented activities enables the risk such activities pose to the health and status of marine biodiversity to be put into a wider context. As little research has been carried out to investigate the low level, chronic but widespread impacts of unlicensed activities versus the well monitored impacts of consented activities, an informed opinion based on the evidence and stakeholder views is provided.

5.2 Many of the case study examples used within this report assess the relative contribution made by unlicensed activities to the disturbance of species and habitats, but in many cases it is not possible to determine the extent to which unlicensed activities have an impact compared to effects from commercially licensed activities. On the one hand, by the very nature that certain activities are licensed, leads to the assumption that they are potentially more damaging to the marine environment and therefore need to be regulated. However, this situation may simply reflect the fact that these activities are easier to regulate as there are well-defined participants and also that historical prioritisation of activities has targeted these for action over the more diffuse, widespread and ad hoc unregulated activities.

5.1 Assessment

5.3 To assess the relative impact of unlicensed activities, it is important to put their impacts into perspective in relation to those derived from consented activities. Table 4 (taken from MarLIN, 2006a) provides a summary of the environmental impacts of consented (licensed) activities. All these have the potential to disturb, injure or destroy elements of the aquatic and terrestrial habitats and fauna and flora of the area.

5.4 The effects of unlicensed activities on the marine environment have also been tabulated and summarised in Table 5 (adapted from MarLIN, 2006a). As with the original MarLIN matrix, a distinction has been made between ‘probable’ and ‘possible’ links. A link was regarded as ‘probable’ where the activity was known to change the relevant environmental factor in most instances. Similarly, a link was regarded as ‘possible’ where an activity was likely to change the relevant environmental factor only in some cases or in particular locations or situations.

5.5 The MarLIN activity-impact matrices provide a good visual comparison of types of disturbance caused by both unlicensed and licensed activities. Licensed activities have a wider range of probable and possible impacts on marine biodiversity and functioning due to their diversity, extent and nature than the unlicensed activities. The impacts of licensed activities are relatively well-documented through regulatory monitoring which provides information on effects, and similarly the licensing procedure allows a formal system of ensuring mitigation and/or compensation measures to be defined, required

and policed. CPA and FEPA consents and environmental statements for plans and projects include a requirement for monitoring (CEFAS, 2004).

5.6 During the consultation for the present report, regulatory authorities and stakeholders were requested to provide an informed opinion on whether they believed unlicensed activities caused a ‘greater’, ‘similar’ or ‘lesser’ threat to marine biodiversity than consented activities. Of the 20 people who responded to the question, 3 believed unlicensed activities had a greater impact (15%), 4 believed they had a similar impact (20%), 9 thought they had a lesser impact than consented activities (45%) and 4 respondents abstained, providing a full explanation (20%).

5.7 All activities within the marine environment whether licensed or unlicensed have the potential to threaten marine biodiversity. Both unlicensed and licensed activities can have a similar impact if the effectiveness of managing a licensed activity in the marine environment is poor. By the very scale and extent of licensed activities such as fisheries, port developments, aggregate extraction, dredging and oil and gas development, they have the potential to have a significant impact on biodiversity if not properly regulated. Fishing activities are widely regarded as the single greatest threat to both inshore and offshore marine biodiversity, with a wealth of information carried out on the impacts of fishing on marine habitats (e.g. Gubbay & Knapman, 1999; Kaiser & De Groot, 2000; Hiddink et al., 2006; MarLIN, 2006b). The effects of consented fishing activities on biodiversity have been thoroughly examined by the ICES Working Group on the Ecosystem Effects of Fishing (WGECO), the Working Group on Fish Ecology (WGFE), the Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology (WGMME) and the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE). There have also been various studies carried out on the impacts of other licensed activities, for example offshore oil and gas developments (Gales, 1982; Gass & Roberts, 2006); impacts of offshore windfarm developments (English Nature, 2001; Hiscock et al., 2002); and marine gravel extraction on the marine benthos (Kenny & Rees, 1996; Boyd et al., 2005; Robinson et al., 2005). By the very nature that they are licensed requires that some monitoring of effects is conducted and the impact on marine biodiversity quantified.

5.8 There is currently no regulatory mechanism to manage or monitor the intensity at which unlicensed activities occur, nor the way in which they are undertaken such that impacts on biodiversity are minimised. It could be argued that unlicensed activities have the potential to have a greater impact on marine biodiversity than consented activities, as by definition they are unregulated. Due to the variety of unlicensed activities occurring at different intensities around England and Wales, the key issue is not which groups of activities cause the greatest impact but rather the cumulative and combined impacts of all activities within a specific area. These will be dependent on location, scale, intensity and seasonality. In certain inshore and estuarine areas, unlicensed activities may pose the greatest threat to marine biodiversity, but the activity of fishing is still regarded by many as the single greatest threat to both inshore and offshore areas.

Table 4 Environmental Pressures of Maritime Licensed / Consented Activities

ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES Biological Physical Chemical Modification Extraction s s e e t i i ec s p e i s t paras s / pec t e i n rge s o s a i ens em e et i pec n-t ent m e rg nat s i s a m hog m ) i pec i no n n n d n f e s e am ras r o o s e t o o rget i i m l i e

on-t t pat u y t a l a t u e v n e r t n a i l i a ont a

e reg v t o on n nat har e) o i n i i i u / e a t pos t l

of of

ow ded s at obi s ed) ac t e y r n t enc n t ac nd c am y am apac p i er c ami c r ex t o o i e r fl t i i i s en d e nt t t r pera nt pen gen e n n eab on ri erg s i t v e o g c ont rren s l y non-n m pou ss ti banc s m rbi c a a c ac ac n r u u a anc t

i c r o r (wat (s (ai o e u co n e ex m t t l u n of of e gai a l a a a w c nut em t t s w s ox t v e o i y n n d n on c rry g tr e e e s ta n n n n n n n n n n t i urb ty l t i i i i i i i i i i l r r r i c t o o o s a n

Coastal &

c i i i um vi v c s t t ti e ex e ex b s s s s s s s s s s di r i e i A A c A l l arb ti t uc t v v at i i ceme pres

Maritime a c a e e r t t he r t a c of of of of u oc uc on h c cca e di c l i al vy me r s s s s s d te s e s e oduc oduc

Activities / u ange ange si ange ange ange i ange ange a ange di ange ange n-s l d b l nt r r o od a sp y s t t h h i e h h h h o y h e h a h h o e r i y r u e Events Sub-activities / events h Los Los Los S Smot C D C C C C C C N V P D W S H H R C C C In In P P Los S S N Consented / Licensed Activities Fin-fish Macro-algae Aquaculture Predator control Shellfisheries Barrage Coastal Beach replenishment defence Groynes Sea walls / breakwaters Construction phase Artificial reefs Communication cables Culverting lagoons Development Dock / port facilities Land claim Marinas Oil & gas platforms Urban Capital dredging Dredging Maintenance dredging Nuclear power generation Energy Power stations generation Renewable (tide/wave) Wind farms Maerl Rock / mineral (coastal quarrying) Extraction Oil & gas platforms Sand / gravel (aggregates) Water resources (abstraction) Benthic trawls (e.g. scallop dredging) Netting (e.g. fixed nets) Fisheries / Shellfisheries Pelagic trawls Potting / creeling Suction (hydraulic) dredging Animal sanctuaries Archaeology Coastal farming Coastal forestry Licensed Uses Education / interpretation Military Mooring / beaching / launching Research Shipping Fishery & agricultural wastes Industrial effluent discharge Industrial / urban emissions (air) Inorganic mine and particulate wastes Land / waterfront runoff Wastes Litter and debris Nuclear effluent discharge Sewage discharge Shipping wastes Spoil dumping Thermal discharges (cooling water) Other Removal of substratum

Key: Probable effect Possible effect No expected effect

Table 5 Environmental Pressures of Maritime Unlicensed Activities

ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES Biological Physical Chemical Modification Extraction s es e t i i as pec ies s ec / par p t get ies n s s o t i tar em et n ies at pec g e m e n i s s m t ) non- s tar pec m e n di n a e a e s g r e o t egim r i ls e ur pathogen t s nt a a e v e ity lum ) a i o r non- e r t t v d o e har n ination ination ur i tion of pos c d) le c na obial pac at a e / m r flow ac a y a

r ex c genc er t e enation ende i t it sp e tion of tion of ents ient idity r p ater n g p i s eabe r er s ter v non- e ontam ontam ion b lin r y s pound c w t a s banc s a a ac ac ng c ( ( ( co a u u t i c

e ex m of m l tr tr l ur banc y n los gain a

a a a t enc r o x x r a iv y y n r t t e e e t t t ur e e in s in c in tur in nutr in w in ox in s in em in tem in w lide c r i i r r c t bon c Coastal & o a s

ng c i es me i dis v v tion tion of c t e e s s b s s s s s s s s

i i i l le A c A A ar t t uc t f a atum ce iv Maritime iv a e

n r t t her t a c s of of oc of he cca l e dis i vy me s s s ot ter s oduc Activities / oduc ual pr ange n- ange ange ange ange ange ange a is dio si ange ange ange dr lec lec nt r r ss o oduc oduc a sp y s t t h o h h h h y h h o e a e h h i h e i r r e ubs y m o h n Events n Sub-activities / events I Los Los L S S C D C C C C C C N V P D W S H H R C C C I P P Los S S N Unlicensed Activities Boating / yatching Water sports Recreation Wildlife watching (Ecotourism) Diving / dive site Land based activities Recreational Fishing Bait digging Recreational Bird eggs fishing, Bait Curios collection & Higher plants Unlicensed commercial Kelp & wrack harvesting fishing activities Macro-algae Peelers (boulder turning) Shellfish Other Hovercraft Unlicensed Low Frequency Sonar & Explosives Uses Education & Research

Key: Probable effect Possible effect No expected effect

Chapter 6. Current Management Mechanisms for Unlicensed Activities

6.1 Management mechanisms available to control unlicensed activities in UK waters take several forms: codes of conduct and best practice guides; voluntary approaches; byelaws, and advisory groups/coastal fora. Various reviews have been carried out which consider the use of voluntary actions to manage unlicensed marine activities or recommend voluntary management initiatives (House of Commons Environment Committee, 1994; UK CEED, 2000; Defra, 2004b). The House of Commons Environment Committee estimated that approximately sixty individual sports and leisure activities had codes of practice, although not all of these cover environmental issues. Most of the codes were agreed to prevent or minimise disturbance, damage and nuisance by recreational activities.

6.2 Codes of conduct have been introduced by various sectors in relation to human activities with the potential to disturb, destroy or harm nationally important marine features. The Codes generally contain information on the types of behaviour that should be avoided that are likely to disturb marine wildlife by the activity, the circumstances in which marine wildlife may be approached and the manner in which marine wildlife may best be viewed with the minimum of disturbance.

6.3 Annex 3 lists examples of current management mechanisms used, which includes detailed case study evidence of codes of conduct, voluntary initiatives and byelaws. A selection of these measures compiled by stakeholder groups and promoted through recreational and sporting organisations, information boards and websites have been evaluated to give the evidence base for this report.

6.1 Summary of Sectoral Codes of Conduct

6.1.1 Water-based Activities

6.4 Several good practice guidelines are available for PWC that provide advice on how users can minimise negative interactions via disturbance to wildlife, with such documents including: Managing Personal Watercraft (Anon, 1999; Anon, 2004); Sea Wise Code: for wildlife for you (CCW, undated); the Waterways Code (British Waterways, 2002) and Environmental Code of Practice (BMF et al, 2004). Codes of conduct have been designed and disseminated through boating organisations like the RYA and the BMF. The BMF and RYA have produced a management guide for personal watercraft, which has been widely successful around the UK (Annex 3, Box 3.1). The Green Blue initiative (a joint project by the RYA and the BMF) has recently launched an Environmental Code of Conduct in 2006 based on the Sir Peter Blake Trust’s “Boaties Code of Conduct” which has been operating in New Zealand (Box 3.2). This code of conduct includes an element of navigating with care around wildlife, and has been promoted at boat shows.

6.5 Several related education and interpretation initiatives have taken place in Wales including the Pembrokeshire Marine Code (Box 3.3) and in Cardigan Bay to increase the awareness of operators of personal watercraft in relation to the bottlenose dolphin. The Code of Conduct information has been produced in various formats in the Harbours, Beaches and Marine Conservation leaflet, in the Ceredigion tide tables booklet, and at information panels at launch sites. A “Dolphin Watch” newsletter was produced and circulated widely in 2003 and spring 2004 to give feedback to the volunteer watchers and to inform the wider public (Pierpoint & Allan, 2004).

6.6 The Poole Harbour Aquatic Management Plan is another example of where recreational boating is managed under a non-statutory mechanism (Box 3.4). Codes of practice on noise, cables and general safety have been devised by British Water Ski, the national governing body for water skiing in Great Britain. However, these codes do not provide advice on activities or behaviour to be avoided to minimise wildlife disturbance by water skiers.

6.7 Other examples of non-motorised water-based recreational codes include the Sea Canoeing Code of Conduct (Box 3.5) and the Exe Estuary kite boarders Code of Conduct (Box 3.6).

6.1.2 Wildlife Watching (Ecotourism)

6.8 Whale watching8 has grown into a major tourist activity, yet there are many concerns about its negative impacts in UK waters and elsewhere in the world. This has stimulated the development of a large number of codes of conduct designed to modify the potential for human disturbance of various species which have been promoted in sensitive wildlife areas around the UK (Westcott & Stringell, 2003). However, Hambrey Consulting (2005) reported that coverage is somewhat weaker for otters, seabirds and shorebirds although they are covered implicitly in the more general codes. It was reported in 2003 that nearly 90% of whale watching operators in Scotland followed a whale watching Code of Conduct or guidelines (Parsons & Woods-Ballard, 2003; Woods-Ballard et al., 2003). The most frequently used whale watching code or set of guidelines was one produced by a tour operators’ association, and three codes of conduct produced by environmental non-governmental organisations were also used frequently (Parsons & Woods-Ballard, 2003). The most popular code is the WiSE Code of Conduct (Box 3.7). The CCW also promote a general Code of Conduct called the ‘Sea Wise Code’ promoting good practice when approaching marine wildlife (Box 3.8).

6.9 Various codes of conduct to protect cetaceans, turtles, seals and bird colonies have been established around the UK. Examples include the Seal Group who have collaborated with Cornwall County Council and the Cornwall Wildlife Trust to produce a St Ives Bay version of the Marine Code of Conduct, aimed at reducing the levels of disturbance for all marine creatures. The Pembrokeshire Marine Code of Conduct (see Box 3.3) also provides

8 The term “whale watching” is used to denote a wide range of activities involving human interaction with various species of whales, dolphins, and porpoises, collectively known as cetaceans.

recommendations to minimise disturbance to marine wildlife. A Basking Shark Code of Conduct is promoted by the Project AWARE Foundation (Box 3.9) and Defra (1999) produced two sets of guidelines for minimising disturbance to cetaceans by both recreational vessel users and by commercial whale watching operations (Box 3.10). The RSPB with associated organisations promote a Code of Conduct for ornithologists (Box 3.11).

6.1.3 Diving

6.10 The British Sub-Aqua Club (BSAC) Divers Code of Conduct is a thorough document designed to ensure that divers do not come into conflict with other water users and it sets out some guidelines which should be observed alongside the regulations relating to Marine Nature Reserves (Box 3.12). A Code of Conduct has been developed for the taking of underwater photography (see Box 3.13). The Code sets out good practices to protect the environment and to avoid harassing and disturbing marine organisms.

6.1.4 Hovercraft

6.11 The Hovercraft Club of Great Britain has general regulations embedded in its racing and cruising regulations. Other hovercraft clubs promote a voluntary Code of Practice to ensure the least amount of disturbance is created to wildlife and members of the public from hovercraft operations (Box 3.14).

6.1.5 Land-based Activities

6.12 As land-based unlicensed activities are so diverse and the types of intertidal habitat so varied, such as sea cliffs, rocky shores, rockpools, sand dunes and saltmarshes, general codes of conduct covering most activities have been established by local councils, non-governmental organisations and coastal fora. These include general information on marine creatures, disturbance of wildlife, prevention of erosion, elimination of marine garbage and prevention of damage to cliffs (see Box 3.15). A climbing Code of Conduct has been agreed between the RSPB, CCW and the British Mountaineering Council (Box 3.16) and the Pembrokeshire Outdoor Charter Group for coasteering.

6.1.6 Sea Angling

6.13 There have been calls to restrict and regulate the activities of fishermen, anglers and bait collectors on the shore. In general, SFCs do not wish to interfere with non-commercial fishing practices, and request fishermen to observe a simple code of practice so that their activities are more responsible and less likely to affect other users and wildlife in the areas where they operate. Codes of conduct for shore anglers are promoted through sea angling magazines and websites. These best practice guides have been developed by SFCs, coastal partnerships and conservation bodies (see Boxes 3.17 & 3.18). CCW have a Code of Conduct for anglers, which includes information on sensitive bait collection.

6.1.7 Bait Digging / Collection & Unlicensed Commercial Fishing Activities

6.14 National and regional sea angling bodies and most, if not all, local clubs strongly promote a sea anglers’ code that includes guidelines for protecting the marine environment and mitigating harmful impacts (Fowler, 1999). These codes include measures as simple and effective as avoiding moorings and other intertidal structures while digging bait and back-filling the holes and trenches produced, returning rocks and weed to their original positions when collecting crabs and shellfish, and only taking the minimum bait required for planned fishing trips (see Box 3.19). Bait collection within Poole Harbour has been controlled using a Code of Conduct and voluntary agreement with a bait digging association, promoting voluntary refuge/important bird areas through Poole Harbour management plan (S Burton, Natural England pers. comm. 2006). There is a Bait Collectors’ Code which offers guidance for bait collecting in the Solent European Marine Site, which includes Chichester Harbour. The guide was developed and produced by the Solent European Marine Sites project with support from stakeholder groups, relevant authorities and members of the bait collecting and angling community (A. Fowler, Chichester Harbour Conservancy pers. comm. 2006).

6.15 Other fishing activities, for example seaweed harvesting, the placing of fisheries structures on the seabed (e.g. trestles for aquaculture), staked nets and lines from the shore and the hand gathering of shellfish from the intertidal do not have specific codes of conduct. However, these unlicensed activities will come under the extent of codes of conduct for bait collection and fishing from the shoreline (see Box 3.19). For example, a Code of Conduct has been developed by the regulatory authorities for crab tiling in the Exe Estuary (see Box 3.20).

6.1.8 Military Activities (Low Frequency Sonar & Explosives Testing)

6.16 A Code of Conduct requires the use of a low level (0.5 kg) fish scare charge prior to carrying out any higher level underwater explosion (Elliott, 1985). The UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) has undertaken a number of measures during 2005 to address the potential impact of military sonar and noise in the marine environment (Box 3.21).

6.1.9 Dredging Activities

6.17 All unlicensed dredging activities are addressed through CIRIA’s good practice guidelines for dredging. A code of conduct/memorandum of understanding has been agreed between the Environment Agency and British Waterways for Gloucester docks, with additional discussions with the London Docks and Hull marina (Box 3.22). Guidelines for Water Injection Dredging have also been established by the Dredging Liaison Group (DLG) as part of the Thames Estuary Partnership (Box 3.23).

6.1.10 Education & Research Activities

6.18 Good practice guides for study groups has been promoted through coastal fora and management documents. For example the Humber Management Scheme and The Wash and North Norfolk Management Scheme both have codes of conduct for their marine sites, encouraging study groups to enjoy themselves, but to be considerate to other users and wildlife (Box 3.24).

6.2 Voluntary Approaches

6.19 Voluntary initiatives have been used around the UK to record and manage disturbance to marine wildlife. These involve specific species protection or a recreational group self-policing itself and others. Examples of voluntary approaches include the voluntary no anchor zones at Plymouth Hoe and in the Helford, The North Norfolk Kiters’ Working Group, Seal Monitoring - Seaquest South-west, Cornwall Seal Group & Ceredigion Marine Heritage Coast, The Wash and North Norfolk Coast European Marine Site - Incident Recording Process (IRP), Dee Estuary Volunteer Wardens, Sefton Coast Voluntary Wardens, and Solent Skiers Association. Further details on these initiatives are provided in Annex 3 (Boxes 3.25-3.32).

