1

Public Consultation

Net Fishing Management for Estuaries, Harbours and Piers in Dorset, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight

To be read in conjunction with Supporting Evidence Document

October – December 2018

2

Summary Table

Topic of this consultation

The topic of this consultation is the management of net fishing activities in the Southern IFCA district.

IntendedAudience

This is a Public Consultation and anyone is welcome to respond.

Responsible Body

Southern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (IFCA)

Purpose The purpose of this consultation is to consult the community on the proposed development of new net fishing measures for theSouthern IFCA district.

Duration Consultation start: 15th October 2018 Consultation end: 7th December 2018

Enquiries During the consultation: enquiries@southern-ifca.gov.uk or telephone 01202 721373.After this consultation a summary of the responses received will be placed on our website at www.southern-ifca.gov.uk

How to respond

Reponses must be submitted by 7th December 2018. You can respond in writing by email to: enquiries@southern-ifca.gov.ukOr by post to:Southern IFCA, 64 Ashley Road, Parkstone, Poole, Dorset BH14 9BN

ContentsSection 1: Introduction..........................................................................................................3

1.1 Current Management 31.2 Our Duties 31.3 This Review 41.4 Your Role 5

Section 2: Our Proposals......................................................................................................62.1 Definition of Ring Net Use 62.2 Grey Mullet Minimum Size Increase 72.3 Net Management Areas 82.3.1 Harbours and Estuaries 82.3.2 Piers 8Proposed Net Management Area Maps 1 - 10 10-17

Section 3: Questions...........................................................................................................18

Section 4: Next Steps..........................................................................................................19

Section 5: Data Protection..................................................................................................19

Supporting Evidence...........................................................................................................21Annex I: Table of Proposed Net Management Areas 22Annex II: Existing Measures 23Annex III: Net Management Area Selection Evidence 25Annex IV: Temporal Salmonid Migration 36

3

1. IntroductionThe harbour and estuarine waters of Dorset, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight are highly bio- diverse and ecologically rich habitats, providing valuable nursery and refuge areas for a variety of fish species. These transitional waters also form an important migratory route for salmon and sea trout as they leave and re-enter our riverine environments.

Our harbours, estuaries and piers are also important places for people, offering a place to enjoy through recreation or somewhere to make an income. In particular, these areas hold great significance for recreational and commercial fisheries.

Net fishing is an activity which has been carried out by fishers in the estuaries, harbours and coastal waters of Dorset, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight for generations. Net types and fishing methods have evolved over time to reflect the target species, local environment, technological advances and the people using them. At the same time, the impacts of developing fishing methods on the marine environment and fish populations have changed. It is important to take the opportunity to consider how these activities can be better managed to better support these habitats, species and human users, promoting positive economic and social benefits for coastal communities.

1.1 Current ManagementWithin the Southern IFCA district there exists a complex range of management measures relating to the use of nets in harbours and estuaries (Annex II).

These measures include Southern IFCA byelaws such as the Fixed Engines1 Byelaw, the Sea Fisheries Fixed Engine Prohibition Byelaw2 and the Regulation of the Use of Stake or Stop Nets in Langstone Harbour3 legacy Byelaw, national legislation, including Bass Nursery Areas4, local regulations such as Harbour Master byelaws or land-owner permissions, and voluntary codes such as the Southern IFCA Netting Code of Practice5.

European Union measures outline required mesh sizes and the marking of fishing nets at sea6. Specifically, within 6nm, regulations require that nets are labelled in a prescribed manner and it is recommended that marker buoys are used and marked with the vessel’s port letter and numbers (PLN) so that gear is easily identifiable.

Recreational fishers, or fishers from the shore, are currently allowed to fish with nets within the district, providing that they follow relevant net regulations.

This review provides an opportunity, in line with the Authority’s duties, to consider the value of existing measures as well as the need for further management with an aim of rationalising, improving and simplifying net management arrangements in the Southern IFCA district.

1.2 Our DutiesThe nationally agreed vision of the IFCAs is that they will “lead, champion and manage a sustainable marine environment and inshore fisheries within their Districts by successfully

1 http://www.southern-ifca.gov.uk/byelaws#Fixed-Engines2 http://www.southern-ifca.gov.uk/byelaws#SeaFishFixEngPro3 http://www.southern-ifca.gov.uk/byelaws#Regulation-of-the-Use-of-Stake-or-Stop-Nets-in- Langstone-Harbour4 https://secure.toolkitfiles.co.uk/clients/25364/sitedata/files/BassNurseryBooklet.pdf5 https://secure.toolkitfiles.co.uk/clients/25364/sitedata/files/Nettingcodeofpractice.pdf

4

6 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/marking-of-fishing-gear-retrieval-and-notification-of-lost-gear

5

securing the right balance between social, environmental and economic benefits to ensure healthy seas, sustainable fisheries and a viable industry”.