6.3 Advisory Groups / Coastal Fora

6.20 Many coastal fora groups and estuary partnerships exist around England and Wales and aim to bring together stakeholders to resolve management issues. Voluntary guidelines in the form of a Good Practice Guide have been developed with local advisory groups, representing a range of pursuits, through the EMS management schemes. Poole Harbour Steering Group are currently promoting voluntary refuge/important bird areas to minimise disturbance to marine wildlife. The Humber Estuary EMS and The Wash and North Norfolk Coast EMS, for example, have developed general codes of conduct for various recreational activities, promoted through the advisory group and published on their websites.

6.4 Byelaws

6.21 Whilst there are many activities which are able to take place without formal consent, local authorities, nature conservation bodies, SFCs and harbour authorities in England and Wales can make byelaws to control coastal activities. The specific principal powers of byelaws have been designed to regulate the activities taking place on the seashore, to licence pleasure boats for commercial purposes, to regulate public bathing, regulate speed, use and noise of pleasure boats and promote good rule and government in their area (DETR, 1998). Byelaws used to control recreational activities have been made under the Public Health Act 1961, where section 76 allows byelaws to be established for restricting speeds of pleasure boats and for public bathing. Around England and Wales, byelaws promoting zoning and speed restrictions areas have been put in place to control pleasure boats and ban specific areas to PWCs and control beach activities, for example dog walking and vehicle movements. For case study examples, see Annex 3 (Boxes 3.33 and 3.34).

Chapter 7. Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses

7.1 General

7.1 The relative success of the voluntary management of unlicensed activities is required to determine whether greater regulation is needed to protect marine biodiversity, or whether these mechanisms are providing adequate protection. As no current guidance or evaluating criteria could be found on the assessment of success or failure of environmental codes of practice, the management initiatives reviewed in Chapter 6 were assessed by reported success in the literature and through the consultation exercise.

7.2 A summary of the relative success and failings of the case studies reviewed in Chapter 6 can be found in Annex 4, with the general strengths and weaknesses discussed below.

7.2 Voluntary Initiatives

7.3 Voluntary arrangements, aimed at resolving conflicts between recreational users and marine biodiversity, generally secure local support, which in turn increases the likelihood of success. Defra (2004c) reported that a voluntary scheme is more able to respond to changing circumstances, more likely to be respected if achieved through consensus and more likely to a have a self- regulatory element than a statutory scheme.

7.4 Successes include the North Norfolk Kiters Working Group, The Wash and North Norfolk Coast European Marine Site Incident Reporting Process (IRP) and the voluntary dolphin watching group in Cardigan Bay SAC (see Annex 4). All voluntary schemes rely on the goodwill of the participants and sometimes it is difficult to find people willing to volunteer to police the scheme throughout the year. Although success has been seen in the majority of voluntary schemes, there have been some failures including the no anchor zone off Plymouth Hoe where boats continue to anchor and destroy the fanshell population.

Table 6a Strengths and Weaknesses - Voluntary Initiatives

Strengths Weaknesses

Securing local support, which in turn Relies on the goodwill of the increase the likelihood of success (‘local participants ownership’ of the problems)

Respond to changing circumstances Needs organisation

Significant potential in managing activities Difficult to advise people who have within the marine environment if adequately little interest in the environment (also funded ‘preaching to the converted’)

Self-regulatory element than statutory

7.3 Codes of Conduct

7.5 Most codes of conduct have been established in order to minimise conflicts between users with indirect benefits to marine biodiversity e.g. the control of speed and increased awareness and appreciation of their potential impacts on the environment. Successes have been seen where recreational users are members of organisations and clubs which promote codes of conduct. An awareness and compliance with these codes is probably increasing and the voluntary nature of certain plans mean that, on the whole, they are respected. Successful initiatives include the Poole Harbour Aquatic Management Plan and the Green Blue (run by the BMF and RYA) to regulate water-based activities. The recreational boating sector’s environmental responsibilities are indicated by projects such as the Green Blue and working with both the recreational boating industry and with users to promote the sustainable use of UK waters.

7.6 With respect to wildlife watching, codes of conduct for approaching marine animals have been well followed by commercial operators involved in the WiSE scheme, with other localised codes of conduct having similar success. However, the success of codes with recreational motorboat users has varied throughout England and Wales. Pierpoint and Allan (2004) noted that because recreational powerboat users represent a diverse group who launch vessels from many harbours and beaches and who may only be visiting the coast, making these users aware of the code of conduct is more difficult. In some areas of the world, codes of conduct have been developed for operating around dolphins but these are often not adhered to when there is a lack of legislative enforcement, e.g. in Victoria, Australia (Weir et al., 1996).

7.7 Codes of conduct tend to be followed by the more responsible members of the public but others ignore them. The diversity of recreational activities taking place at the coast, with a lack of affiliation to formal clubs means that codes of practice are not always followed. In a recent survey by BMF et al. (2005), coastal recreational users were asked if they were a member of a club for the activity or activities they participate in. The results showed that only small sail boat racing, yacht racing and leisure sub-aqua diving club membership is over 30%, with club membership being minimal for all other activities. Data on the degree of compliance is not available, although some studies suggest that while broad compliance is common, precise compliance is less so (Hambrey Consulting, 2005).

7.8 For a number of the unlicensed activities, which have a specific commercial interest, codes of conduct are less practicable or effective because of the economic incentive. Examples of these activities include some fisheries activities and possibly other commercial interests, for example, wildlife watching operators and other tourism activities (CCW pers. comm. 2006). The failure of fishermen to comply with bait digging codes around the UK highlights the difficulty in applying non-regulatory measures (Fowler, 1999; S. Burton, Natural England, pers. comm.; and A. Fowler, Chichester Harbour Conservancy pers. comm. 2006). Bait digging codes of conduct may fail as most anglers are unattached to a national body. There have also been

incidences where local support for a code of conduct is undermined by people coming in from outside the area e.g. commercial bait diggers in Wales. Many individuals participating in sea angling cannot be cautioned, and although any unlicensed anglers are advised of restrictions in place that will affect them and any “good practice” by sea fisheries committees, it is difficult to regulate them.

Table 6b Strengths and Weaknesses - Codes of Conduct

Strengths Weaknesses

Provide conflict resolution between Difficult to disseminate to ad hoc stakeholders recreational users

Good dissemination of good practice for Open to abuse. Non-statutory and users who are members of organised therefore those breaking it cannot be groups e.g. PADI, BSAC, RYA prosecuted

Greater flexibility in operation, and No statutory penalties for offences amendments can be introduced readily

Stakeholder involvement which encourages Lack of enforcement greater local ownership

Can be targeted at specific recreational Difficult to determine effectiveness groups or sites

Excellent examples within the UK on which May be regarded as ‘preaching to the new groups can build converted’

7.4 Coastal Fora & Partnerships

7.9 Many coastal fora and estuary partnerships around England and Wales have been a success in disseminating information and providing support to stakeholder groups. A successful example is the North West Coastal Forum which is a multi-agency partnership bringing together stakeholders from the public, private and voluntary sectors working to promote and deliver integrated management to ensure long term sustainability. The forum is a unique regional organisation, which has been promoted as a model of good practice in the UK by the LGA (2000) and the Wildlife Trusts and WWF (WWF-UK, 2002). The Pembrokeshire Coastal Forum has initiated a successful marine code for the coastal area, which addresses conflicts between user groups and sensitive areas for wildlife. A Dredging Code of Conduct established by the Thames Estuary Partnership has been a success and it is of note that this process is entirely consensual and outwith the Environment Agency’s strict legal statutory remit. The success is due to facilitation by the local estuary management planning process and the Thames Estuary Partnership (S. Colclough, Environment Agency pers comm., 2006).

7.10 A review of coastal fora and partnerships was undertaken by ITAD Ltd & BMT Cordah Ltd (2002) highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. Good examples of action have emerged from the recommendations of management

strategies, however the limited funding base and short timescales for which grants are provided is believed to restrict the success of such partnerships.

Table 6c Strengths and Weaknesses - Coastal Fora and Partnerships

Strengths Weaknesses

The ability of partnerships to engage fully Problems with securing long-term with stakeholders in the public sector funding streams, particularly contributions from stakeholders towards core costs

Partnerships work well as a forum, in the Action to implement recommendations of sense of a public meeting place for open management plans - the fora has to rely discussion on that action being taken by statutory bodies and industries, e.g. water companies

Deriving codes of conduct The lack of any statutory power to require stakeholders to take action

7.5 Byelaws

7.11 The effectiveness of byelaws was subject to review by an Inter-Departmental Working Party (DETR, 1998) and also further addressed by Defra (2004c). Although byelaws offer a clear basis for enforcement and the knowledge that enforcement can be applied vigorously where necessary often helping to underpin voluntary arrangements, the enforcement of byelaws can prove problematical. Byelaws can take up to 2 years to enact during which time the activity could have significantly impacted the area (Boyes et al., 2003). If a byelaw repeats something that is already covered in national legislation, the byelaw will have the effect of removing that national power. Therefore care needs to be taken when formulating new byelaws to ensure that there is no overlap with existing legislation (Atkins, 2003). Additional concerns include identifying authorities to be granted powers and whether powers would be specific to a particular activity or broad-sweeping.

7.12 Byelaws made through local authorities, nature conservation bodies, the Environment Agency, SFCs and Harbour Authorities have proved successful. Good examples include the byelaw banning bait digging on Budle Bay (see Box 3.34) and the byelaw enforcing a no-take zone for fishing or collection of sea life of any kind at Lundy Island Marine Nature Reserve (MNR) enforced by Devon Sea Fisheries Committee and Natural England (formally English Nature). This includes precise provisions such as no anchors or diver shotlines being permitted within 100m of the Knoll Pins at Lundy MNR.

Table 6d Strengths and Weaknesses - Byelaws

Strengths Weaknesses

Can work as a last choice option for Time taken to implement a byelaw (up to management in areas where voluntary 2 years) can mean the activity can measures are not effective continue unregulated

Can help to support voluntary led Can be difficult to achieve and maintain management systems that are ignored by local support for such measures a minority

Gives power to the relevant authorities to Retrospective rather than proactive enforce management measures

Defined penalties for breach of the byelaw Lack of resources to enforce the byelaw as by definition the activities are often widespread

Chapter 8. Alternative Management Approaches

8.1 Given the open-access, multiple-use and inter-related nature of the coastal and marine environments in which activities take place, codes of conduct and voluntary initiatives may not always be the most suitable method of regulating unlicensed activities. Alternative approaches for the management of unlicensed activities are considered below and where possible concentrate on the three activities highlighted as posing the greatest threat to marine biodiversity (bait collection, motorised watercraft, and unregulated fishing activities). It is recognised some of the alternative approaches (e.g. byelaws and Several Orders) are currently being used as management tools, however it is considered they could have a wider application to control unlicensed activities.

8.1 Further Promotion of Codes of Conduct

8.2 Codes of conduct have proved to be successful where they have been championed by a national organisation or club (e.g. RYA & BMF). These successful examples could be used as a basis for future management mechanisms for other unlicensed activities. Innovative methods should be found of communicating codes of conduct with the target audience via improved publicity at sensitive sites, magazines, websites and other advertising. In areas of intense activity pressure or where stakeholders cannot agree on methods of control, codes of conduct could be underpinned by byelaws where necessary. If legislative support is created, to enforce codes of conduct, it should be as compatible as possible with existing patterns and practices otherwise there will be an increased incentive to breach the restriction (Davis & Moretti, 2005).

8.2 Marine Wildlife Watching Code

8.3 A national code of conduct for marine wildlife watching would consolidate the range of codes of conduct currently available to ensure consistency. This could be achieved through legislative means. A generic code, with statutory backing, that could be developed by additional clauses for local situations and different species would set the standard and provide guidance (for example, how to operate and behave in order to minimise disturbance to marine wildlife) to both leisure and commercial pleasure craft that encounter marine wildlife.

8.4 Under section 51 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, Scottish Natural Heritage was given the responsibility for producing a “Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code” to set out “recommendations, advice and information relating to commercial and leisure activities involving the watching of marine wildlife”. The code may, in particular, contain information on activities that might disturb marine wildlife, circumstances under which marine wildlife may be approached and the manner in which marine wildlife may best be viewed “with minimum disturbance” (Section 51 (2) (a) - (c)). It should be noted that this code will not form a regulatory instrument and there will be no specific legal provision for adoption or enforcement.

8.3 Biodiversity Stop Orders (BSOs)

8.5 The use of Biodiversity Stop Orders (BSOs) have been promoted by UK wildlife groups. The effect of a BSO would be to prevent a person or organisation from commencing (or if commenced, to stop) the activity causing damage to an important habitat or species. They are seen as a vital management tool given the fragility of some marine communities and the long- term damage that can be caused by a single activity during a short timescale. BSOs should be reactive and quick, providing a tool by which activities can be urgently stopped until a byelaw or other appropriate mechanism can be implemented. These powers would be relevant where, for example, ongoing operations were discovered to be having an unacceptable impact upon a species or habitat, or where a population of a mobile marine species unexpectedly occurred in an area where an operation could impact upon it. These would have statutory backing and the offender liable to court proceedings. The potential benefits of providing such emergency powers were recognised in the Review of Marine Nature Conservation final report (para 7.32) (Defra, 2004b).

8.4 Licensing / Registration Schemes

8.6 Licensing/registration schemes could be used to manage the growing problems caused by the harvesting of any living resource/marine species for commercial purposes and all fishing activities not covered by ‘commercial boat licences’.

8.7 Regulation of intertidal fisheries, for example the cockle fishery would be much improved through a national licensing scheme. Stronger conditions could be attached to a licensing scheme than to existing permits, for example numbers could be limited. A standard, common system for all the cockle beds in the UK would ensure the industry was much better regulated and would provide better protection for the environment.

8.5 Byelaws

8.5.1 Further Byelaw Making Powers

8.8 Where voluntary schemes are unlikely to succeed or have failed, there may be no alternative to a statutory approach to the management of conflicts. For many relevant authorities, this statutory approach is principally through byelaws. Byelaws give legal support to action, offer a clear basis for enforcement and can highlight broader aims and objectives (Defra, 2004c). The introduction of emergency byelaw making powers would grant the statutory nature conservation body (or other competent authorities) the tool to protect sensitive habitats and species from damaging activities until a more formal mechanism can be employed. Byelaws have been used successfully to control bait digging (Budle Bay), boats and PWC (zoning and speed restrictions).

8.9 Evidence has shown that successful management of unlicensed activities can occur through a combination of regulatory and voluntary measures (e.g. byelaws supported by codes of conduct). For example, the Bristol Port company introduced a scheme in 1996 informing small craft of the likely tracks of commercial vessels through the restricted deep-water channel and advising routes for small craft to follow, separating them from potential conflict with commercial traffic. The scheme is a voluntary zoning initiative but it can be enforced through regulatory means, including byelaws which the Bristol Port Company use to control pilotage and navigation of small craft (Defra, 2004c).

8.10 Similarly, within the Solent, personal watercraft must operate at speeds under 10 knots within 800m of the shoreline. This is a voluntary arrangement supported by byelaws enforced by the local authority, Coastguard and Marine Police. Members of the Solent Skiers Association assist the local authority in enforcing these byelaws by voluntarily patrolling the Solent and reporting offenders. Members seeing an offence being committed contact the Coastguard, local authority, and Marine Police. Data are collected to support complaints to the Coastguard and the Police (Defra, 2004c).

8.5.2 Fisheries Mechanisms

8.11 The use of Several Orders should be used more widely to manage unlicensed intertidal fisheries and provide greater environmental protection. It may also be necessary to develop a system of open access, permit areas and closed areas to manage all fishing activities within the context of spatial planning.

Chapter 9. Conclusions

9.1 A lack of reported evidence regarding the impacts of unlicensed activities was uncovered as part of this review, with very few specific studies having been undertaken to assess particular impacts on marine biodiversity. However, from the assessment of unlicensed activities occurring in UK marine waters, bait digging/collection, motorised water-based recreation and unlicensed commercial fishing activities were highlighted through the matrix, in literature, anecdotal evidence and by stakeholders, as posing the greatest concern and potential impacts to marine biodiversity in the UK.

9.2 Annex 2 reports case study evidence demonstrating that while some unlicensed activities are having a localised effect on some important habitats and species, there is no compelling evidence to suggest any of the activities are having a detrimental effect on UK marine biodiversity. There is a wealth of knowledge on the impact of licensed activities due to the need for routine monitoring as part of the licensing procedure, however, there is a lack of research on the impacts of unlicensed activities. Unless an activity is perceived to be having a problem within a designated nature conservation area, the requirement for impact assessment is limited.

9.3 A wide perception of ‘risk’ to marine biodiversity was attributed to unlicensed activities due to their diffuse and widespread nature, however, disturbance to the marine environment is sometimes difficult to establish in the timescales being worked to. It may therefore be necessary to accept expert opinion if science cannot categorically prove disturbance as part of the precautionary principle.

9.5 Licensing of the three identified activities would not necessarily be appropriate or proportionate to the level of impact anticipated. Codes of conduct which are well defined and with local support may be the best way to ensure protection of the marine environment against some unlicensed activities. A voluntary code of conduct approach may be the most effective mechanism to manage a variety of recreational and other activities, however, in areas of intense activity pressure or where stakeholders cannot agree on methods of control, codes of conduct could be underpinned by byelaws where necessary. Area-based management schemes are required, in high intensity areas, based on codes of conduct where they have shown to be effective and enforced. However, unlicensed activities which have a specific commercial interest, such as unregulated commercial fishing may warrant some form of regulation.

9.6 Byelaws and immediate stop measures should be considered for the control of unlicensed activities where appropriate. The mechanism to establish byelaws needs to be updated to allow the process to be faster and sufficiently flexible to deal with situations as they arise.

9.7 Limitations with the evidence collected resulted in difficulties in drawing firm conclusions when assessing the impacts of unlicensed activities on marine biodiversity due to:

• The site specific nature and anecdotal or ‘expert opinion’ nature of much of the evidence collected; • A lack of baseline data available in order to assess how impacts are changing over time; • A lack of knowledge on how such disturbance events impact on the species or habitats in the long-term; • The disturbance being diffuse and wide-spread producing chronic rather than acute impacts which are both more difficult to attribute to single causes and more difficult to record; • Cumulative impacts of the various activities occurring in the marine environment not being considered; • The lack of standard methodology for disturbance data collected at different sites and with different activities making site comparisons impossible.

9.8 The following recommendations should be considered when developing future management options for bait digging/collection, motorised water-based recreation and unlicensed commerical fishing:

Bait Digging/Collection

9.9 Byelaws may be an effective mechanism to manage bait digging/collection in sensitive environments. They must be locally focussed and flexible enough to deal with changing circumstances. Bait digging and collection could be managed and enforced by the Sea Fisheries Committees. Various systems, e.g. temporal, effort control should be considered as part of controlling this activity.

9.10 Although codes of conduct have been established for bait digging/collection around the UK, these have had limited success due to the ‘unaffiliated’ nature of anglers to a governing body and the commercial nature of the activity.

Motorised Water-based Recreation & Boat Anchoring

9.11 Evidence suggests that codes of conduct work effectively for activities with an affiliated membership and where they are championed through national bodies. The RYA and BMF demonstrate such success. Further promotion of codes of conduct should be encouraged when purchasing a boat, at boat repairers, at launch sites, popular beaches and estuaries to disseminate good practice to the ad hoc user.

9.12 In high intensity areas, codes of conduct could be given further support/prominence by byelaws.

9.13 Although voluntary ‘no anchor zones’ have had limited success, compliance could be ensured through byelaw support and enforcement considerations.

Unlicensed Commercial Fishing Activities

9.14 The public right to fish continues to be a significant issue and does not reflect the nature of modern fisheries and the impact they can have on the environment. Some control over the public right to fish should be considered if appropriate management controls are to be applied to intertidal fisheries.

9.15 It is recommended that all currently unlicensed commercial fisheries come under a licensing regime, which would include all shore-based fishing activities. These include the capture of fish from the shore by, for example, angling, staked nets, rod and line, hand gathering of shellfish or mechanical dredging and gathering of shellfish under the public right for own consumption does not require any permit or licence and are therefore all unlicensed. The money derived from the licences could then be used to ensure better enforcement measures.

9.16 The use of Several Orders should be used more widely to manage intertidal shellfisheries and provide greater environmental protection.

9.17 In the context of marine spatial planning, a system of open access, permit areas and closed areas should be included to manage all fishing activities.

Summary

9.18 There is a wide perception of risk to marine biodiversity attributed to unlicensed activities due to their diffuse and widespread nature, however, in comparison to licensed activities their impacts are poorly documented. Certain unlicensed activities can be controlled successfully by voluntary measures but where these fail, legislative backing will be required. This could be either through the use of byelaws or more statutory measures or a combination of the two. This especially may be the case where there is a commercial/economic incentive to the activity.

References

ABP Research, 1999. Good practice guidelines for ports and harbours operating within or near UK European marine sites. English Nature, UK Marine SACs Project. pp 120.

ABPmer, 2006. Summary of the Environmental Interactions of the Recreational Boating Sector and Key Datagaps. Unpublished report to the Green Blue Project.

Anderson, J., & Johnson, D., 1998. As charmless as chainsaws?: Managing jet ski use in the UK. In The production and consumption of sports cultures: Leisure, culture and commerce, ed. U. Merkel, G. Lines, and I. McDonald, 75–86. Brighton: England: Leisure Studies Association.

Anon, 1999. Managing Personal Watercraft.

Anon, 2004. Managing Personal Watercraft.

Arnold, H., 1997. The Dolphin Space Programme: The development and assessment of an accreditation scheme for dolphin watching boats in the moray firth. A Report for Scottish Wildlife Trust, Scottish Natural Heritage and the EU LIFE Programme.

Atkins, 2003. Defra Coastal Byelaws: A Guide for Local Authorities. 19 February 2003 Workshop Seminar Report.

Atkins, 2004. ICZM in the UK: A Stocktake. Report to Defra.

Bates, A.D., 1998. Clear water revival, Dredging for a better environment- Developments in dredging plant & methods to minimise environmental impact. Summary of Presentation at CEDA Regional Seminar, University of Liverpool. A D Bates Partnership & Inland Waters Consultants.

Bell, D.V., Odin, N., Austin, A., Hayhow, S., Jones, A., Strong, A. & Torres, E., 1984. The impact of anglers on wildlife and site amenity. Department of Applied Biology, UWIST, Cardiff.

Birkhead, T., 1993. Plan for a study to determine the effect of waterbourne disturbance to nesting seabirds, seal and cetaceans in the Skomer Marine Reserve. CCW Contract Science No.05.

Black, G., 2004. Report on Surveys in 2003/04 of Crab Tiling Activity on Devon's Estuaries and Comparison with 2000/01 Crab Tile Survey Data Devon Biodiversity Records centre, Exeter.

Blane, J.M. & Jaakson, R., 1995. The impact of ecotourism boats on the Saint Lawrence beluga whales. Environmental Conservation, 21, 267-269.

BMF, 2006. Press Release - 19 April 2006 Personal Watercraft Road Shows coming to a town near you http://www.britishmarine.co.uk/default.asp?id=124

BMF, MCA, RNLI & RYA, 2005. Watersports and Leisure Participation Survey 2005. Survey sponsored by Sunsail.

BMF, RYA & Environment Agency 2004. Environmental Code of Practice: Practical Advice for marine businesses, sailing clubs and training centres.

Boyd, S.E., Limpenny D.S. & Rees, H.L. 2005. The effects of marine sand and gravel extraction on the macrobenthos at a commercial dredging site (results 6 years post-dredging). ICES Journal of Marine Science 62 (2): 145-162

Boyes, S., Elliott, M., Thomson, S., Atkins, S., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J. & Hill, A., 2005. Multiple-use Zoning in UK and Manx Waters of the Irish Sea: An Interpretation of Current Legislation through the use of GIS-based Zoning Approaches. Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies (IECS), University of Hull, UK. Report for SNH, EN & CCW.

Boyes, S. & Cutts, N., 2003. Solway Firth public access for recreation study. Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies (IECS), University of Hull, UK. Report for Solway Firth Partnership.

Boyes, S., Warren, L. & Elliott, M. 2003. Deficiencies in the Current Legislation Relevant to Nature Conservation in the Marine Environment in the United Kingdom. Report to JNCC by the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies.

Bray, R.N., Bates, A.D. & Land, J.M., 1997. Dredging - A handbook for engineers. Second Edition. Arnold, London.

British Water Ski, 2004. Code of Practice - Noise.

British Waterways, 2002. The waterways code

Burger, J., 1998. Effects of motorboats and personal watercraft on flight behaviour over a colony of Common terns. 110 Condor 528 (1998).

CCW, undated. Sea Wise Code: for wildlife for you.

CEFAS, 2004. Offshore Wind Farms Guidance Note for Environmental Impact Assessment in respect of FEPA and CPA Requirements. Version 2 - June 2004. Prepared by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) on behalf of the Marine Consents and Environment Unit (MCEU)

CIRIA, 1997. Inland dredging–guidance on good practice, Report no. 169. CIRIA, London.

Contessa, L. & Bird, F.L., 2004. The impact of bait-pumping on populations of the ghost shrimp Trypaea australiensis Dana (Decapoda: Callianassidae) and the sediment environment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 304, 75-97.

Constantine, R., Brunton, D.H. & Dennis, T., 2004. Dolphin-watching tour boats change bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) behaviour. Biological Conservation, 117, 299-307.

Cook, W., Jones, E., Wyn, G. & Sanderson, W.G., 2002. Experimental studies on the effects of shore crab collection using artificial shelters on an intertidal sandflat habitat. Countryside Council for Wales. CCW Contract Science Report No 511.

Corkeron, P.J., 1995. Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hervey Bay, Queensland: Behaviour and responses to whale-watching vessels. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 73, 1290-1299.

Cryer, M., Whittle, G.N. & Williams, R. 1987. The impact of bait collection by anglers on marine intertidal invertebrates. Biological Conservation. 42: 83-93.

Curran, S., Wilson, B. & Thompson, P., 1995. Recommended Guidelines for Cetacean Watching in the Moray Firth. Draft guidance notes for Scottish Natural Heritage.

Defra, 1999. Minimising disturbance to cetaceans from recreation at sea. Defra, Bristol, UK.

Defra, 2004a. Managing Recreational Activities – a best practice guide for Maritime Local Authorities.

Defra, 2004b. Review of Marine Nature Conservation. Working Group report to Government.

Defra, 2004c. Managing coastal activities: a guide for local authorities.

Defra, 2004d. Review of Marine Fisheries and Environmental Enforcement.

Defra, 2006. A Marine Bill: a consultation document for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra, London. March 2006.

DETR, 1998. Review of Byelaw Power for the Coast – Report of the Interdepartmental Working Party. Department of the Environment, Transport & the Regions.

Drew Associates, 2004. Research into the economic contribution of sea angling. Report to Defra, UK.

Duffus, D.A., 1996. The recreational use of grey whales in southern Clayoquot Sound, Canada. Applied Geography, 16, 179-190.

Duran, L.R. & Castilla, J.C., 1989. Variation and persistence of the middle rocky intertidal community of central Chile, with and without human harvesting. Marine Biology, 103, 555-562.

Eastwood, A., 2000. An investigation into the effect of bait collection for crabs Carcinus maenas on the community structure of intertidal mudflats. Dissertation project.

Eckrich, C.E. & Holmquist, J.G., 2000. Trampling in a seagrass assemblage: direct effects, response of associated fauna and the role of substrate characteristic. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 201, 199-209.

Edwards, A.J., Garwood, P. & Kendall, M., 1993. The Gann Flat, Dale: thirty years on. Field Studies, 8: 59-75.

Elliott, M., Burdon, D. & Hemingway, K., 2006. Marine ecosystem structure, functioning, health and management and potential approaches to marine ecosystem recovery: a synthesis of current understanding. CCW Policy Research Report No. 06/5.

Elliott, M., 1985. Study on the effects of underwater explosives and depth charge testing on estuarine fish populations. Unpublished report for Forth River Purification Board.

English Nature, 2001. Wind farm development and nature conservation. Publication by English Nature, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, World Wildlife Fund UK & British Wind Energy Association. Godalming:WWF-UK

ESFJC, 2005. The North Norfolk Kiters’ Working Group - An experiment in voluntary management. Powerpoint presentation.

Fanelli, G., Piraino, S. Belmontel, G., Geraci, S. & Boero, F., 1994. Human predation along Apulian rocky coasts (SE Italy): desertification caused by Lithophaga lithophaga (Mollusca) fisheries. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 110, 1-8.

Fletcher, H. & Frid, C.L.J., 1996. Impact and management of visitor pressure on rocky intertidal algal communities. Aquatic Conservation: Marine & Freshwater Ecosystems 6, 287-297.

Fowler, S.L., 1992. Survey of Bait Collection in Britain. JNCC Report No.17.

Fowler, S.L., 1999. Guidelines for managing the collection of bait and other shoreline animals within UK European marine sites. Prepared for the UK Marine SACs Project. Newbury, UK.

Gales, R.S., 1982. Effects of noise of offshore oil and gas operations on marine mammals - An introductory assessment, vol. 2, San Diego, California: U.S. Naval Ocean Systems Centre, pp. 79-300. NOSC TR 844.

Gard, R., 1974. Aerial census of gray whales in Baja California lagoons, 1970 and 1073, with notes on behaviour, mortality and conservation. Californian Fish and Game, 60, 132-143.

Gass, S.E. & Roberts, J.M. 2006. The occurrence of the cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa (Scleractinia) on oil and gas platforms in the North Sea: Colony growth, recruitment and environmental controls on distribution. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52 (5): 549-559.

Griffon, 1985. Tests on Griffon Hovercraft in Wadden Area. 18-12-1985.

Gubbay, S. & Welton, S., 1995. The voluntary approach to conservation of marine areas. Chapter 10 in Marine Protected Areas: Principles and Techniques for Management. Edited by S. Gubbay. Chapman and Hall, London, UK. 232 pp.

Gubbay, S., & Knapman, P.A., 1999. A review of the effects of fishing within UK European marine sites. Natura 2000 report prepared for the UK Marine SACs Project. 134 pp. English Nature. (UK Marine SACs Project, vol .12).

Guidettia, P., Fanellib, G., Fraschettia, S., Terlizzia, A. & Boero, F., 2002. Coastal fish indicate human-induced changes in the Mediterranean littoral. Marine Environmental Research, 53, 77–94.

Hastie, G.D., Wilson, B. & Thompson, P.M., 2003. Fine-scale selection by coastal bottlenose dolphins: application of a new land-based video-montage technique. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 81: 469-478.

Hambrey Consulting, 2005. Marine Wildlife Watching Code - Position statement. February 2005, Updated with new Annexes May 2005.

Hemingway, K.L., Travers, S., Cutts, N.D., Allen, J.H. & Elliott, M. 2006. Marine Species Protection: A review of risk and considerations for improvement. Building the evidence base for the Marine Bill. November 2006. Report to Defra by the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies.

Hemingway, K.L., Allen, J.H. & Boyes, S. 2004. Intertidal Monitoring of Zostera marina in Pen Llŷn a’r Sarnau SAC in 2004. Report by the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies to CCW. YBB084-F-2004-PLAS-Z.mar

Hiddink, J.G., Hutton, T., Jennings, S. & Kaiser, M.J., 2006. Predicting the effects of area closures and fishing effort restrictions on the production, biomass and species richness of North Sea benthic invertebrate communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63: 822-830.

Hiscock, K., Tyler-Walters, H. & Jones, H. 2002. High Level Environmental Screening Study for Offshore Wind Farm Developments - Marine Habitats and Species Project. Report from the Marine Biological Association to The Department of Trade and Industry New and Renewable Energy Programme. (AEA Technology, Environment Contract: W/35/00632/00/00.)

House of Commons Environment Committee, 1994. Session 1994-95. The Environmental Impacts of Leisure Activities. Fourth Report. HMSO, London.

Hughes, P., 2001. Animals, Values and Tourism: Structural Shifts in UK Dolphin Tourism Provision. Tourism Management 22:321–329.

Hughes, M. & Andrews, R., 1996. Small craft equipment, operation and organizations. In Coastal recreation management: The sustainable development of maritime leisure, ed. T. Goodhead and D. Johnson, 141–179. London: Chapman & Hall/Spon.

INCA, 2005. Tees Seals Research Programme: Monitoring report No. 17 (1989- 2005). 21pp.

ITAD Ltd & BMT Cordah Ltd, 2002. Assessment of the effectiveness of local coastal management partnerships as a delivery mechanism for integrated coastal zone management. Report to Scottish Natural Heritage and Scottish Environment Protection Agency

Janik, V. & Thompson, P.M., 1996. Changes in surfacing patterns of bottlenose dolphin in response to boat traffic. Marine Mammal Science, 12(4), 567-602.

Jasny, M., Reynolds, J., Horowitz, C. & Wetzler, A., 2005. Sounding the Depths II: the rising toll of sonar, shipping and industrial noise on marine life. Natural Resources Defence Council. Los Angeles, United States.

Jelinski , D.E., Krueger, C.C. & Duffus, D.A., 2002. Geostatistical analyses of interaction between killer whales (Orcinus orca) and recreational whale-watching boats. Applied Geography, 2 (4), pp. 393-411.

Jenkins, C., Haas, M.E., Olson, A. & Ruesink, J.L., 2002. Impacts of trampling on a rocky shoreline of San Juan Island, Washington, USA. Natural Areas Journal, 22, 260-269.

JNCC, 2004. Guidelines for Minimising Acoustic Disturbance to Marine Mammals from Seismic Surveys www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/Seismic_survey_guidelines_200404.pdf

Kaiser M.J. & De Groot S.J. (eds) 2000. The effects of trawling on non-target species and habitats: biological, conservation and socio-economic issues. Blackwell Science, Oxford. 399 pp.

Kelly, C., Glegg, G.A. & Speedie, C.D., 2004. Management of marine wildlife disturbance. Ocean & Coastal Management. 47, pp. 1-19.

Kenny, A.J. & Rees, H.L, 1996. The effects of marine gravel extraction on the macrobenthos: results 2 years post-dredging. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 32: 615-622.

Keough, M.J. & Quinn, G.P., 1998. Effects of periodic disturbances from trampling on rocky intertidal algal beds. Ecological Applications, 8, 141-161.

Kirby, J.S., Clee, S. & Seager, V., 1993. Impact and extent of recreational disturbance to wader’s roosts on the Dee estuary: some preliminary results. Wader Study Group Bulletin. 68, pp. 53-58.

Laist, D.W., 1997. Impacts of marine debris: Entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. pp. 99-140. In: Coe, I.M. & Rogers, D.B. (eds.), Marine debris: Sources, impacts, and solutions. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Langton, A., 1994. Report to the Secretary of State for the Environment on a Public Inquiry held at the Guildhall, Berwick-upon-Tweed, March 1994.

Lelli, B. & Harris, D.E., 2001. Human disturbances affect harbour seal haul-out behaviour: can the law protect these seals from boaters? Macalester Environmental Review.

LGA, 2000. On the edge: the real issues on the coast: a strategy from the LGA's Special Interest Group on Coastal Issues

Liddiard, M., Gladwin, D.J., Wege, D.C. & Nelson-Smith, A., 1989. Impact of boulder turning on sheltered sea-shores. Report to the Nature Conservancy Council. School of Biological Sciences, University College of Swansea. NCC CSD Report 919, 17 pp.

Lock, K., 2002. Skomer Marine Nature Reserve distribution and abundance of Zostera marina in North Haven. CCW West Area Report No. 22.

Lockley, A., 2001. Assessment of the level of recovery from bait collection by an intertidal mudflat community. BSc dissertation.

Litten, J.M., 1993. A study of Arenicola marina and the environmental impact from their exploitation as a sea angling bait. BA (Hons) study. Coleg Normal Bangor.

Logan, J.M., 2005. Effects of clam digging on benthic macroinvertebrate community structure in a Maine mudflat. Northeastern Naturalist, 12, 315-324.

Lusseau, D., 2003. Male and female bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) have different strategies to avoid interactions with tour boats in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 257, 267-274.

Lusseau, D., 2005. Residency pattern of bottlenose dolphins Tursiops spp. in Milford Sound, New Zealand, is related to boat traffic. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 295, 265-272.

Marine Pollution Monitoring Management Group, 2000. In: PCF, 2003a. Draft Marine Pollution & Water Quality Topic Paper. Pembrokeshire Coastal Forum'

MarLIN, 2006a. Maritime and coastal activities to environmental factors matrix. Available online: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/PDF/activities3.pdf (Accessed 30/08/06).

MarLIN, 2006b. Effects of fishing within UK European Marine sites. A web based resource for marine managers.

http://www.marlin.ac.uk/fisheriesmanagement/public_html/browse.php (accessed 30/09/06)

Mazik, K., Musk, W.A., Scott, G. & Travers, S., 2005. Underboulder communities in the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay SAC. The impact of boulder turning for bait collection. Report by the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies for CCW.

MCS, 2003. Beachwatch 2002 – The Annual UK Beach Litter Survey Report.

MCS, 2006. Seashore Code of Conduct. Available online (Accessed 30/08/.06): http://www.mcsuk.org/mcsaction/education/mcs+seashore+code

McLaughlin, E., Kelly, J., Birkett, D., Maggs, C. & M. Dring., 2005. Assessment of the effects of commercial harvesting on the seaweed resource intertidal and subtidal ecology in Northern Ireland. EHS, DoE Northern Ireland.

Moore, S.E. & Clarke, J.T., 2002. Potential impact of offshore human activities on gray whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 4, 19-25.

Nautilus, 2005. The Motivation, Demographics and Views of South West Recreational Sea Anglers and their Socio-economic Impact on the Region. Invest in Fish South West Report.

NESFC, 2006. Intertidal Fisheries Code of Conduct. North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee

Nichols, K., 1999. Coming to terms with integrated coastal management. Professional Geographer 51(3):388– 399.

Nowacek, S.M., Wells, R.S. & Solow, A.R., 2001. Short-term effects of boat traffic on bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science, 17, 673-688.

Parsons, E.C.M. & Woods-Ballard, A., 2003. Acceptance of voluntary whale watching codes of conduct in West Scotland: the effectiveness of governmental versus industry-led guidelines. Current Issues in Tourism 6: 172-182.

Pierpoint, C. & Allan, L., 2004. Bottlenose Dolphins & Boat Traffic on the Ceredigion Marine Heritage Coast, West Wales 2002 & 2003. Produced by Ceredigion County Council with the financial support of the Countryside Council for Wales.

Pilgrim, D., 2002. A review of current publications dealing with the impact of low frequency sounds upon fish. University of Plymouth, UK.

Pinn, E.H. & Rodgers, M., 2005. The influence of visitors on intertidal biodiversity. Journal of Marine Biological Association U.K., 85, 263-268.

PCF, 2003a. Draft Marine Pollution & Water Quality Topic Paper. Pembrokeshire Coastal Forum.

PCF, 2003b. Draft Tourism, Recreation and Access Topic Paper. Pembrokeshire Coastal Forum.

Quigley, M.P. & Frid, C.J.L., 1998. Draft Final Report: the ecological impacts of the collection of animals from rocky intertidal reefs. A report to English Nature from the Dove Marine Laboratory, Cullercoates, North Shields, Tyne & Wear. Supported by the European Community ‘Life’ Programme. 163pp.

Ravenscroft, N., 2005. Pilot study into disturbance of waders and wildfowl on the Stour-Orwell SPA: analysis of 2004/05 data. Era Report 44. Report to Suffolk Coast and Heaths Unit, Suffolk.

Rhodes, B., Moore, R., Jackson, E.L., Foggo, A. & Frost, M., 2005. The impact of swinging boat moorings on Zostera marina beds and associated infaunal macroinvertebrate communities in Salcombe, Devon, UK. Report by University of Plymouth, Faculty of Science in collaboration with English Nature, Devon. November 2005.