Under Section 153 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 20097 Southern IFCA must manage the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the district. In doing so, the Authority must:

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

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

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

(d) seek to balance the different needs of persons engaged in the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the district.

Furthermore, the Authority has responsibilities to manage fishing activities within sites of conservation importance such as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)8, or Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI)9. This is of particular relevance to this review as, within the district, the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) is listed as a species of Community interest in two SACs and both the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and the brown/sea trout (Salmo trutta) are referenced in the citations of several SSSIs. Additionally, the Atlantic salmon was identified as a priority species under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) and subsequently listed as a Species of Principal Importance under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 200610.

Under Section 155 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 200911 the Authority has the power to make byelaws for the district. IFCA Byelaw Guidance12 outlines the management options and scope of IFCA byelaws.

1.3 This ReviewThrough the Authority’s strategic review of management measures13, the Authority identified that it was a priority to review the management of near-shore netting & nursery areas in the district.

Following Authority consideration14, Members identified their objectives to review and, if necessary, develop netting regulations to:

7 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/23/section/1538 Under Article 6(2) of the EU Habitats Directive “Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid… the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive”. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) requires that the IFCA exercise its functions, which are relevant to marine conservation so as to secure compliance with the requirements of the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive.9 Under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, fisheries regulators must take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of the authority’s functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of features for which the is designated.10 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/contents11 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/23/contents12 http://www.association-ifca.org.uk/Upload/About/ifca-byelaw-guidance.pdf

6

13 http://www.southern-ifca.gov.uk/review-of-management-measures14 Minutes of the Southern IFCA Technical Advisory Committee, 31-08-17

7

i. Support the use of estuaries and harbours by bass and other fish populations as nursery and refuge areas;

ii. Provide protection to migratory fish species as they transit through our estuaries and harbours; and, within these areas

iii. Balance the social and economic benefits and different needs of users in exploiting the fishery.

An Authority Working Group, consisting of Defra Appointee Members, has, conducted this review in an evidence based, strategic and proportionate manner.

In line with the objectives of this review, Members have considered the effectiveness of existing management and opportunities to strengthen it. The best-available evidence from a variety of sources, including the Environment Agency15, Natural England16, commercial and recreational users has supported decision making throughout this review, as will any additional evidence that is submitted through this pre-consultation.

Through the Authority Working Group, under this review, a series of draft proposals have been developed by Members. The Authority now wishes to seek the views of the community through this consultation. This ‘pre-consultation’ provides the community to consider the draft proposals, together with the evidence considered and provide their views prior to further development. This is also an opportunity for interested parties to submit relevant additional evidence to further support decision-making. Section 4 outlines the likely next steps of this review, following the conclusion of this consultation.

1.4 Your roleThis document seeks your views on draft proposals, outlined in Section 2.

A series of questions have been identified in Section 3 to guide you through your response. It is important that you provide evidence to support your answers where possible. Please respond to these questions by 7th December 2018.

We would welcome participants to contact us with questions and enquiries related to this consultation and, where relevant, we would be pleased to engage with groups or associations. Please contact us by email at: enquiries@southern-ifca.gov.uk or by telephone: 01202 721373.

As part of this consultation the Authority will be hosting a series of stakeholder events, designed to provide further engagement opportunities for interested parties. Details of these stakeholder events will be published on the homepage of the Southern IFCA website: www.southern-ifca.gov.uk.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider and respond to this consultation.

Your responses will be treated in line with Data Protection guidelines as detailed in Section 5 of this document.

15 Environment Agency: Review of Protection Measures for Atlantic Salmon and Sea Trout in Inshore Waters.16 Natural England: Advice on the conservation status of Atlantic salmon and sea trout in the Southern IFCA district

8

2. Our ProposalsMembers have developed a series of draft management proposals that we believe to be suitably evidence based, strategic and proportionate. These draft proposals are designed to be considered in combination with one another and together they collectively address the objectives of this review.

Our proposals consider the relative impacts of different net types and, through our proposed net management areas (Section 2.3), we seek to manage these accordingly. Further evidence supporting the spatial and temporal extent of our net management area proposals can be found in Annex III and Annex IV. In certain areas our proposals seek to differentiate between ring nets and all other net types. We have therefore set out a series of defining principles for ring net use (as outlined in Section 2.1) to form the basis of a legal definition for the activity in the development of any future net management by the Authority.