Robinson, J.E., Newell, R.C. & Seiderer, L.J. 2005. Impacts of aggregate dredging on sediment composition and associated benthic fauna at an offshore dredge site in the southern North Sea. Marine Environmental Research 60 (1): 51-68

Rodway, M.S., Montevecchi, W.A. & Chardine, J.W., 1996. Effects of investigator disturbance on breeding success of Atlantic Puffins. Biol. Conserv. 76, pp311-319.

Roe, M. & Benson, J.F. 2001. Planning for Conflict Resolution: Jet-Ski Use on the Northumberland Coast. Coastal Management, 29:19–39, 2001.

RSPB, 1991. Birds & boats management – reference to be added.

Rushmer, P., 2006. Wash and North Norfolk Coast European Marine Site - Management Scheme. 2nd Edition Scheme V3.

Salden, D.R., 1988. Humpback encounter rates offshore of Maui, Hawaii. Journal of Wildlife Management, 52, 301-304.

Salvaggi, E., Vedder, L., van Haaften, J.L., Wensvoort, P. & Consiglio, C., 2001. Effects of disturbance on daily rhythm and haul-out behaviour in the harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in the estuary of Dollard. Poster presented at the 15th European Cetacean Society annual conference, Roma, May 6-10 2001.

Sheehan, E. in prep. Ecological impacts of a crab fishery (crab-tiling) on estuarine fauna. The University of Plymouth. PhD thesis.

Skilleter, G.A., Zharikov, Y., Cameron, B. & McPhee, D.P., 2005. Effects of harvesting callianassid (ghost) shrimps on subtropical benthic communities. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 320, 133-158.

Smith, J.R. & Murray, S.N., 2005. The effects of experimental bait collection and trampling on a Mytilus californianus mussel bed in southern California. Marine Biology, 147, 699-706.

Sorensen, J., 1997. National and international efforts at integrated coastal management: definitions, achievements and lessons. Coastal Management, 25: pp. 3-41.

Symes, D. & Boyes, S.J., 2005. Review of fisheries management regimes and relevant legislation in UK waters. Report YBF051-5-2005 to CCW, EN & SNH. Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies (IECS), University of Hull, UK.

Target Group Index, BMRB International, 2004. http://www.rspb.org.uk/birds/birdwatching/code/index.asp

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. Wader Study Group Bulletin. 68, pp. 47-52.

Tyak, P., Gordon, J. & Thompson, D., 2004. Controlled exposure experiments to determine the effects of noise on marine mammals. Marine Technology Society Journal, Winter 2003-04, Volume 37, Number 4.

Tyler-Walters, H., 2005. Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Coasteering on Rocky Intertidal Habitats in Wales. Report to Cyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru / Countryside Council for Wales from the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN). Marine Biological Association of the UK, Plymouth.

UK CEED, 1993. Waterskiing and the environment: a literature review. Cambridge, UK.

UK CEED, 2000. A review of the effects of recreational interactions within UK European marine sites. Countryside Council for Wales (UK Marine SACs Project) 264pp.

UK CEED, 2006. Navigate with Nature http://www.ukceed.org/navigate.htm (accessed 10/08/06).

WDCS, 2006. Ban on US sonar remains in place http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allnews/710B7E28DD6A6E73802571BD004 D637C (accessed 07/08/06)

Weir. C.R., Evans, P.G.H. & Nice. H.E., 1996. Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Harbour Porpoises in Shetland Waters. 1990-1995. Abstracts. European Cetacean Society 10th Annual Conference. Lisbon. 11-13 March 1996: 76.

Westcott, S.M. & Stringwell, T.B., 2003. Field observations on the disturbance of grey seals in North Wales, 2003. CCW Marine Monitoring Report No. 53pp.

Williams, R., Bain, D.E., Ford, J.K.B. & Trites, A.W., 2002a. Behavioural responses of male killer whales to a ‘leapfrogging’ vessel. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 4, 305-310.

Williams, R., Trites, A.W. & Bain, D., 2002b. Behavioural responses of killer whales (Orcinus orca) to whale-watching boats: opportunistic observations and experimental approaches. Journal of Zoology, 256, 255-270.

WiSE Scheme, 2004. http://www.wisescheme.org/index.html (accessed 24/08/06)

Woods-Ballard, A., Parsons, E.C.M., Hughes, A.J., Velander, K.A., Ladle, R.J. & Warburton, C.A., 2003. The sustainability of whale-watching in Scotland. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11: 40-55.

WWF-UK, 2002. Just coasting - An assessment of the commitment of the devolved administrations and the English regions to Integrated Coastal Management. A Report from The Wildlife Trusts and WWF.

Wynberg, R.P. & Branch, G.M., 1997. Trampling associated with bait-collection for sandprawns callianassa kraussi Stebbing: effects on the biota of an intertidal sandflat. Environmental Conservation, 24, 139-148.

Young, K., 1998. Seal Watching in the UK and Republic of Ireland. Report for and published by IFAW.

Acronyms

ABP Associated British Ports BMF British Marine Federation BSAC British Sub-Aqua Club BSO Biodiversity Stop Order CCW Countryside Council for Wales CPA Coast Protection Act Defra Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs DETR Department for Transport, Environment & the Regions DLG Dredging Liason Group DSP Dolphin Space Programme DTI Department of Trade and Industry EA Environment Agency EIAs Environmental Impact Assessments EMS European Marine Site FEPA Food & Environment Protection Act ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Seas IECS Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies INCA Industry Nature Conservation Association IRP Incident Recording Process JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee LFAS Low Frequency Active Sonar LFS Low Frequency Sonar LGA Local Government Association MarLIN Marine Life Information Network for Britain & Ireland MCA Maritime & Coastguard Agency MFA Marine Fisheries Agency MNR Marine Nature Reserve MOD Ministry of Defence NE Natural England (formally English Nature) NESFC North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee NFSA National Federation of Sea Anglers NNR National Nature Reserve

NWNWSFC North Western & North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee PADI Professional Association of Diving Instructors PWC Personal Watercraft (i.e. jet skis) RNLI Royal Nation Lifeboat Institution RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds RYA Royal Yachting Association SAC Special Area of Conservation SFC Sea Fisheries Committee SNH Scottish Natural Heritage SPA Special Protection Area UK CEED UK Centre for Economic and Environmental Development UKCS United Kingdom Continental Shelf WDCS Whale & Dolphin Conservation Society WGECO Working Group on the Ecosystem 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 WWF World Wildlife Fund

Annex 1. Identification of Impacts

Type 1 Disturbance: Introduction or increase of energy or materials into the system

Noise: Underwater noise is produced by a number of sources in the marine environment. The major sources include noise generated by ship shock trials (299 decibels - peak), airgun array (235-259 decibels - effective peak), low frequency sonar (235 decibels - effective peak), mid frequency sonar (235+ decibels), supertankers (185-190+ decibels - effective), and acoustic harassment (190-235 decibels) and deterrent devices (132 decibels) (Jasny et al., 2005). It has been suggested by Jasny et al. (2005) that in general, impacts from noise disturbance can be divided into five general categories: physiological impacts e.g. damage to body tissue; behavioural impacts e.g. beaching of whales; perceptual impacts e.g. interference of communication between members of the same species; chronic impacts e.g. habituation to noise; and indirect effects e.g. reduced availability of prey. Within the literature there appears to be a lack of understanding on the significance of noise on marine organisms particularly with respect to the cumulative effects of underwater noises. Studies are however underway to investigate these issues using controlled exposure experiments in order to gain a better insight into effects of individual and cumulative marine noise (see Tyak et al., 2004).

Light: Light pollution can be described as the unnatural illumination of the night sky by artificial lighting and is becoming an increasing source of nuisance to both people and wildlife. Light pollution from activities such as land and water-based vehicles, flash photography, and offshore installations can all have a significant impact on the marine environment through distracting migratory birds, attracting marine organisms such as squid to the water surface and interfering with nocturnal organisms.

Littering: Marine and coastal litter is becoming an increasingly global problem and can be defined as any item that appears on beaches or at sea as a result of anthropogenic activity (MCS, 2003). The MCS Beachwatch litter surveys indicate that, over the past 10 years, beach litter has increased by 80% in the UK. Of the estimated 20,000 tonnes of waste discharged annually into the North Sea, 15% remains within the water column, 70% remains on the seabed with the remaining 15% being washed onto the shore (Marine Pollution Monitoring Management Group, 2000). All classes of marine organisms are affected by litter pollution through entanglement and ingestion and it is estimated that, globally, over a million birds and 100,000 marine mammals and turtles die every year from entanglement, or ingestion of plastics (Laist, 1997).

Type 2 Disturbance: temporary or permanent removal of habitats

Disturbance may result in a temporary loss of habitat such as a decrease in water quality caused by the liberation of contaminants following sediment disturbance or a loss of areas of Zostera bed as a direct result of anchor damage. Disturbance can also result in a permanent loss of habitat such as the removal of substratum or the water column as a result of creating new infrastructure or the removal of rocks or sediment which destroy the communities of organisms that are associated with them.

Type 3 Disturbance: Removal and/or harassment of target or non-target species

Removal of species: Fowler (1999) reviewed the scientific literature with respect to the impacts of the collection of shoreline species. The most commonly collected species include ragworm (Nereis sp.), catworm (Nepthys sp.), lugworm (Arenicola sp.), crabs (e.g. Carcinus maenus), winkles (Littorina littorea), mussels (Mytilus edulis), cockles (Cerastoderma edule) and seaweeds. The main impacts of bait collection include damage to the habitat, damage and disturbance to non-target species, and stock depletion especially in slow-producing animals.

Harassment of species: Potential disturbance to, and harassment of, species in the marine environment may take many forms, from accidental driving of an animal from its feeding/breeding grounds (harassment) to bycatch from commercial fisheries (removal of non-target species) (Kelly et al., 2004). For example, although cetaceans are theoretically protected from disturbance in the UK, 44 incidents of dolphin disturbance/harassment have been reported in Southwest England over a ten-year period.

Annex 2. Evidence Base for Disturbance

Although this report relates to ‘significant disturbance’, it is recognised that a few case studies presented below relate to individual disturbance events, with little indication of the long term impacts on the population viability. Lack of available evidence justified the inclusion of such case studies as they raised potential issues which may need further investigation in the future. Although some case studies present site specific and isolated disturbance events, no long term monitoring studies have been carried out to investigate the impact of these unlicensed activities on the viability of species or habitats and/or impairment of functioning.

Recreational Boating

Motorised (e.g. Power boats & PWC) Case studies from Literature Impacts on high speed craft wash on coastal habitats (Green Blue) References on Green Blue website Environmental impacts of water skiing (UK CEED, 1993) Recreational boating on marine environment (ABPmer, 2006) PWC, Lindisfarne & Budle Bay (Roe & Benson, 2001) Seal colony disturbance, Skomer (Birkhead, 1993) Boats & seal disturbance (Lelli & Harris, 2001) Boats and Dolphin disturbance (Pierpoint & Allen, 2004) Disturbance of grey seals in North Wales (Westcott & Stringwell, 2003) Non-motorised boat disturbance on Zostera beds in the Skomer MNR (Lock, 2002) Anecdotal Evidence Reckless disturbance of dolphins caused by Jet-Skis, North Wales (Pete Charleston, CCW) ABPmer report on impact of boating on wildlife (Kate Moore, RYA) Specific cases of boat disturbance to cetaceans and seals - in Dorset recorded by the Godrevy Seal Group; St Ives recorded by the British Divers Marine Life Rescue; Mounts Bay recorded by the Cornwall Wildlife Trust (Lissa Goodwin, Marine Connections) Harassment of dolphin pods by PWCs and motorboats (Neil Downes, Devon SFC) Harassment of basking shark by jetskis and boats in Falmouth & Lands End (MCS)

ABPmer (2006) carried out a review of environmental interactions of the recreational boating sector on the marine environment as part of the Green Blue project. The authors noted that much of the information available was anecdotal or was derived from ‘expert judgement’ with a lack of scientific studies investigating such issues. It was concluded that the significance of disturbance to marine biodiversity from recreational boating will depend on the degree, timing and duration of the disturbance and the species involved. This review emphasised that the effects of such activities will be both site and species specific, and it was suggested that further research to model the effects of disturbance from recreational boating is expected to further improve the understanding of the impacts.

Anecdotal evidence includes: Harassment of dolphin pods has also been reported by PWC and motorboats on the Devon coast (N. Downes, Devon SFC, pers. comm., 2006). Every year, the Marine Conservation Society logs harassment and disturbance by leisure craft towards basking sharks (J. Solandt, MCS, pers. comm., 2006). In 2006 alone, MCS received reports of PWC, recreational fishing and pleasure boats disturbing basking sharks e.g. 28.06.06 - Renae Aylett of Gyllinvase Beach, Falmouth reported seeing basking sharks harassed; 10.06.06 - Rachell Hoskin at the Mennack Theatre - 6 boats harassing one shark;

12.06.06 - Rachell Hoskin at the Mennack Theatre – one boat and one photographer harassing one large shark – snorkeller dropped in water with shark – herded shark into shallow waters – shark ‘shot off’ faster than the observer had ever seen a basking shark move before; 18.08.06 - RSPB Warden at Land’s End, Ryan Irvin, noted a recreational fishing boat chase a group of 23 basking sharks, which then dived, they then proceeded to charge the shoal once again.

Case Study 2.1 Disturbance to seal colonies from water-based activities

Various studies have been carried out on the disturbances to seal colonies from water-based recreational activities. Birkhead (1993) concluded for grey seals on Skomer Island, Wales, that for some events e.g. the passing of a boat do not cause any obvious reaction among seals. However it depends on the timing of the disturbance event, the speed of the vessel and the activity of the seals. Lelli and Harris (2001) carried out research on the effects of boat disturbance on the common seal. The majority of the 85 gross disturbance events were caused by motor boats, however, it was noted that the majority of traffic observed was motor boats. However, this represented only 11% of total motorboat traffic, whereas 55% of the much smaller paddled boats (canoes etc) caused events of gross disturbance.

The Godrevy Seal Group (GSG) have been monitoring disturbance to the seal populations at Mutton Cove, Cornwall following the erection of a sign in February 2004 requesting the public not to access the beach where the seal populations haul out (L. Goodwin, Marine Connection, pers. comm., 2006). For example on Saturday 9 July 2005 there were 7 disturbance events recorded in a 3 hour period, all caused by water-based activities (including 3 canoes, 5 surfboards, 1 RIB and 2 speedboats). All of these separate disturbance events caused the seals to leave their haul-out site at Mutton Cove. On Sunday 10 July 2005 there were 7 disturbance events recorded over a 1 hour period, again all caused by water-based activities (including 5 canoes, 2 surfboards and 1 speedboat). During this period no seals hauled out of the sea, although over the previous few days seals were observed regularly hauling out at the site. Observations from May 2006 showed that when a single RIB approached the seals (much closer than the advised 100m distance) all 31 seals headed hastily back into the sea. Seals are known to damage their stomachs and claws when they re-enter the sea following disturbance events. These observations demonstrate the impact that both motorised and non-motorised water-based activities can have on seal populations.

Westcott and Stringwell (2003) report on observations of disturbance to grey seals in their haul-out sites in North Wales. The data were the first of this type to be collected along this stretch of coastline and therefore formed a baseline study on the disturbance of this species, which in turn will influence future monitoring methodologies and management protocol for grey seals. The report showed that the scale of human disturbance events in the area was two to three times greater in magnitude than seal-on-seal disturbance activities. The greatest single disturbance was caused by a woman swimming across the bay close to the location of the seal haul-out site. This resulted in 76 seals entering the water thus leaving their haul-out site. Other significant disturbance events included a power boat entering the bay, resulting in 70 seals entering the water and an angling boat entering the bay with the impact of its wash forcing the seals back into the sea.

Case Study 2.2 Disturbance to cetaceans from water-based activities

Ceredigion County Council is engaged in an 11 year study of cetacean site use and boat traffic along the Marine Heritage Coast and Cardigan Bay SAC. Pierpoint and Allan (2004) studied the types of personal water craft using the bay and their effect on the bottlenose dolphin. They recorded the frequency with which dolphins avoided or headed away from boats when the boat did not stop. Heading away was recorded more often with speedboats

than with other motorboats or sailing boats. At ranges of 100 to 400m ‘staying’ was recorded in 50% of encounters with speedboats, 51% with fishing boats, 55% with canoes and 60-67% of encounters with visitor passenger boats, motor boats and sailing boats. Dolphins ‘heading away’ were again most frequently recorded, and ‘approaching’ least frequently recorded, during encounters with speedboats.

The British Divers Marine Life Rescue organisation reported that on 31 August 2004 some boats had been seen harassing and chasing three dolphins from St Ives towards Hayle. One of these dolphins was subsequently found stranded dead on nearby Porthkidney Sands, and the carcass was recovered for Post Mortem. The second dolphin was reported to be trapped in Hayle Harbour on 1 September 2004, and following a successful rescue swam back out towards St Ives Bay and disappeared from sight. The third dolphin, a juvenile, had stranded alive further up Hayle beach earlier in the morning and had been refloated successfully by members of the public (L. Goodwin, Marine Connection, pers. comm., 2006).

It was reported that on the 19 May a group of 5 or 6 dolphins were seen 200 metres offshore from Ovingdean Cafe, near Rottingdean, Brighton at 4.30 pm, and were observed by several patrons to the cafe over a period of about half an hour (L. Goodwin, Marine Connection, pers. comm., 2006). The dolphins were travelling east towards the Brighton Marina and appeared to be following a slow moving motor vessel. Dolphins appeared to be two pairs and a single, but possibly 3 pairs. The dolphins were then approached by a motor vessel travelling at high speed and directly towards the dolphins who responded by heading out to sea.

Further reports of dolphin harassment by motorboats and/or jetskis were received by the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee (N. Downes, Devon SFC, pers. comm., 2006), the Cornwall Wildlife Trust in Mounts Bay, and reports were also received from both the Firth of Tay and the Moray Firth (L. Goodwin, Marine Connection, pers. comm., 2006)

Non-motorised (e.g. Canoes and sailing boats) Case studies from Literature References on Green Blue website Recreational boating on marine environment (ABPmer, 2006) Disturbance of grey seals in North Wales (Westcott & Stringwell, 2003) Anecdotal Evidence Impact of kayakers on seal haul-out sites (Lissa Goodwin, Marine Connections)

All boats with anchors Case studies from Literature Salcombe Bay, Devon - boat moorings on Zostera (Rhoades et al., 2005) References on Green Blue website Anchoring on Zostera, Pen Llyn (Hemingway et al, 2004) Anecdotal Evidence Helford estuary anchors on Zostera (Sangeeta McNair, NE) Fal & Helford - no. of boat chains on subtidal (Sangeeta McNair, NE) Porth Dinllean, North Wales. Boat anchors and chains on Zostera (CCW) Anchors on fanshells in Plymouth Hoe (Lissa Goodwin, Marine Connection & MCS)

Case Study 2.3 Impacts of anchoring small craft on Zostera beds

Zostera marina beds were recently surveyed along the North Wales coast within the Pen Llŷn a’r Sarnau SAC (Hemingway et al., 2004). The boundary of the Z. marina beds at Porth Dinllaen were mapped and assessed for density and disturbance. The northern extent of the site encompassed areas of eelgrass beds showing medium to high damage resulting primarily from the areas being used for the mooring of small craft. In total, 18 boats were seen resting on the eelgrass beds at low tide. Here, it was reported that substantial areas of the bed had sparse Z. marina coverage (and in some cases were completely devoid of Z. marina) as a result of the bed being scoured by both the boats themselves, and their mooring chains. Similarly, damage to the bed as a result of buoys dragging through the sediment at low water was also observed. Vehicle (tractor) damage at the site is also a particular issue of concern, with five tractors seen moving across the Z. marina beds during the current survey. However, this movement was again generally restricted to the northern extent of the site, with the tractors being used to ferry items to the boats, and indeed pull the boats to and from the water.

A study was undertaken in Salcombe Bay, Devon to investigate the impact of mooring chains on Z. marina beds and their associated infaunal macroinvertebrate communities (Rhodes et al., 2005). This study provides evidence that swing moorings not only lead to losses of seagrass, creating bare sand patches, but that they have a significant effect on the infaunal macroinvertebrate communities present in Z. marina beds. Results show that the polychaete assemblage composition in the newly created bare sand patches, differs to that found in natural sand patches within seagrass beds. The study recognises that the results have the potential to aid coastal managers in their management of boat moorings, by enabling accurate predictions on community level changes in polychaete assemblages and seagrass area coverage resulting from the addition or removal of swing moorings.

Anecdotal evidence raises concerns for the subtidal habitats in the Fal & Helford estuary due to the impact from mooring of recreational boats (S. McNair, NE, pers. comm., 2006). Ongoing surveys of the area have shown that damage has been caused to eelgrass beds by mooring chains in the Helford, which resulted in the establishment of a voluntary ‘no-mooring’ zone in the estuary.

Case Study 2.4 Impacts of anchoring small craft on fanshells

A dive survey located a number of fanshells in the vicinity of the small craft anchorage off Plymouth Hoe. The fanshell is one of the rarest molluscs in the UK and is a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. In order to protect this rare species small craft were requested not to anchor in the small craft anchorage off Plymouth Hoe. Alternative anchorages were made available close by, north of Drakes Island and in Barn Pool. Similarly, fishing using nets or trawls and the laying of lobster or crab pots in the area

to the South of the Hoe is to be avoided. Despite these guidelines, small vessels still anchor in the area and have caused damage to the delicate fanshell population (L. Goodwin, Marine Connection, pers. comm., 2006).

Wildlife Watching (Ecotourism)

Case studies from Literature Seal watching in the UK (Young, 1998) Mammal disturbance in south west England (Kelly et al., 2004) Boats and dolphins in Moray Firth (Janik & Thompson, 1996) Moray Firth dolphins & ecotourism (Curran et al., 1995) Dolphin Space Programme, Moray Firth (Arnold, 1997) Seals in the Dollard Estuary, Wadden Sea to boats (Salvaggi et al., 2001) Anecdotal Evidence Impacts on cetaceans and birds in Wales (CCW anecdotal evidence) Harassment of cetaceans – Kelly et al., 2004 (Jean-Luc Solandt, MCS) Literature review of wildlife watching (Tom Blasdale, JNCC)

Extensive research has been carried out on the impacts of wildlife watching elsewhere in the world (Canada, New Zealand, Australia and USA) with a variety of responses observed in marine mammals reacting to tourists, with most studies focusing on changes in behaviour. Dominant behavioural reactions include a tightening of schooling animals (e.g. Blane & Jaakson, 1995; Nowacek et al., 2001), increased swimming speeds (e.g. Blane & Jaakson, 1995; Williams et al., 2002b), changes in movement patterns (e.g. Nowacek et al., 2001; Jelinski et al., 2002; Williams et al., 2002a) and changes in resting, diving and respiratory behaviour (e.g. Moore & Clarke, 2002; Lusseau, 2003, 2005: Constantine et al., 2004). In addition, changes in habitat use and avoidance of previously preferred areas have been associated with increase in boat traffic (Gard, 1974; Salden, 1988; Corkeron, 1995; Duffus, 1996; Lusseau, 2005) (JNCC, pers. comm. 2006).

Case Study 2.5 Disturbance to seals from wildlife watching

Young (1998) carried out a study investigating the practices of commercial seal watching operators. Site visits were made and judgements were taken on the importance of seals to the trip, boat handling in the vicinity of seals, the closest point of approach to where the seals were assembled and the accuracy of the onboard commentary. The study reported that four of the five trips sampled resulted in some disturbance to the seals.

Salvaggi et al. (2001) reported on the effects of disturbance on the daily rhythm and haul-out behaviour in the harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) in the Dollard estuary, Wadden Sea. It was concluded that the daily rhythm was affected by tides and boat disturbance with seals entering the water when boats approached closer than 20 metres. Pups and adult females reacted most immediately to disturbance events and it was estimated that pups spent about 12.5% of their time that would otherwise have been spent suckling reacting to the disturbance events. 5% of the pups were being born prematurely or were abandoned at the site, this being 3 times more than percentages for any other Wadden Sea site.

Case Study 2.6 Disturbance to cetaceans from wildlife watching

Kelly et al. (2004) investigated marine mammal disturbance in Southwest England, an area which currently has a growing demand for marine wildlife watching and ecotourism experiences. Although cetaceans are theoretically protected from disturbance in the UK, 44

incidents of dolphin disturbance / harassment have been reported in this area over a ten-year period. Local officials responsible for wildlife protection noted that a “lack of awareness of the legislation had led to confusion amongst agencies and individuals as to who to report potential instances [of disturbance/harassment] to” and that “there is a lack of evidential data and diversity of opinions as to what constitutes harassment”. Researchers have found a range of different behavioural responses from individual cetaceans and pods when in the presence of boat traffic. Responses range from no obvious reaction, to displacement from feeding areas, shortened surfacing, loss of pod integrity and scattering of individuals (as reported in Kelly et al., 2004). Further studies on the impact of boat traffic, including wildlife watching vessels, on bottlenose dolphins in the Moray Firth found that in 17 of the 22 cases where wildlife watching boats approached dolphin groups, significantly fewer surfacings were recorded (Janik & Thompson, 1996). Moreover, another study noted increased synchronicity in dolphin surfacings in response to boat traffic (Hastie et al., 2003) however, the biological significance of these behavioural changes has not been assessed.

Research carried out by Curran et al. (1995) showed that the presence and behaviour of unregulated whale watching vessels can have negative impacts on the whales themselves. Boat traffic may adversely affect cetaceans in a number of ways, including direct collision resulting in injury or death, or marine pollution from poorly handled fuel oils or litter. Harassment and engine noise may also cause disturbance of a whale’s natural behaviours, leading to disruptions of social bonds between mothers and calves, reductions in feeding and other essential activities, as well as other effects of stress.

CCW report that impacts relating to disturbance are particularly difficult to assess (e.g. impacts of reckless disturbance on cetacean populations) and they do not have any specific evidence of impacts of populations around Welsh waters. CCW estimate that they have around 2-3 reports of reckless disturbance (i.e. chasing with motorised craft/jet-skis) to marine wildlife in North Wales per year (Pete Charleston, pers. comm. 2006) but they consider that this is likely to be an underestimate. CCW recognise that the growing number of water-borne watercraft raises concerns regarding the potential impacts of this activity on marine mammals (and sea birds) in the future.

Case Study 2.7 The Dolphin Space Programme (DSP)

The dolphin space programme (DSP) on the Moray Firth has logged incidents, reported by the public, of behaviour which they have felt to be poor or potentially dangerous to both marine mammals and other water users (Arnold, 1997). A variety of watercraft were recorded in these reports, including sea canoes (kayaks), PWC, power boats and dolphin watching boats. In 1995, at least 46 instances of boating behaviour thought to disturb dolphins in the vicinity were recorded by staff at the North Kessock Seal and Dolphin Information Centre; 25 of these involved dolphin watching boats, including breaches of the DSP code and noise created by a faulty engine or gearbox which produced sounds within the frequency range of dolphin communication whistles. The remaining 21 incidents were caused by recreational boats. The South Kessock dolphin watch groups also record boating behaviour incidents during their weekly dolphin watches. In 1996, a total of 23 incidents involving dolphin watching boats breaching the code were recorded by the North Kessock Seal and Dolphin Centre or reported by the public, and subsequently notified the 3 accredited operators concerned. There were also reports of engine noise from one vessel which was within the frequencies of dolphin communications. A further 4 reports were received of possible harassment of dolphins by recreational boats or other watercraft during August and September 1996.

Diving

Case studies from Literature No further evidence obtained Anecdotal Evidence Damage to Eunicella and Ross coral (CCW)

In response to the consultation document, CCW report that although they have anecdotal evidence that inconsiderate diving activity can result in negative impacts on individuals (e.g. direct breakage of species such as Eunicella and Ross coral – Phil Newman, pers. comm., 2006) they are not aware of any studies looking at these impacts around Wales.

It was reported by BSAC, that divers are able to see reef structures and are generally aware of the implications of touching and disturbing such structures and take care to avoid damage to them. This is especially true when diving the most fragile examples such as the Serpulidae worm reefs in Loch Creran, seafan beds in Lyme bay, flame shell and maerl beds in Loch Sunnart and Loch Carron. However, the potential for sediment disturbance caused by divers is thought more likely to be an issue, but is likely to be of the order of that of a moderate current (~ 1 knot). Therefore it is only likely to affect those sites that are classed as low energy and species which inhabit such sites need to be adapted to cope with accumulations of silt and so are likely to be unaffected by disturbance of the substrate by divers. The more fragile species such as the Serpulid worms require a more moderate energy site that would have less of a degree of loose substrate to be disturbed in the first instance (J Watson, BSAC pers. comm. 2006).

Hovercraft

Case studies from Literature Impact of hovercraft activity in the Wadden Sea (Griffon, 1985) Anecdotal Evidence Impacts of hovercraft at Pegwell Bay hoverport (CCW) Potential impact of hovercraft usage related to fisheries activities (Phil Coates, SWSFC)

The use of hovercraft is another unlicensed activity that has the potential to affect nature conservation impacts including intertidal habitats and birds however there is no current evidence to suggest this is the case. CCW report that there are a number of studies looking at the impacts of this activity at Pegwell Bay hoverport and other locations however to date the results have not been published (CCW pers. comm., 2006). The South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee (SWSFC) have also commented on the potential for increased use of hovercraft in estuaries. Although used as a means of transport for fisheries enforcement and used by the RNLI in some areas, there is a concern that illegal fishermen may adopt this mode of transport as has occurred with the growing use of all terrain vehicles over the last decade (P Coates, SWSFC pers. comm. 2006). Since the 1980s, technical improvements in hovercraft design have ensured noise pollution is reduced through enclosed propellers.

Land Based Recreation

Case studies from Literature Recreational disturbance on Dee estuary (Kirby et al., 1993) Puffins and human disturbance (Rodway et al., 1996) Recreational pressure on rocky shores (Fletcher & Frid, 1996) Littering on Welsh beaches (MCS, 2003) Littering in Pembrokeshire (PCF, 2003) Grey seals to recreational activities, Wales (Westcott & Stringwell, 2003) Recreation impacts on birds in the Stour-Orwell (Ravenscroft, 2005) Impacts of coasteering on rocky shores (Tyler-Walters, 2005) Anecdotal Evidence Dog walking on high tide roosts in the Wirral (Caroline Salthouse, NW Coastal Forum) Use of quad bikes on Mersey SAC (Caroline Salthouse, NW Coastal Forum) Quad bike usage for access to fisheries in the Solway and Morecambe Bay (Bart Donato, NE)

Case Study 2.8 Impact of recreational disturbance to waterfowl roosts

Kirby et al. (1993) reviewed some preliminary results on the impact and extent of recreational disturbance to wader roosts on the Dee estuary. Of particular concern was the decline in populations of Bar-tailed Godwit and Knot as a result of levels of disturbance on the West Kirby beach. Surveys were undertaken from 1986/7 to 1990/91. The vast majority of potential disturbance agents recorded during this period were walkers (over 50% of the total in all years), or dogs (26-41% of the total), whilst bird watchers, windsurfers and horse riders were also relatively abundant. Actual disturbances were dominated by dogs (27-72% of the total) and walkers (20-34%). These disturbance events were generally of type 1 (waders flying to a new location within the study site) or type 2 disturbance (waders flew away from the site but returned within 5-minutes). 21% of disturbance events caused by walkers resulted in type 3 disturbance (waders moved to alternative roosting sites) with 7% resulting in type 4 disturbances (movements out of the estuary). There was also a noticeable increase in the proportion of disturbances attributable to birds of prey, and to other factors such as windsurfers and birdwatchers. The results showed that both Knot and Bar-tailed Godwit were amongst the species most likely to leave the estuary when disturbed (type 4 disturbance), suggesting that these species are particularly susceptible to roost disturbance.

Anecdotal evidence has highlighted disturbance caused to high tide roosts of over-wintering wildfowl and waders on the North Wirral (Dee estuary) shore by people walking dogs and taking part in general informal leisure activity in the winter. This problem is currently being resolved by the Dee Estuary Volunteer Wardens. Significant disturbance has also been noted to birds on the Speke Garston shoreline of the Mersey Estuary SPA by quad bike users. Notices have since been put in place by Natural England so that action can be taken by the police (C Salthouse, North West Coastal Forum, pers. comm., 2006).

A pilot study on the disturbance to wintering waders and wildfowl on the Stour-Orwell estuarine SPA reported that walkers and those with dogs caused the most frequent disturbance to birds (Ravenscroft, 2005). Rodway et al. (1996) investigated the breeding success of puffins after human disturbance. They found that the visiting regime of the study caused a 38% reduction in chick productivity in the following year, but the effects of the disturbance could not be identified in the second year of the study.

Case Study 2.9 Human disturbance on seals

Westcott and Stringwell (2003) report on observations of disturbance to grey seals in their haul-out sites in North Wales. The data were the first of this type to be collected along this stretch of coastline and therefore formed a baseline study on the disturbance of this species, which in turn will influence future monitoring methodologies and management protocol for grey seals. The report showed that the scale of human disturbance events in the area was two to three times greater in magnitude than seal-on-seal disturbance activities. Small scale, local disturbance occurred when walkers ventured across the beach or the rocks to draw as close to the seals as possible. The level of this type of disturbance appeared to be correlated with the number of visitors at the site.

Case Study 2.10 Coasteering, Pembrokeshire Marine SAC

Tyler-Walters (2005) assessed the potential effects of trampling on rocky intertidal communities from coasteering in St David’s, Pembrokeshire. Coasteering activities are likely to follow regular routes through the rocky intertidal, dictated by the conditions, the accessibility of rock, cliffs, or caves, and the desire to find positions from which coasteerers can jump into the water or gulley below. As a result, the routes chosen and especially areas where coasteerers gather prior to jumping, are likely to receive high intensities of trampling. Therefore, the evidence suggests that coasteering could result in detectable paths through rocky intertidal communities, depending on the frequency of the activity at any one site. The literature review revealed that a total of 19 intolerant rocky intertidal biotopes were identified as potentially vulnerable to trampling and hence coasteering within the Pembrokeshire Marine SAC, of which six are of Welsh importance and eight are nationally rare or scarce. However, given the paucity of data concerning trampling effects in the rocky intertidal in the UK, a survey of the impacts of coasteering would provide an opportunity to examine the effects of trampling and visitor use in steep rocky, wave exposed shores. See also Fletcher and Frid (1996) who conducted a study looking at the impact and management of visitor pressure on rocky intertidal algal communities.

Case Study 2.11 Access & Disturbance from Recreational Activities in the Solway Firth

Boyes & Cutts (2003) reported that recreational activities such as walking, wildfowling, bird watching and angling were found to be popular at the majority of sites around the Solway Firth which in turn caused localised disturbance. Access taken on foot led to the ‘formalisation’ of informal tracks created through dunes and saltmarsh habitats. At sites which were intensively used year round with high conservation interest, for instance Silloth to Mawbray, Powfoot, Southerness and Sandyhills Bay, the ‘formalisation’ of informal paths was regarded as a management problem. At Southerness, the uppershore communities were damaged through the compaction of sediment and damage to infaunal community by vehicle access. The sand dunes between Silloth and Mawbray had excessive use by pedestrians and vehicular use in the summer, causing compaction, erosion and habitat damage. Burn sites caused by campfires and disposable BBQs causing damage to dune vegetation. Trampling and the compaction of vegetation through heavy pedestrian use led to habitat deterioration, which becomes intensified during the popular times of year and when seasonal activities occur e.g. wildfowling and beach activities in the warmer weather. Occasional access on foot was observed to cause disturbance to the wildlife at some sites. Walkers taking access on saltmarsh sites at Burgh Marsh and Brow Well caused occasional bird disturbance, particularly to roosting barnacle geese at Burgh Marsh.

Bait Digging / Collection

Case studies from Literature Bait digging in the Stour-Orwell SPA (Ravenscroft, 2005) Impact of baitdiggers on intertidal (Eastwood, 2000) Bait collection, Solway Firth (Boyes & Cutts, 2003) Peeler crab collection, Menai Strait (Mazik et al., 2005) The Gann Flat, Dale: Thirty Years On (Edwards et al., 1992) Recovery of intertidal mudflat from bait collection (Lockley, 2001) Arenicola marina exploitation for sea angling bait (Litten, 1993) Effects of shore crab collection (Cook et al., 2002) Impact of crab collection on mudflat structure (Eastwood, 2002) Seaweed collection on intertidal and subtidal ecology (McLaughlin et al., 2005) Bait collection in Britain (Fowler, 1992) Tees seals research report: impact of baitdiggers (INCA, 2005) Crab tiling on Devon Estuaries (Black, 2004) Boulder turning by anglers (Bell et al, 1984) The ecological impacts of the collection of animals from rocky intertidal reefs (Quigley & Frid, 1998) Effects of disturbance to waterfowl from bait-digging and wildfowling at Lindisfarne National Nature Reserve (Townshend & O'Connor, 1993) Guidelines for managing the collection of bait within UK European marine sites (Fowler, 1999) Trampling associated with bait-collection for sandprawns (Wynberg & Branch, 1997) The impact of bait-pumping on populations of the ghost shrimp and the sediment environment (Contessa & Bird, 2004). Effects of clam digging on benthic macroinvertebrate community structure (Logan, 2005). Effects of harvesting ghost shrimps on subtropical benthic communities (Skilleter et al., 2005). The effects of experimental bait collection and trampling on a mussel bed in southern California (Smith & Murray, 2005). Anecdotal Evidence Digging and dragging impacts on bird populations in Poole Harbour (Sue Burton, NE) Lindisfarne - impacts on birds & seals (Mike Quigley, NE) Solent - Fareham Creek (Chris Pirie, NE) Literature review (Tom Blasdale, JNCC) Literature provided (CCW)

A review of the effects of bait digging in Britain was carried out by Fowler (1992), however more up-to-date and site-specific information is available in assessments carried out for SACs available from Natural England, CCW and SNH. Work undertaken elsewhere has demonstrated that bait collection/digging and associated trampling can significantly reduce density, biomass and size of both the infauna and epifauna, alter particle size distribution and influence carbon content and microalgae abundance (Wynberg & Branch, 1997; Contessa & Bird, 2004; Logan, 2005; Skilleter et al., 2005; Smith & Murray, 2005).

Case Study 2.12 Impacts of boulder turning for bait collection

Mazik et al. (2005) investigated underboulder communities in the Menai Strait and Conwy Bay SAC, with specific focus on the impacts of boulder turning for bait collection. Peeler crabs (those about to undergo ecdysis) are popular bait in the UK and are collected from beneath boulders in the low shore area of rocky shores. During collection periods, up to 90% of the boulders (of a suitable size) in an area may be turned with only 40% of these being replaced in their original positions. This can have significant impacts on the species living

beneath these boulders (Cryer et al., 1987). Whilst the removal of key species in large quantities will impact upon the community as a whole, the turning of boulders whilst searching for crabs causes physical disturbance which can lead to attached organisms becoming dislodged. When the boulders are not replaced in their original position, organisms inhabiting the underside become exposed, increasing the threat of predation, exposure to wave action and the possibility of desiccation. Liddiard et al. (1989) noted that there was a marked reduction in the diversity of species recorded on rocks at disturbed sites, in comparison with undisturbed control sites. Additionally, trampling on rocky shores also affects intertidal species composition with foliose algal species being crushed and organisms such as molluscs on exposed boulder surfaces becoming dislodged (Quigley & Frid, 1998).

Studies on the effects of bait digging / collection from elsewhere in the world include Fanelli et al (1994); Guidettia et al. (2002); Pinn & Rodgers (2005); Eckrich & Holmquist (2000); Duran & Castilla (1989); Jenkins et al. (2002); Keough & Quinn (1998).

Case Study 2.13 Disturbance to seals from bait digging activities

The Tees seal research programme (1989-2005) undertaken by the Industry Nature Conservation Association (INCA) has monitored the seal populations in the Tees with particular interest in the breeding population of common (harbour) seals (INCA, 2005). Disturbance to the seal populations has been shown to be sporadic and in 2005 disturbance to the seal populations was noted, this time as a result of bait digging (12 incidences), recreational boats (2 sampling boats and one unlicensed vessel) and one instance of a low flying plane. These activities caused the seals to leave their haul-out sites on Seal Sands, some seals returned to their haul-out site following the end of the disturbance, while some did not return during the monitoring period. Of particular note in 2005 were the bait diggers who have extended their collection area further onto Seal Sands, getting closer to one of the haul-out sites and therefore causing disturbance to the mother and pups during the breeding season.