When developing proposals Members considered the likely impacts on the fish populations using our harbours and estuaries as nursery and refuge areas. Ring net fishers use these areas to principally target Grey mullet, therefore, considering the objectives of this review, Members have considered the potential for an increase in the minimum legal size for Grey mullet species in the district. Five potential management options are presented in Section 2.2.

2.1 Definition of Ring Net UseRing nets are commonly used in the district’s harbours and estuaries and are typically hand- hauled by single operators on small (6-8m) shallow drafted vessels, commonly targeting grey mullet species and bass.

During the process of this review Authority Members have considered evidence from expert witnesses relating to the activity in different areas of the district and have reached a conclusion that ring nets pose a reduced risk to salmonid survival rate, by virtue of the style of fishing in comparison to other types of netting. It was determined that the ‘potential interception’ for Salmonids would principally be a result of the use of drift and fixed nets. This conclusion was made in particular reference to the use of relatively short ring nets when constantly attended to by fishers and when set in an encircling manner in an open body of water.

In certain areas our net management proposals apply to all net use, except ring nets. It is therefore important to outline our understanding of this fishing method, in so far as to ensure that it does not compromise salmonid survival rate. A set of defining principles for ring net use have been agreed by Members and will form the basis of a legal definition for the activity in the development of any future net management by the Authority.

It is proposed that the following principles for ring net use be adopted to form a definition of the activity:

A ring net shall consist of a single sheet of netting not more than 350 meters in length and not more than 6 meters in depth at any point.

A single weight of not more than 500g may be used to aid the shooting of the net from the vessel.

In open water the net shall be shot or paid out from a vessel starting at Point A, it shall continue in a circular pattern and return to Point A without pause or delay where the net will be closed except to allow the vessel to enter and exit the circle.

9

If the net is shot against a shore it shall be paid out from the vessel and returned to the same shore without pause or delay. The vessel may enter and exit the circle.

The net shall be constantly be attended whilst in use.

A ring net shall not be set across any more than 75% of the width of a channel or creek.

Within 10 minutes of the conclusion of the net setting process the retrieval of the net shall begin and the net shall then be drawn back into the vessel without pause or delay.

2.2 Grey Mullet Minimum Size IncreaseThree species of grey mullet are known to reside in many of the district’s harbours and estuaries:

Golden-grey mullet (Liza aurata); Thin-lipped grey mullet (Liza ramada); and Thick-lipped grey mullet (Chelon labrosus).

Considering the objectives of this review, together with the associated interaction between grey mullet and ring net fisheries, the Authority has considered increasing the minimum legal size (MLS) for all three species from 30cm17. When considering the possibility of a size increase it is important to consider the size of sexual maturity of the species, the practicality of the management change (including enforceability), how it may affect other fisheries and its potential effects on fishery users.

Size at 50% sexual maturity (L50) (the length at which 50% of a species of fish are sexually mature) is a useful consideration for fish stock management. For thick-lipped grey mullet, L50 in male fish occurs at 40cm and at 47cm in female fish18. Thin-lipped grey mullet are known to reproduce at a similar size and L50 for golden-grey mullet is somewhat smaller, however available evidence for these two species is more limited.

Please consider the following options, for which a rationale has been provided:

Please note that at this stage no information has been provided on the potential monetary or non-monetary impacts of these options.

Option 1: No change

Option 2: A grey mullet (all species) MLS of 38cm

Rationale: This approach would provide additional protection for breeding populations of golden-grey mullet and thin-lipped grey mullet; however, it would be unlikely to provide protection for sexually mature thick-lipped grey mullet. This size would provide alignment with the current market demand for grey mullet.

Option 3: A grey mullet (all species) MLS of 42cm

17 http://www.southern-ifca.gov.uk/byelaws#Grey-Mullet-Minimum-Size18 Hickling C.F. (1970). A Contribution to the Natural History of the English Grey Mullets (Pisces, Mugilidae). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 50(3), 609-633; Kennedy M. and P. Fitzmaurice (1969). Age and Growth of Thick-Lipped Grey mullet Crenimugil labrosus in Irish Waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 49(3), 683-699.

10

Rationale: This approach would protect a breeding population of golden-grey mullet and thin-lipped grey mullet. This size is greater than L50 for male thick-lipped grey mullet, however it falls below L50 for female thick-lipped grey mullet. This size would also provide alignment with the MLS for European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax), a species that grey mullet often interacts with, bringing closer alignment with the net mesh size used to target both species.

Option 4: A grey mullet (all species) MLS of 47cm

Rationale: This captures L50 for all three species of grey mullet.

Option 5: Species specific minimum legal sizes aligned with L50.