Case Study 2.14 Disturbance to waterfowl from bait digging activities

Collection of intertidal animals takes place from both sediment and rocky shores on the Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast. Bait digging in the area, mainly for lugworms, has been the subject of extensive study and legal regulation in the Lindisfarne National Nature Reserve and Boulmer Haven (M. Quigley, NE, pers. comm., 2006). Townshend and O’Connor (1993) investigated the disturbance caused by bait digging to migrant and wintering waterfowl at Lindisfarne National Nature Reserve, NE England. This activity raised major concern throughout the 1980s with respect to its effects on disturbing waterfowl from the refuge area, depletion of lugworm populations and the disturbance to the sediments and other parts of the benthic fauna. As such Budle Bay was closed to bait digging for the winters of 1982/83 and 1983/84 under NNR byelaws. The Bay was reopened for the years 1984-1987 during which time the lugworm population was completely removed from the permitted baiting area (c. 4 million worms were taken). As the lugworms were further depleted baitdiggers moved further outside the permitted digging area – this lead to the successful prosecution of 3 baitdiggers under the NNR byelaws. Following the depletion of the lugworm stocks, bait digging was prohibited in Budle Bay in 1987/88 and an alternative site alongside the Holy Island Causeway was allocated for bait digging. There was a noticeable increase in waterfowl in Budle Bay following the closure of the bait digging area, with the Lindisfarne populations of Wigeon, Bar-tailed godwit and Redshank showing significant increases. It was concluded that Budle Bay may be a preferred area for these species and that birds which would otherwise have fed there were prevented from doing so by the presence of baitdiggers dispersed across the mudflat. By 1988 bird numbers doubled in Budle Bay with up to 10,000 birds present and numbers of other species in the Bay

remaining high. It was of note that following the depletion of lugworm from Budle Bay, the area was recolonised by the apparent immigration of juveniles from adjacent areas.

Field observations of human activities and their disturbance effects on the waders and wildfowl of the Stour-Orwell estuarine SPA were undertaken between November 2004 and March 2005 (Ravenscroft, 2005). Observers noted the occurrence of all events in the study area and those that caused disturbance to the birds. It was reported that of shore-based activities, baitdiggers caused the greatest disturbance to the waterfowl with 41% of observations noting the activity resulting in disturbance.

Sea Angling

Case studies from Literature Recreational Sea Anglers (Nautilus, 2005) Anecdotal Evidence Anecdotal evidence of damage from lost fishing line (Jim Watson, BSAC). Impact of recreational angling along Cornwall coast (Eddie Derriman, Cornwall SFC)

Cornwall SFC believe there is a large impact along the Cornish coast from the thousands of sea anglers fishing the beaches and from boats. They believe that the collective total of fish extracted from the sea by each angler must by inference have an impact on marine biodiversity. However the NFSA has reported that as much as 30% of the catch is now released (S Colclough, EA, pers comm. 2006). It is also reported that litter from angling left on beaches and in coastal car parks is increasingly becoming a problem (E Derriman, Cornwalll SFC, pers. comm., 2006). It has been noted that sites regularly frequented by anglers, have lost fishing line on the seabed, which entangles many species including crabs, lobsters as well as target fish species.

Nautilus (2005) considered that the impact of sea anglers on the environment is, for the most part, low impact. Bait digging may have a significant localised impacts a few location; and rays and sharks are prone to over fishing in the south west, however there is a reported positive trend favouring catch and release.

Unlicensed Commercial Fishing Activity

Case studies from Literature Access for fisheries Solway Firth (Boyes & Cutts, 2003) ICES - various reports Study commissioned to investigate unlicensed fishing in Wales (CCW) Impacts of crab tiling on the crab populations, infauna and wading bird populations (Sheehan, in prep) Crab tiling on Devon Estuaries (Black, 2004) Anecdotal Evidence Impact of fishing litter from cockle fishery in Morecambe Bay (Caroline Salthouse, NW Coastal Forum) Shore crab fishery in Menai Strait (CCW) Crab tiling in the Tamar Estuary (Sangeeta McNair, NE) Crab tiling in the Exe Estuary (Neil Downes, Devon SFC) Gillnetting for sea bass in Cornwall (Eddie Derrimen, Cornwall SFC) Anecdotal evidence of cockle gathering on West Coast (Steve Atkins, NWNWSFC) Seal entanglement in fishing gear (Lissa Goodwin, Marine Connection)

Rock-hopper trawling Northumberland (boats under 11m) (Mike Quigley, NE) Hand collection of cockles and shellfish (Environment Agency) Sea bass fishery (Environment Agency)

The hand collection of cockles and other shellfish is currently a public right to fish and in the past has had little impact. However with the rising economic value of shellfish, there has been an increase in the activity around the UK e.g. Lavan Sands in Wales, Dee Estuary and Morecambe Bay. The distinction between personal consumption and significant commercial exploitation becomes grey and the level of impact on marine biodiversity is hard to assess. Although there has been little assessment of the activity, it is however perceived to be a problem by many stakeholders.

The sea bass fishery is currently legally defined as an unlicensed commercial fishery with the definition appearing in government reviews for the first time in 2004 (Defra, 2004d). With a growth of sea bass stocks in inshore UK waters, there is some confusion over recreational fishing for sea bass, and that which is in fact unlicensed commercial rod and line fishing. The true recreational sea angling is often associated with this unlicensed activity (Environment Agency pers. comm., 2006). However, increased liaison between the SFCs, the MFA and EA is likely to have a positive impact on this fishery.

Access by fishermen has been highlighted at a concern around the UK. Natural England are concerned with damage caused by fishermen damaging habitat features by accessing the shore over saltmarsh, dunes and mudflats around Morecambe Bay and to a lesser extent in the Solway Firth. Examples include fishermen damaging saltmarsh in Morecambe Bay whilst gaining access to the fishery and quad bikes being used by fishermen in the Solway Firth to gain access to the intertidal fisheries and in so doing disturbing breeding birds etc (B. Donato, NE pers comm. 2006).

Further concern has been raised regarding the impact of litter, created by the cockling fisheries in Morecambe Bay (C. Salthouse, NW Coastal Forum, pers. comm., 2006). It has been reported that at certain times of the year (mainly autumn/winter), there can be several gillnets set on beaches around the Cornwall coast by unlicensed persons trying to catch sea bass (E. Derrimen, Cornwall SFC, pers. comm., 2006). In some areas of the county, this activity is prohibited and therefore any offending gear is seized by the Fisheries Officers. However, this activity is not prohibited throughout the whole of the county and there is a presumption by some individuals/NGOs that the gillnets may ensnare cetaceans. There is no actual evidence of this at present in Devon, however, there has been evidence of entanglement of cetaceans in gill nets reported in Cornwall (S. Colclough, EA, pers. comm., 2006).

There has been concern raised for the impact of crab tiling in the Exe estuary (N. Downes, Devon SFC, pers. comm., 2006) and the Tamar estuary (S. McNair, NE pers. comm., 2006) where tiles are laid down within intertidal areas in order to create an artificial habitat for peeler crabs to shelter under. At low water, the crabs are removed from beneath the tiles and sold. This activity not only depletes the crab stocks in these areas but also causes disturbance to waterfowl and other wildlife. A study into the impacts of crab tiling on the crab populations, the infauna around the tiles, the wading bird populations and potential impact that it has on mobile predators during high tide is currently being investigated (Sheehan in prep).

CCW have recently commissioned research to identify where unlicensed fishing activities are occurring around the Welsh coast (CCW, pers. comm., 2006). A current and topical issue within Wales is the fishery for the common shore crab in the Menai Strait which, over the past few years, has been collected and exported to Spain for food. CCW have no

information about the size of the seasonal or annual catch but they have received reports that crab numbers have fallen in recent years, and this is supported by CCW’s own monitoring data (however, it is noted that the decrease may be due to a number of factors). Nevertheless, this issue highlights the vulnerability of certain species that do not require a licence for commercial exploitation. Concern has also been raised about the disturbance to underboulder communities of the Menai Strait through the collection of crabs (see Case Study 2.12).

The impact of rock-hopper trawling by boats under 11m in length has been reported within the Berwickshire and Northumberland SAC. Rock-hopper trawling incorporates boats towing gear along the seabed with taut steel chains, punctuated with aircraft tyres to bounce over elevated rocks, thus keeping the nets from snagging on boulders and other sub-surface obstacles. Boats over 11m in length require a licence for rock-hopper trawling, however, if the boat is below 11m in length then this becomes an unlicensed activity. It is reported by Natural England that such boats have recently been working within the SAC boundary and they have expressed concern about the potential impact that this unlicensed activity may be having on the subtidal reef and faunal turf of the area. There have been no studies undertaken to investigate the impacts of this activity thus far (M. Quigley, NE, pers. comm., 2006)

Military Activities (Low Frequency Sonar (LFS) & Explosives Testing)

Case studies from Literature Damage to fish underwater explosives (Elliott, 1985) Potential impact of LFS on commercial fish species (Pilgrim, 2002) Anecdotal Evidence Issue raised by Neil Downes (Devon SFC)

Underwater explosives and depth charge testing can result in damage to fish populations (Elliott, 1985). Although the Code of Conduct requires the use of a low level (0.5 kg) fish scare charge prior to carrying out any high level explosion, this causes fish mortalities either directly or indirectly by damaging the fishes swim bladder.

A literature review was undertaken to investigate the possibility that increased naval sonar activity could lead directly to a decline in commercial fish and crustacean populations (Pilgrim, 2002). This study reported that although there was literature available on the impacts of low frequency sonar on cetaceans, no specific research programmes had been found which addressed the effects on species of commercial interest. Evidence suggests that low frequency sonar may cause the beaching of for example whales however there was no evidence to suggest that it could have the same impact on shoaling commercial fish species. There is great public concern regarding the effects of low frequency sonar on the physiological and behavioural patterns of cetaceans however the report concludes that there is as yet little public concern about the possibility of similar consequences to commercial fish stocks. It was concluded that further work was required in this field to assess the potential impact of low frequency sonar on fish and crustacean species of commercial importance.

Unlicensed Dredging

Case studies from Literature The effects of agitation dredging (ABP Research, 1999) WID and contaminants (Bray et al., 1997) Minimising environment impact of WID (Bates, 1998). Anecdotal Evidence Pre-dredging activities for cable laying (JNCC, pers. com.) Agitation dredging on the Dart (Roger Covey, NE) WID Thames Estuary (Environment Agency)

There are a variety of methods through which dredging activities can occur without the need for any from of license for example agitation and Water Injection dredging. Agitation dredging aims to disturb sediments and raise them into suspension in order to move material through the water column thus increasing suspended solids and siltation levels. This may lead to impacts on the nature conservation interests of the site although suspended sediment and deposition levels may remain within the range of natural variation, depending on the local conditions at the site (ABP Research, 1999).

Water Injection Dredging (WID) is not licensed but has the potential to re-liberate contaminants into the marine environment (Bray et al 1997; Bates 1998). WID has been occurring unregulated in most areas estuaries of the UK. This activity has the potential to release chemicals from the sediment, and impact on fish spawning, fish larvae and early fry. Since 1998 these impacts have been addressed in the Thames region through a Dredging Liaison Group (DLG) (see Box 3.23 in Annex 3 for further details).

Cable laying is seen as a relatively benign marine activity however, depending on the chosen route, this may not be the case. Recent proposals in the southern North Sea have shown that, although the actual cable is a small diameter, pre dredging activities (basically dredging the tops of sandbanks) can result in a much wider footprint. Whilst it is necessary to have a FEPA licence to dump the dredged material, it is not necessary to have a licence to actually undertake the pre dredging activity. There is potential for this type of activity to impact upon Special Areas of Conservation which are currently being designated for seabed features such as sandbanks and Sabellaria spinulosa reefs (JNCC, pers. comm. 2006).

Education and Research

Case studies from Literature No further evidence obtained Anecdotal Evidence No evidence

There was no case study evidence found within the timeframe of the current project on the impacts of education and research activities with UK marine waters.

Other Activities - Low Flying Aircraft

Case studies from Literature Impact of low flying aircraft on waterfowl in the Stour-Orwell SPA (Ravenscroft, 2005) Anecdotal Evidence Impacts of the use of low flying aircraft on seabird colonies (A. Smith, RSPB) Impact on North Kent grazing marshes from low flying aircraft and ‘mock landings’ (D. Rogers, NE) Impact of low flying aircraft on The Wash SPA bird populations (C. Donnelly, NE)

Case Study 2.15 Impacts of low flying aircrafts on estuarine waterfowl

The use of low flying helicopters, low-flying aircraft and microlights over estuaries and coasts has increasingly been reported as disturbing marine wildlife. A pilot study on the disturbance to wintering waders and wildfowl on the Stour-Orwell estuarine SPA reported that low flying aircraft had one of the largest impacts on birds on mudflats, displacing greater proportions of birds compared to other forms of disturbance (Ravenscroft, 2005). Although the frequency of the event was relatively rare, the disturbance on 75% of the occasions was severe. Low flying motorised hang gliders or microlites and helicopters usually caused major disruption causing all birds to leave the site.

There is also anecdotal evidence of the use of low flying aircraft (below 250 feet) on the North Kent Marshes, where an aircraft actually landed on one of the islands in the Swale being unaware of its importance and designations (D. Rogers, NE, pers. comm., 2006), and in The Wash where low flying aircraft have been reported to disturb the waterfowl for which the site is designated as an SPA (C. Donelly, NE, pers. comm., 2006).

Annex 3. Examples of General Management Mechanisms Water craft (motorised) Lead organisation and Box Code Details sponsor 3.1 Managing For the past eight years, the BMF have been carrying out a Personal Watercraft (PWC) road show to promote the use of safe BMF, Canterbury City Personal use of personal watercraft in busy coastal areas. In addition the road show enables interested parties to discuss the impact Council, Cyngor Watercraft that personal watercraft have in their area and learn more about how they can be effectively managed. The road show covers Gwynedd Council, areas such as training, insurance and craft identification, and a guide to "Managing Personal Watercraft" which addresses Poole Harbour disturbance to wildlife and zoning (BMF, 2006). Commissioners, RYA http://www.rya.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8DCE2C6E-FFA1-48A5-81AA-726D01AFFBCF/0/Managing_personal_watercraft_2004.pdf and Wirral Jet Ski Club 3.2 Effects on Wildlife Good practice on speed and visual presence in relation to wildlife. Advice on effects of disturbance on birds, cetaceans and Green Blue, Royal & mammals. Yachting Association Environmental http://www.thegreenblue.org.uk/tradetalk/effects.asp (RYA), British Marine Code of Practice Good environmental practice on board a boat. Guidance relates to waste, flood, hazardous materials, habitat and water Federation (BMF), The management, sewage etc. Crown Estate, Sir Peter http://www.thegreenblue.org.uk/tradetalk/environment.asp Blake Trust and the This Code of Conduct recommends good practice advice for all boat users including careful navigation when marine animals Environment Agency are sighted, when in sensitive areas and to keep wash to a minimum. There is also advice on careful choice of anchoring site to minimise impact on the seabed. 3.3 Pembrokeshire A voluntary Marine Code for the regulation of recreational and commercial activity within sensitive areas is in operation in the Pembrokeshire Coastal Marine Code Pembrokeshire Marine SAC. This was formed by a partnership of all of the wildlife boat trip operators, dive boat operators with forum a wildlife element to their trips and the main statutory bodies. Local boat operators comply with this code and will report incidents (e.g. kayakers landing on pupping beaches) to the relevant nature wardens. It is reported that no disturbance is caused by boat operators, as most are aware of the voluntary Marine Code and abide by it to maintain their business livelihoods. Components of the Code include: Where possible remain at a distance of at least 100m from marine wildlife and breeding/nesting sites and stay for no longer than 15 mins Avoid approaching marine wildlife at sea, allow them to approach you. If they choose to, remain on a steady course and speed. When in close proximity to marine mammals maintain a ‘safe navigable speed’ only. Avoid crowding wildlife. Ensure a maximum of three vessels are within 100m at any time. If necessary move away. Avoid cliffs, gullies and enclosed bays where possible. Be aware of your surroundings. Many wildlife species use these areas to breed and are easily disturbed when cornered. Hauling out or mooring close to young animals may distress nearby parent animals and prevent them feeding or approaching. Prolonged disturbance may cause abandonment of young all together. Avoid erratic movements and changes in speed. Do not make unnecessary noise. Do not touch, feed or swim with marine wildlife. Do not remove any wildlife from the area. Follow appropriate ‘good practise’ guidelines for activity or craft type and maintain a look out at all times. Although speeding was reported at Skomer Island in the early days of the Code, very few incidents are now reported. Boat operators require an annual licence to carry passengers from the MCA. Non-local boat operators/kayakers are also aware of

Lead organisation and Box Code Details sponsor the Code (RSPB & CCW pers. comm., 2006). http://www.pembrokeshiremarinecode.org.uk/code%20conduct.htm 3.4 Poole Harbour Zoning plan assigning separate areas for activities such as water skiing, windsurfing and the use of personal watercraft. Poole Harbour Authority Aquatic http://www.pooleharbouraqmp.co.uk/ Management Plan - Personal Water Avoid sensitive areas, disturbance, speed, harassment, litter. Kent Coastal Network Craft Code of www.whitecliffscountry.org.uk/pwc-guide.pdf Conduct Kent - Power craft code - Speed, behaviour, activity zones, marine wildlife, safety guidelines. Thanet Coast - North motorboats, http://www.thanetcoast.org.uk/assets/coastalcodes/ThanetCoastalCodes.pdf East Kent European personal Marine Sites. watercraft and water skiing Water craft (non-motorised) Lead organisation and Box Code Details sponsor 3.5 Pembrokeshire When canoeing within the Skomer Marine Nature Reserve, to always follow the code of conduct provided by Countryside Pembrokeshire Coast Coast National Council for Wales in its ‘User Guide’ to the Reserve. To refrain from paddling close to or underneath breeding seabird National Park Authority Park Authority - colonies at certain times of the year and to keep clear of any roosting or feeding waders and wildfowl on the mudflats or on Canoeing & land on, or adjacent to, the foreshore. Also avoid seal pups and haul-out sites. Kayaking http://www.pcnpa.org.uk/PCNP/live/sitefiles/related_items/canoeing_english.pdf 3.6 Exe estuary kite Advises kite boarders to follow the Guide for Water Users for Dawlish Warren National Nature Reserve and byelaws Exe-Kiteboarders boarders voluntary http://www.exe-estuary.org/projects/recreation/KiteSurfersCodeofConduct.pdf approved by Exe Code of Conduct Estuary Management Partnership and others - Effects on Wildlife Good practice on speed and visual presence in relation to wildlife. Advice on effects of disturbance on birds, cetaceans and Green Blue & mammals. Royal Yachting Environmental http://www.thegreenblue.org.uk/tradetalk/effects.asp Association (RYA), Code of Practice Good environmental practice on board a boat. Guidance relates to waste, flood, hazardous materials, habitat and water British Marine management, sewage etc. Federation (BMF) and http://www.thegreenblue.org.uk/tradetalk/environment.asp the Environment This Code of Conduct recommends good practice advice for all boat users including careful navigation when marine animals Agency are sighted, when in sensitive areas and to keep wash to a minimum. There is also advice on careful choice of anchoring site to minimise impact on the seabed. - The Canoeist’s Responsibly while on the water. Reminder to ‘avoid using areas important for wintering wildfowl, nesting birds and spawning British Canoe Union Code of Conduct fish in the appropriate season’. An interpretative leaflet, ‘Canoeists and Wildlife’ describes birds, animals and plants commonly (includes the seen by participants Central Council for Physical Recreation water sports code).

Wildlife Watching (Ecotourism) (adapted from Hambrey Consulting, 2005) Lead organisation and Box Code Details sponsor 3.7 WiSE Scheme WiSE is a scheme set up to deliver training and accreditation for operators of registered passenger and charter vessels who This accredited scheme wish to view marine wildlife. It ensures that marine wildlife is undertaken in a sensitive and sustainable manner. Nearly 250 is supported by skippers operating in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, South Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and Scotland have taken part in statutory conservation training that gives them accreditation to use their boats and take passengers to watch wildlife without undue disturbance. All agencies and NGOs for WiSE operators have agreed to abide by appropriate Codes of Conduct for the animals that they view, created to ensure that wildlife watching their operations are safe and sustainable (WiSE Scheme, 2004). businesses (WWF-UK & http://www.wisescheme.org/ CCW pers. comm. 2006). 3.8 Sea Wise Code, • Do not act in such a way that will make marine animals or birds behave other than they would normally in their natural Countryside Council for Wales environment. Wales & Wales Police • Be aware of your surroundings and of marine animals and birds. Do not cause them any disturbance. Wildlife Liaison Officers • Make no unnecessary noise. • Do not remove any plant or animal from the sea. • Do not swim with, touch or feed any marine animals or birds. • Allow marine animals or birds to approach you at sea and if they chose to do so keep your vessel at a steady course and speed. All vessels should be kept at a speed of no more than 6 knots when close to marine mammals. • If possible, remain at a distance of at least 100m from seals and cetaceans, basking sharks and nesting birds and stay in that area for no longer than 15 minutes. • If other vessels join you, move away if necessary to ensure that no more that 3 vessels are in the area at any one time. • Keep to your route at sea and avoid erratic movements or sudden changes in speed. • Keep vessel engines and propellers well maintained. Fitting propeller guards can minimise the risk of injury to marine animals. • Do not dispose of fuel, oil or litter, especially plastics and angling equipment, at sea. Take your litter home. • Help to protect all marine wildlife. Many coastal areas around Wales are subject to local bylaws and Codes of Conduct. Please be aware of these and adhere to them. Marine animals, birds and plants. Guidance for the general public. Mainly behaviour. http://www.ccw.gov.uk/Images_Client/Publications/marinecode.pdf Basking sharks are protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) making it illegal to intentionally Project AWARE 3.9 Basking shark capture or disturb a basking shark in British waters. A Code of Conduct has been established by the Sharks Trust to provide Foundation (dive Code of Conduct guidelines designed to help boat handlers and swimmers reduce the risk of killing, injuring or harassing basking shark. Both industry environmental codes of conduct advice boat handlers to reduce speed to under 6 knots and remain a minimum of distance of 100m away awareness from individuals, groups and breaching sharks. PWC are advised to stay a minimum of 500m away. Swimmers are advised organisation) to maintain a distance of 4m from the sharks, restrict swimmers to small groups and avoiding the use of flash photography. http://www.projectaware.org/uk/english/hotissue/012804-BaskingShark/ 3.10 Guidelines for 1. On encountering cetaceans, continue on your intended route making forward progress at a slow, steady, no wake speed Defra, JNCC, SNH, minimising (or less than 5 knots). This will present predictable movements and thus minimise the risk of disturbance to, or collision with, CCW, NE, EHS (N disturbance to the animals. Avoid erratic movements such as circling around the animals or sudden changes in course or speed. Ireland) Cetaceans from 2 To minimise the risk of disrupting mother-calf bonds leave cetaceans with young alone and avoid coming between a mother

Lead organisation and Box Code Details sponsor Recreation at Sea and her calf. 3 Allow groups of cetaceans to remain together. Proceeding slowly on a steady course will enable cetaceans to remove themselves from the path of a vessel as a group. Avoid deliberately driving through, or between, groups of cetaceans. 4 On sighting cetaceans, fast planing vessels should gradually slow down to a slow, no wake speed. A suggested speed is less than 5 knots. Wait until well clear of cetaceans before gradually resuming original speed. 5 Let cetaceans approach you. If cetaceans do choose to approach the vessel or bow-ride, maintain a steady speed without changing course. Refrain from altering course to approach them and remember that they may choose not to bow-ride. 6 Always allow cetaceans an escape route. If there is more than one vessel in the vicinity avoid boxing animals in. Be aware of your surroundings - cetaceans will have a restricted escape route in enclosed waters such as narrow channels or sea lochs. 7 Move away slowly if you notice signs of disturbance, such as erratic changes in speed and direction, or lengthy periods underwater. 8 There should be no more than two vessels in the vicinity of cetaceans at any one time, with no more than one vessel in close proximity. Refrain from calling other vessels to cetaceans. Commercial operations are also asked to consider: fitting propeller guards to minimise the risk of injury to cetaceans. Maintain propellers to avoid unnecessary noise disturbance. Where possible, use boats with low engine noise. Be aware of, and attempt to minimise, other possible sources of noise disturbance. http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/whales/index.htm 3.11 Code of Conduct The RSPB has developed a Code of Conduct which is promoted through other bird watching organisations. This code Supporters include: for birdwatchers features around the disturbance to birds and their habitats. Advice to birdwatchers includes: RSPB, The British • Avoid going too close to birds or disturbing their habitats Ornithologists' Union, • Stay on roads and paths where they exist and avoid disturbing habitat used by birds BTO, Scottish • Disturbance is not just about going too close - a flock of wading birds on the foreshore can be disturbed from a mile away if Ornithologists' Club, you stand on the seawall. WWT - Pembrokeshire See details above (3.3) Local authorities Marine Code; also several other council led codes of this kind - Cetacean Watching Whales and Dolphins Whale and Dolphin Code of Conduct Behaviour and operation Conservation Society http://www.portoflondon.co.uk/pdfs/pe/Cetacean_Watching_Code_of_Conduct.pdf - Dolphin Space Dolphins, Moray Firth. Code of conduct for boat operators. Accreditation scheme Scottish Natural Programme http://www.greentourism.org.uk/dsp Heritage - The United Marine turtles - guidance on their legal protection and status. Responsibilities for recording, dealing with stranded, sick, Marine Conservation Kingdom Turtle entangled or dead animals; identification; litter. Supported by the SEAFISH, Herpetological Conservation Trust, SNH, NE, Society supported by Code EHS, Marine Turtle Research Group, MEM, Euro Turtle, the Wildlife Trusts, University College, Cork many UK government http://www.euroturtle.org/turtlecode/turtlecode.pdf and non-government organisations

Lead organisation and Box Code Details sponsor Keep your distance. Never drive head on to, or move between, scatter or separate dolphins. If unsure of their movements, Whale and Dolphin - WDCS Cetacean simply stop and put the engine into neutral. Spend no longer than 15 minutes near the animals. Special care must be taken Conservation Society. Watching Code of with mothers and young. Maintain a steady direction and slow ‘no wake’ speed. Never try to swim with cetaceans for your Supported by British Conduct safety and theirs. Do not dispose of any rubbish, litter or contaminants at sea Divers Marine Life http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allweb/E703F6E03C76F42C80256FD900330805 Rescue (BDMLR) & Port of London Authority Also see the Marine Creatures Protection Scheme (St Ives Bay) - A code supported by the Environment Agency, Natural England, WDCS, Cornwall County Council www.cornwallwildlifetrust.org.uk/downloads/marine_code_st_ives.pdf Diving Lead organisation and Box Code Details sponsor 3.12 The Divers Code of In or on the water, divers are advised to: British Sub-aqua club Conduct • Stay away from buoys, pots, and pot markers and also to avoid driving through rafts of seabirds or seal colonies etc. • Do not disturb any seal or bird colonies with your boats. Watch your wash in crowded anchorages. • With regards conservation, never use a speargun. Shellfish, such as crabs and lobsters, take several years to grow to maturity; over-collecting in an area soon depletes stocks. • Observe local Byelaws and restrictions on the collection of animal and plant specimens. However the BSAC recommends that you do not collect shellfish, but if you must collect, only take mature fish or shellfish and then only what you need for yourself. Never take a berried female (a female with eggs), this is stock for future years. • Ascertain and comply with seasonal access restrictions established to protect seabirds and seals from disturbance. During the seabird breeding season (1st March-1st August) reduce noise and speed near seabird breeding sites. • Do not approach seal breeding or haul-out sites. Do not approach dolphins or porpoises in the water. Be conservation conscious. • Avoid damage to weeds and the sea bed. Do not bring up sea-fans, corals, starfish or sea urchins - in one moment you can destroy years of growth. Take photographs and notes - not specimens. http://www.bsac.org/techserv/sdpcoc.htm 3.13 The Underwater • No-one should attempt to take pictures underwater until they are a competent diver. Novices thrashing about with their Marine Conservation Photographers hands and fins while conscious only of the image in their viewfinder can do untold damage. Society with funding Code of Conduct • Every diver, including photographers, should ensure that gauges, octopus regulators, torches and other equipment are from Project AWARE secured so they do not trail over reefs or cause other damage. UK. It is endorsed by • Underwater photographers should possess superior precision buoyancy control skills to avoid damaging the fragile marine the British Society of environment and its creatures. Even experienced divers and those modelling for photographers should ensure that careless Underwater or excessively vigorous fin strokes and arm movements do not damage coral or smother it in clouds of sand. A finger placed Photographers, the carefully on a bare patch of rock can do much to replace other, more damaging movement. Northern Underwater • Photographers should carefully explore the area in which they are diving and find subjects that are accessible without Photographic Group damage to them or other organisms. and the Bristol • Care should be taken to avoid stressing a subject. Some fish are clearly unhappy when a camera invades their "personal Underwater space" or when pictures are taken using flash or lights. Others are unconcerned. They make the best subjects. Photography Group as • Divers and photographers should never kill marine life to attract other types to them or to create a photographic opportunity, well as being supported such as feeding sea urchins to wrasse. Creatures should never be handled or irritated to create a reaction and sedentary by the Sub-Aqua

Lead organisation and Box Code Details sponsor ones should never be placed on an alien background, which may result in them being killed. Association, the British • Queuing to photograph a rare subject, such as a seahorse, should be avoided because of the harm repeated bursts of Sub-Aqua Club and the bright light may do to their eyesight. For the same reason, the number of shots of an individual subject should be kept to the Scottish Sub-Aqua minimum Club. • Clown fish and other territorial animals are popular subjects but some become highly stressed when a photographer moves http://www.bsoup.org/C in to take a picture. If a subject exhibits abnormal behaviour move on to find another. ode.html • Night diving requires exceptional care because it is much more difficult to be aware of your surroundings. Strong torch beams or lights can dazzle fish and cause them to harm themselves by blundering into surrounding coral or rocks. Others are confused and disturbed if torch beams or lights are pointed directly at them. Be prepared to keep bright lights off subjects that exhibit stressed behaviour, using only the edge of the beam to minimise disturbance. Hovercraft Lead organisation and Box Code Details sponsor 3.14 Hov Pod Code of This Code of Conduct is very comprehensive and advises hovercraft users to be aware of local authority speed restrictions in Hov Pod Conduct harbours and sensitive areas; be aware of any local byelaws, to follow all marine regulations for powered boats relating to using the hovercraft around other boats and ships, unless specific hovercraft regulations dictate otherwise. Specific advise includes that hovercraft users should stay away from national nature reserves, protected areas, and sites of special scientific interest where operation of the hovercraft may upset the local habitat. The code provides a link to the Natural England website for users to find nature conservation sites where operating could be a problem. See: http://www.natureonthemap.org.uk Land-Based Activities Lead organisation and Box Code Details sponsor 3.15 Climbing A non-statutory “Climbing Agreement” was agreed between the NCC (now CCW), RSPB and the British Mountaineering CCW, RSPB and the Agreement Council. The agreement identifies specific climbs and time periods for climbers to avoid, to prevent nest disturbance. The British Mountaineering agreement is advertised in all the climbing guide books, and signs at the tops of cliffs. It is a well established system and well Council publicised. This is a non-statutory agreement by CCW. CCW are careful not to call a climbing ‘ban’. Very rare offences and is self-policing. 3.16 The Seashore This code addresses 5 main issues: marine creatures, erosion, wildlife disturbance, cliffs and rubbish. Marine Conservation Code http://www.mcsuk.org/mcsaction/education/mcs+seashore+code Society - Sea Wise Code - See details above (3.6) CCW & Wales Police for wildlife…for you Wildlife Liaison Officers - Recreational Guiding principles and good practice for: Bait digging, Canoeing, Climbing, Cycling, Dog walking, Fishing, Motor boating, National Trust Activities at Sailing, Sub-aqua diving & Walking National Trust www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-recreat01.pdf Properties - Seashore code for Seashore - Removal, disturbance, litter, general behaviour Thanet Coast - North all users http://www.thanetcoast.org.uk/assets/coastalcodes/ThanetCoastalCodes.pdf East Kent European Marine Sites

Bait Collection, Unlicensed Commercial Fishing Activities & Sea Angling Lead organisation and Box Code Details sponsor 3.17 Intertidal Fisheries Take care to avoid putting roosting or feeding wintering birds to flight especially when shore angling at night or at high tide. North Eastern Sea Code of Conduct • Avoid shore angling along shingle beaches adjacent to the lagoons as these are used by summer breeding birds and are the Fisheries Committee main winter roosts. • Tread carefully on the rocky shore if fishing off the rocks at low tide. • Take all waste home and dispose of it safely including old hooks, line and tackle which can hurt birds and animals. • Take only as much bait as you need and return unused worms and other organisms. • Follow the National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA) ‘Conservation Code for Sea Anglers’ • Abide by the ‘Recommended Retention Size Limits’ – as endorsed by the NFSA. • Help conserve fish stocks by returning undersized. • Only take enough for your needs, return surplus fish alive and healthy to the sea. http://erycdata.eastriding.gov.uk/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/NESEAFISH/NESFDOCS/CODE+OF+CONDUCT_GB_.PDF 3.18 Shore Angling This code of conduct contains good practice on bait collection, disturbance to wildlife, loss of line and tackle, catch and ATA, BASS, CCW, , Code release, information on nature conservation sites and litter. Specific advice includes: when bait digging, to ensure all holes MCS, NFSA, Sea and trenches are completely backfilled to help restore the habitat and minimise casualties of other animals found in the spoil. Anglers Liaison Do not dig within the vicinity of conservation areas or moorings and slipways. Replacement of rocks when collecting peeler, Committee of Great soft crabs or shellfish to minimise impact to marine life. Minimise disturbance to feeding or roosting birds, particularly over Britain and Ireland, winter. Disturbance can prevent birds from feeding and delay or prevent recovery from migratory flights. This code of SWFSA & WFSA conduct was produced as a collaborative venture between the Angling Trade Association, Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society, Countryside Council for Wales, Marine Conservation Society, National Federation of Sea Anglers, Sea Anglers Liaison Committee of Great Britain and Ireland, South West Federation of Sea Anglers, and the Welsh Federation of Sea Anglers, with contributions from Natural England, The Environment Agency, CEFAS, The National Trust, Scottish Natural Heritage and the World Wildlife Fund. www.ccw.gov.uk/Images_Client/Publications/Code.pdf 3.19 Bait-digging and Guidance on replacing stones or seaweed when collecting crabs and backfilling holes. Bait collectors are asked to support a Thanet Coast - North collecting Code voluntary ban on 'rockworm' collecting and avoid using any methods that damage the chalk reef. Guidance on avoiding East Kent European disturbance to roosting or feeding wintering birds. General behaviour and best practice Marine Sites. http://www.thanetcoast.org.uk/cgi-bin/buildpage.pl?mysql=46 Support from Natural England, Environment Agency, Kent CC, Thanet DC, Heritage Lottery Fund, Southern Water. 3.20 The Crab A draft code has been drawn up by the regulatory authorities on the Exe estuary to provide good practice for the collection of Natural England, Collectors’ Code - shore crabs (Carcinus maenus) within estuaries. The code has been established to help reduce the risk of conflict between Environment Agency, Exe Estuary those who collect shore crab for angling and other estuary users; and to help crab tilers to farm the estuary in a sustainable SW Federation of Sea way which respects nature. Crab tiles include any form of artificially placed habitat, structure or shelter to aid the collection of Anglers, National shore crabs. The Code of Conduct is managed by the regulatory authorities and promotes the awareness of wildlife in the Federation of Sea marine environment and emphasises the need for sustainability in a complex marine ecosystem. Anglers, Devon Sea www.exe-estuary.org/projects/fisheries/Crab_Tile_Code_of_Conduct_Exe.pdf Fisheries Committee and the Devon Estuary

Lead organisation and Box Code Details sponsor Partnerships. - Shore Fishing Seashore fishing. General behaviour, and best practice on litter and fishing gear World of Sea Fishing Code of Conduct Magazine - The Bait Collectors Collect bait sustainably, back-fill all holes for safety, and to maintain the intertidal habitat, avoid disturbing wildlife and marine Promoted by the Code heritage wherever possible, treat the foreshore with respect, replace all rocks and stones, and preserve the food chain by not National Federation of digging in eel grass beds, take all litter home Sea Anglers (NFSA).

Developed by the Solent European Marine Sites with the support of bait collectors and anglers, Natural England, the NFSA, http://www.solentforum. The Crown Estate, local councils and the police. the Solent Area Bait Diggers Association, Hampshire Constabulary, Fareham hants.org.uk/SEMS/Bait Borough Council, The Crown Estate, Chichester Harbour Conservancy CollectCode.pdf http://www.nfsa.org.uk/ - Bait Diggers in Backfilling holes, disturbance to birds, awareness of sensitive habitats. Poole Harbour Steering Poole Harbour Group and the NFSA http://www.pooleharbou raqmp.co.uk/pdf/bait_di gging.pdf - Anglers Code of Information on sensitive bait collection CCW Conduct

Military Initiatives & Other Marine Noise Lead organisation and Box Code Details sponsor 3.21 Initiatives Management includes the development of passive acoustic marine mammal detection, classification and localisation (DCL). QinetiQ for the MoD QinetiQ have been developing the Marine Mammal Acoustic Detection System (MMADS) under MoD funding. A second initiative is integrating sensors to form a marine mammal Detection Classification and Localisation (DCL) suite on Navy frigates. The MOD is also undertaking research into the issue of active sonar and its potential impact on the marine environment (Defra, 2006). In the south of England, a liaison meeting between sea fisheries committees and the Royal Navy has evolved a code of practice whereby warships during exercises fire their sonars seaward, ideally beyond the 12 nautical mile limit. A study carried out by Plymouth University indicated that further work need to be undertaken in the field (Pilgrim, 2002). In the United States, a detailed study by Jasny et al. (2005) suggested mitigation measures for ocean noise. These include geographical or seasonal avoidance of sensitive and high-risk areas for marine mammals. Operators establish a safety radius around the source and either shut down or reduce power when marine mammals or other animals approach. These are believed to be useful in reducing some species risk of exposure to the highest levels of sound Warships fire their sonars seaward, ideally beyond the 12 nautical mile limit. SFC & Royal Navy - Code of Conduct - sonars - Guidelines for Minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals JNCC seismic surveys http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/Seismic_survey_guidelines_200404.pdf

Dredging Activities Lead organisation and Box Code Details sponsor 3.22 Good Practice This supports the undertaking of post-dredging monitoring of the nature and the rate of change of sediments within the CIRIA Guideline for navigation channels, to provide information which can be taken into consideration before the next maintenance dredge is Dredging carried out (CIRIA, 1997). The timing of the operation should be considered to avoid or minimise environmental effects. It advises to seek guidance from local country conservation agencies, and other environmental agencies where relevant, on the identification of the most appropriate times to undertake dredging to avoid or minimise disturbance to marine habitats, particularly sensitive animals, such as shellfish, young and migratory fish and over wintering waterfowl. See: www.english-nature.org.uk/uk-marine/reports/pdfs/guidelines.pdf 3.23 Thames - Dredging Water Injection Dredging (WID) requires no licence. In the Thames Estuary, as riparian interest with rights to the seabed, the Dredging Liaison Group Protocol Port of London Authority (PLA) regulate dredging, rather than government departments as is the case elsewhere. Prior to with the Thames 1998, there was little effective liaison with most other interests. Since that date, the Thames Estuary Partnership has Estuary Partnership and facilitated the development of the Dredging Liaison Group (DLG). Today, this deals with all dredging operations, virtually all of Port of London Authority which are maintenance dredges, and WID is the preferred method in 80% of cases. All parties to the DLG are fully consulted on all applications. The PLA have conducted sediment and chemical monitoring work to assess the effectiveness of dredging methodologies recommended by the DLG. Based on the data held by the parties to the DLG and the trust built up between them, the PLA will now condition dredging operations to avoid, for example, sensitive periods for fish spawning, fish larvae and early fry (S Colclough, EA pers comm. 2006). See: http://www.portoflondon.co.uk/display_fixedpage.cfm/id/754

Research Activities Lead organisation and Box Code Details sponsor 3.24 Code of conduct for The guide or teacher is responsible for the safety and welfare of the group. Study groups are asked to respect the plants, Humber Management the Humber and animals and habitats they have come to study and do not trample wild plants or pull seaweed off rocks. Do not take home Scheme. Wash and North ‘marine curios’ such as starfish, coral or urchins and to leave seashore creatures where they are found. Put back rocks and The Wash and North Norfolk seaweed to protect sheltering animals. Norfolk Management Management See: http://www.humberems.co.uk/downloads/Codes%20of%20Conduct.pdf (Humber) Scheme – sponsored by Schemes See: http://www.esfjc.co.uk/ems/pages/GPGPrinted.pdf (Wash) The Crown Estate’s Marine Stewardship Fund

Codes of Conduct with Byelaw backing Lead organisation and Box Code Details sponsor - Marine Boats, dolphins & porpoise, seals, birds, fishing, divers, seaside pleasure boats, motor vehicles. Ceredigion coast conservation Code of Conduct & byelaws - Colchester and Colchester Borough Mersea Island - Council Seashore byelaws

Examples of Voluntary Management Initiatives Lead organisation and Box Initiative Details sponsor 3.25 Small Craft After consultation within the maritime community through the Tamar Estuaries Consultative Forum and the Port of Plymouth Tamar Estuaries Anchorage off Maritime Liaison Committee a series of measures to safeguard the fanshell population has been introduced. In order to Consultative Forum and Plymouth Hoe protect this rare species small craft are requested not to anchor in the small craft anchorage off Plymouth Hoe through a Local the Port of Plymouth Notice to Mariners issued on the 16/06/06. Alternative anchorages are available close by, north of Drakes Island and in Barn Maritime Liaison Pool. Similarly, fishing using nets or trawls and the laying of lobster or crab pots in the area to the South of the Hoe is to be Committee avoided (L. Goodwin, Marine Connections pers. comm. 2006). 3.26 No Mooring’ Zone - A voluntary ‘no-mooring’ zone has been established in the Helford Estuary to protect Zostera beds. Natural England have Local water bailiff Helford Estuary funding bouys in the area and postcards to advertise the voluntary initiative. As there is no harbour authority in the Helford to (funded by the local manage the scheme the local Water Bailiff, funded by the local district council, is the only person who enforces the scheme district council), Natural (S. McNair, Natural England pers comm. 2006). England 3.27 The North Norfolk The North Norfolk Kiters’ Working Group involving sport enthusiasts, local site managers and local interested parties promote The North Norfolk Kiters’ Working good and safe practice. The Kite buggy group agreed to self regulate their activity to zone use on Brancaster beach to avoid Kiters’ Working Group Group the National Trust land and RSPB reserve. However with the additional recreational activities of power kites and kite surfers also using this coastline, concern was raised over the impact of these activities on both the environment and other users. The preferred management mechanism is still to continue ongoing voluntary management through restrictions, wardening and raising awareness through education (ESFJC, 2005). 3.28 Seal Volunteers A voluntary initiative is run by Seaquest South-west, where the successful monitoring and management of seal haul sites has Seaquest South-west been achieved by recruiting informed volunteers. This has been running since 1997 and under the auspices of the Cornwall Supported by the and Devon Wildlife Trusts, supported by Natural England, volunteers reported sightings and strandings of anything seen Cornwall and Devon between the cliff top and the horizon. Among the sightings recorded were instances of disturbance. However a voluntary Wildlife Trusts and scheme like this will only be successful if coastal managers respond promptly (Westcott & Stringell, 2005). A similar initiative Natural England is run by the Cornwall Seal Group who are a team of volunteers who monitor the status of seals around the Cornish coast. Their aim is to reduce the disturbance of seals around the Cornish coast. Since 1993, the Ceredigion Marine Heritage Coast project has brought together over 100 local people who act as ‘volunteer wardens’ during the summer. This group conducts shore-based boat traffic and dolphin surveys each year in July and August.

Lead organisation and Box Initiative Details sponsor 3.29 The Wash and The Wash and North In 2003, The Wash and North Norfolk Coast European Marine Site developed a pilot Incident Recording Process (IRP), to North Norfolk Coast Norfolk Coast European gain a snapshot of incidents occurring as a result of recreational activity, which might have a damaging affect on the site European Marine Marine Site interest features (Rushmer, 2006). The objective being to enable effective targeting of resources and the development of Site Incident RSPB appropriate management where required. This pilot scheme covered mainly the North Norfolk Coast area, involving Natural Recording Process Lincolnshire Wildlife England, The National Trust, The Norfolk Wildlife Trust and the RSPB. In 2004 and 2005, the RSPB covering the west Wash (IRP) Trust area, the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust, the MoD and the Wash NNR also became involved. A more comprehensive picture is MoD now being developed of what incidents are happening and where across the European Marine Site. Wash NNR 3.30 Dee Estuary The Dee Estuary Volunteer Wardens was set up to reduce and where possible prevent disturbance to high tide roosts on the Dee Estuary Volunteer Volunteer Wardens North Wirral shore (Dee Estuary SPA). The Wardens patrol the beach and inform the public about why there is a need to Wardens avoid disturbance to the birds (C Salthouse, North West Coastal Forum pers. comm. 2006). 3.31 Sefton Coast Beach zoning of activity takes place on the Sefton Coast to manage, in particular, vehicular access, and other activities such Sefton County Council as kite-surfing. There is a permit system for access for boat users to launch. Sefton also has a police presence on quad bikes which can get into the protected dune systems to help control activity likely to cause (criminal) damage or create a public nuisance (C. Salthouse, North West Coastal Forum pers. comm. 2006). 3.32 Solent Skiers Voluntary wardening of the personal watercraft in the Solent is undertaken. These must operate at speeds under 10knots Coastguard, Marine Association within 800m of the shoreline. This is a voluntary arrangement backed up by byelaws enforced by the local authority, Police, Solent Skiers Coastguard and the Marine Police. Members of the Solent Skiers Association assist the local authority in enforcing the Association byelaws by voluntary patrolling the Solent and reporting offenders.

Examples of Byelaws Box Initiative Details 3.33 Sea Fisheries Sea Fisheries Committee (SFC) byelaws allow a range of permits and authorisations. Byelaws form the most important and widely used instrument for Committee the regulation of inshore fisheries. SFCs have the powers to limit fishing effort, implement with respect to local conditions the national regulations and Byelaws they can implement zoning schemes to solve fishing conflicts. Their main use is in the regulation of local shellfisheries. 3.34 Bait digging Byelaw A Public Inquiry was held to preclude bait digging in Budle Bay of the Berwickshire and North Northumberland SAC. The 1992 judgement in Anderson v. in Budle Bay, Alnwick District Council, that bait digging for personal use was ancillary to the right to fish, nullified the NNR byelaw 2(1)(a) as regards bait digging for Northumbria personal use, and identified problems with the seaward extent of the NNR byelaws. It resulted in an upsurge of digging during the late summer and autumn of 1993. Natural England initially considered simply amending the byelaws to take account of this judgement, but because this would take some time, issued a Nature Conservation Order (NCO) in October 1993 to restore control over bait digging in Budle Bay immediately. The NCO was seen to be largely effective after a few weeks. The NCO and the proposed amendment to the Lindisfarne NNR byelaws were opposed by representatives of four sea angling federations, and a Public Inquiry was held in March 1994. The Inspector, however, upheld the Nature Conservation Order and modifications suggested by Natural England, which included defining the Order’s seaward extent to a vertical depth of 6m below the low water mark, and broadening the restriction to include "removal of fauna for use of bait whether by digging or by any means" (thus covering the use of, e.g. bait pumps - and incidentally peeler crabs) (Langton 1994). The byelaw is still in place and bans all bait digging in this area.

Annex 4. Evaluation of Management Mechanisms

Codes of Conduct

Motorised Water-based Activities

Codes of conduct and best practice for recreational boat users has been regarded as a success by the RYA and BMF. The RYA (pers. comm. 2006) report that anecdotal evidence from members has revealed that some use them on a very regular basis and have significantly improved their practices. Although the majority of codes of conduct for recreational boating are developed to resolve conflicts between recreational users utilising the same marine space, the additional benefits derived for marine biodiversity is clear. The voluntary nature of the Poole Harbour Aquatic Management Plan means that it is, on the whole, respected. One weakness is that the signage is not always clear at launching sites as to which areas are “out of bounds” leading to confusion amongst recreational users. The success of the Personal Watercraft Management Guide has been seen around England and Wales (Gwynedd CC and Poole Harbour) and this guide has been well received by harbour authorities around the country (RYA pers. comm., 2006). The management plans have resulted in better training for boat users and an increased awareness and appreciation of their potential impacts on the environment, on wildlife and on other users.

In Cardigan Bay, the Code of Conduct to reduce impacts to bottlenose dolphins from boat users has been analysed for success due to regular monitoring through the MHC Cetacean and Boat Traffic Survey (Pierpoint & Allan, 2004). The separation distance (50m) as advised in the Code of Conduct can be used as an indication of whether the codes are being adhered to and which groups of water-users follow the best practice when close to cetaceans. The average separation distances during encounters with dolphins and the rate at which visitor passenger boats stopped when close to dolphins has increased since the introduction of the trip boat operators Code of Conduct. However the average separation distance for recreational motor boat users varied erratically from year to year with no apparent trend. This suggested that the introduction of a Code of Conduct has had less impact on the behaviour of recreational motor boat users than on wildlife watching operators. Pierpoint and Allan (2004) noted that speedboats were consistently less likely to stop when close to dolphins, with several incidents where boats passed close to dolphin schools at high speed, either diverting to approach the school or continuing their course apparently oblivious to the presence of dolphins. Because recreational powerboat users represent a diverse group who launch vessels from many harbours and beaches and who may only be visiting the coast, making these users aware of the Code of Conduct is more difficult. Whilst the recent results of Pierpoint & Allan’s study suggest some recent success in promoting of the Code of Conduct to recreational motor boat users, they highlight the necessity to further target speedboat operators in order to reduce the risk of propeller or collision injury to cetaceans from encounters with these vessels.

Wildlife Watching (Ecotourism)

The WiSE Code of Conduct as developed by Colin Speedie has seen considerable growth in support since its inception in 2003. It is considered very effective with the skippers who have been trained on the course. There are now over 250 companies or individuals with WiSE accreditation scheme around the UK. However, this is a voluntary approach and skippers can choose to be involved in the scheme or not. This can leave the unscrupulous skippers outside of the scheme and they can still threatening wildlife by disturbance through bad practices at sea (WWF-UK pers. comm. 2006). To stop harassment by PWC and ribs is difficult, particularly by general members of the public who are not members of the WiSE scheme. The dangers of not achieving sufficient “ownership” are illustrated by the example of the Dolphin Space Program’s Code of Conduct (Hughes, 2001). This was developed and championed by Scottish Natural Heritage in the mid-90s and while the code met with initial enthusiasm by whalewatching tour operators, it was ultimately considered by them to be too heavily biased towards “science-led” provisions and the interests of conservation rather than the whalewatching industry (Hughes, 2001). The scheme effectively collapsed within three years of being introduced and an industry-led code is now being promoted in its place.

Diving

The Code of Conduct promoted through the BSAC is seen as a success within the diving fraternity. The marine life and their habitats have always been respected and even where animals have been collected they have rarely, if ever, been excessively exploited. BSAC and PADI have a vested interest in maintaining and protecting the environment they want to dive and promoting this through their members. Divers are one of the first to witness any negative impacts in the marine environment. In addition the BSAC has worked closely with Scottish Offices, Marine and Coastal Development Unit, in the development of a Recreational Dive Code of Conduct for the Firth of Lorn and Loch Creran Marine Special Areas of Conservation.

Land-based Activities

Climbing affecting nesting seabirds at South Stack Reserve in north Wales has been successfully managed through voluntary mechanisms. The agreement identifies specific climbs and time periods for climbers to avoid, to prevent nest disturbance which is very rarely violated and is self-policing (A. Smith, RSPB pers. comm. 2006).

Both the National Park Authority and the National Trust recognise the importance of areas for specialist recreational activities, e.g. rock climbing and coasteering, and the need to manage such sites on the basis of the capacity of the site rather than on the demand for the activity. Management of such sites and activities is carried out successfully by voluntary agreements with groups or representative bodies such as the British Mountaineering Council and the Pembrokeshire Outdoor Charter Group (for coasteering) (PCF, 2003b).

Bait Collection & Recreational Angling

Fowler (1999) reported that, in practice, only a minimum of bait collectors actually adheres to most of the guidelines set out in these codes in many areas. It is rare to see bait diggers back-filling holes, and most individuals searching for crabs do not replace rocks and stones. The majority may not even be aware of the existence of national or regional codes of conduct and their importance for conserving stocks and maintaining access to collection sites. In the Solent, the bait digging Code of Conduct whilst developed with input from bait diggers, is purely voluntary and hence its adoption is non-statutory. The code has therefore, had little impact (A. Fowler, Chichester Harbour Conservancy pers. comm. 2006). Within the North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee’s remit, the intertidal fisheries Code of Conduct has had limited effectiveness, with few fishermen or individuals applying the provisions of the code (L. Stockdale pers. comm. 2006). It is felt that many of the individuals carrying out the recreational angling can not be cautioned and although any unlicensed anglers are advised of any restrictions in place that will affect them and any “good practice” by sea fisheries committees, it is hard to regulate them (E. Derriman, Cornwall SFC, per comm. 2006).

Voluntary ‘refuge’/ ’important bird areas’ are currently being promoted through the Poole Harbour management plan, however the scheme is in its infancy and the feedback has only just started. Natural England believe these voluntary agreements allow a face to face opportunity for nature conservation bodies to meet recreational users and discuss each others concerns to try to find a satisfactory agreement. However sometimes the compromise is unsatisfactory with respect to protecting habitats/species adequately. There is sometimes unwillingness by recreational groups to change their activity, especially when the areas highlighted for voluntary management schemes are likely to significantly affect or exclude a particular activity (S. Burton, Natural England, pers. comm. 2006). The crab tiling Code of Conduct in the Exe estuary and other Devon estuaries although making fishermen aware of the issues, is not believed to have been a success due to the expense of enforcement.

CCW’s Code of Conduct for angling was very successful in raising awareness in local recreational anglers who may have an interest ensuring the sustainability of their local environment. However, there have been incidences where commercial bait diggers from elsewhere in the country have used Welsh intertidal areas to take large amounts of bait from sensitive habitats, not only negatively impacting these habitats but reducing the support for the Code of Conduct if it can so easily be undermined.

Voluntary Initiatives

Voluntary arrangements aimed at resolving conflicts between recreational users and impacts on the marine environment, have secured local support in many areas around the UK. The voluntary North Norfolk Kiters Working Group has proved successful with liaison between parties proving encouraging and demonstrating understanding and co-operation. This has led to a voluntary interim agreement and a working group being formed. It is recognised that the way this activity is managed will have an impact on users and on the environment and the results are proving encouraging (Rushmer, 2006). Similarly early results from The Wash and North

Norfolk Coast European Marine Site Incident Reporting Process (IRP) have shown the potential value of this process has already been recognised from initial observations. The IRP process is now producing co-ordinated results where none had existed before, from a process developed and run with/by the site managers, volunteers and others on the site. It has already proved a useful management tool, leading to direct action being taken for the benefit of the EMS. For example, the process has enabled follow up action for disturbing flying incidents, which predominate in North Norfolk in particular. A follow up letter has been developed for sending to flyers once aircraft owners have been identified on a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) database and positive dialogue opened. Dialogue has also taken place with the CAA over enhancing the information on air navigation charts about the EMS interest features. It is now intended that the IRP will become a constant feature of the site management measures and ultimately the information coming forward will be linked to a GIS based recording system for clearer spatial interpretation (Rushmer, 2006).

Activity zoning and access permits have been effective on the Sefton coast and the Dee Estuary Volunteer Wardens set up to reduce and where possible prevent disturbance to high tide roosts on the North Wirral shore (Dee Estuary SPA) have generally been regarded as a success. However, both schemes rely on the goodwill of the volunteers and sufficient people to police and manage the systems. The specialist beach police presence has worked well to date but there have been problems getting appropriate back-up and response times from the general force when those particularly trained officers are not on duty (C. Salthouse, North West Coastal Forum pers. comm. 2006). The voluntary dolphin watching group in Cardigan Bay SAC has been a success, with the volunteer network also raising awareness of local marine issues, encouraging local participation in decision making, and in directly involving local people in activities which benefit their coastline and marine wildlife.

Unfortunately the Notice to Mariners in Plymouth Hoe has not been a success. Despite the guidelines, small vessels still anchor in the area and continue to cause damage to the delicate fanshell population. Similarly the voluntary ‘no anchor zone’ in the Helford has been unsuccessful as with no legislative backing, there are no powers to stop people from mooring anywhere they wish.

Byelaws

The effectiveness of byelaws was subject to review by an Inter-Departmental Working Party's findings (DETR, 1998) and also further addressed by Atkins in 2004. The reviews main recommendations were that local authority powers should be consolidated and updated to reflect modern forms of coast-related recreation, such as PWC and power boating; powers should include the ability to provide exclusion zones to certain activities and local authorities should be given more general byelaw powers to regulate activities affecting the wider environment. Atkins (2004) provides guidance for local authorities on their powers to regulate activity and their responsibilities to promote good practice among all users of the coast. As well as describing the powers that can be used to control PWC and other recreational craft, it gives examples of successful mixes of voluntary and legislative action (including zoning and enforcement) by local authorities.

Annex 5 Key Contacts for Consultation

A number of groups and individuals have contributed time and information to this evidence base, with the following gratefully acknowledged:

British Marine Federation British Sub-Aqua Club CCW (inc Skomer MNR) CEFAS Chichester Harbour Authority CoastNet Environment Agency Flamborough Coastal Forum Humber Management Scheme JNCC Local Authorities Local Government Association Marine Biological Association Marine Connection Marine Conservation Society National Federation of Sea Anglers Natural England North West Coastal Forum Police Royal Yachting Association RSPB Sea Fisheries Committees Shark Trust University of Liverpool Wildlife Trust Windsurfing Association WWF-UK

Attendees at a Stakeholder Workshop held on 14th September 2006 to discuss the draft findings included:

Mike Elliott – IECS, University of Hull Sue Boyes – IECS, University of Hull Krystal Hemingway – IECS, University of Hull Jo Myers - Defra Roger Covey – Defra / Natural England Lindsey Richardson – Environment Agency Brian Clark – British Marine Federation Tom Blasdale – JNCC Clare Eno – CCW Annie Smith – RSPB and Wildlife & Countryside Link Keith Hiscock – Marine Biological Association, Plymouth Ali Champion – WWF Stephen Atkins - NWNWSFC Marie Pendle - CEFAS

Annex 6 Unlicensed Activities Consultation

A cross section of key stakeholders (listed in Annex 5) were provided with a copy of Table 1 (see page 14) and asked to provide views and case study examples related to the following issues:

A1. Can you provide any case study evidence (references, reports, studies, and/or anecdotal etc) of significant(*) impacts of unlicensed activities on marine biodiversity? (*) for example those that can affect the viability of a species or impair functioning. The focus is not on threats to individuals).

A2a. Can you provide any case study evidence (references, reports, studies, and/or anecdotal etc) on the mechanisms used to manage such unlicensed activities? e.g. codes of conduct, best management practices, non-statutory (‘non-legally binding’) and regulatory measures etc. A2b. How effective have these been (strengths and weaknesses)?

A3a. In your informed opinion, which of the following statements do you believe to be true (please circle the appropriate answer): 1. Unlicensed activities have a GREATER IMPACT on marine biodiversity than consented activities. 2. Both unlicensed and consented activities have a SIMILAR IMPACT on marine biodiversity. 3. Unlicensed activities have a LESSER IMPACT on marine biodiversity than consented activities. A3b. Do you have any case study evidence (references, reports, studies, and/or anecdotal etc) to support your answer?