Rationale: This approach would provide full protection for all grey mullet species up to (and beyond) L50.

2.3 Net Management Areas

2.31 Harbours and EstuariesDepending on the location and supporting evidence, one of three possible net management scenarios has been proposed to the estuarine and harbour areas of the district:

Closure to all net use; Closure to all net use, except ring nets; or Closure to all net use within 3 metres of the surface, except ring nets.

These proposed net management scenarios may be applied throughout the year or seasonally based largely on evidence relating to the seasonal use of salmonids in each area. The evidence supporting the selection of seasonal management can be viewed in Annex IV.

Additional net management areas have been proposed in coastal locations. The rationale and supporting evidence behind the selection of management scenarios, together with areas where no new management has been proposed, can be viewed in Annex III. Our net management proposals are outlined below in Maps 1-10 below and are further tabulated in Annex I.

The use of fyke nets (for the fishing of eels) is managed by the Environment Agency by way of authorisations throughout the district. For that purpose, our net management areas do not consider the management of fyke nets.

2.32 PiersUnder Section 153 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009, when managing the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the district, the Authority has a duty to balance the different needs of persons engaged in the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the district.

Recreational sea angling is a popular pastime in the Southern IFCA district. It is estimated that there are 884,000 sea anglers in England, with 2% of all adults going sea angling. These anglers make a significant contribution to the economy – in 2012, sea anglers resident in England spent £1.23 billion on the sport, equivalent to £831 million direct spend once imports and taxes had been excluded. This supported 10,400 full-time equivalent jobs and almost£360 million of gross value added (GVA). Taking indirect and induced effects into account,

11

sea angling supported £2.1 billion of total spending, a total of over 23,600 jobs, and almost

12

£980 million of GVA. Sea angling also has important social and well-being benefits including providing relaxation, physical exercise, and a route for socialising.

Piers are often popular shore-based recreational sea angling locations as they offer easy access to a range of fish species for all generations of angler, including those with disabilities. Often, within these locations, users report negative experiences due to the use of fishing nets set within close proximity to piers. Fish species often congregate around the underwater structures of piers as the provide artificial refuge and nursery benefits.

It is proposed that, in order to balance the different needs of persons engaged in the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the district, a series of 100 metre net use exclusion zones be applied to the district’s popular pier fishing locations. These are outlined below in Maps 1-10 below and are further tabulated in Annex I.

10

Map 1: Proposed net fishing management areas in Langstone Harbour, Portsmouth Harbour and Southsea Pier.

11

Map 2: Proposed net fishing management areas in Southampton Water and the Rivers Meon, Hamble, Test and Itchen.

12

Map 3: Proposed net fishing management areas in Sandown Pier, Bembridge Harbour, Ryde Pier, Wooton Creek and River Medina.

13

Map 4: Proposed net fishing management areas in Newtown Creek, Yarmouth Harbour, Lymington and Keyhaven.

14

Map 5: Proposed net fishing management areas in Christchurch Harbour and entrance.

15

Map 6: Proposed net fishing management areas in Poole Harbour.

16

Maps 7-9: Proposed net fishing management areas for Dorset piers. Clockwise from top left – Bournemouth and Boscombe Piers, Swanage Pier and Weymouth Piers.

17

Map 10: Proposed net fishing management areas in the Fleet and Lyme Bay.

18

3.Questions

Name:

Contact details:

Interest in the net fishing:If applicable what is the name of your organisation?

What is your role in the organisation?

Would you like your response to be confidential?

Net Management AreasPlease refer to Section 2.1, Maps 1-10 and Annex I

Question 1: Do you agree with the proposed harbour and estuarine net management areas measures for the Southern IFCA district? Please provide a rationale.

Question 2: In areas where a minimum headline depth restriction of 3 metres has been proposed (Southampton Water and Lyme Bay), do you feel that the risk to salmonid interception will be suitably mitigated? If no, can you suggest an alternative approach?

19

Question 3: Do you agree with the proposed pier net management areas measures for the Southern IFCA district? Please provide a rationale.

Definition of Ring Net Use

Please refer to Section 2.2

Question 4: Do you agree with the principles for the definition of ring net use? Please provide a rationale.

20

Question 5: From your experience can you describe the likelihood of catching a salmon or a sea trout in a ring net?

Question 6: From your own experience are there any steps that can be taken to avoid catching salmon or sea trout in a ring net?

21

Grey Mullet Minimum Size IncreasePlease refer to Section 2.3

Question 7: What would be your preferred option for the minimum size of grey mullet species in the Southern IFCA district? Please provide a rationale.

Question 8: Do you agree that the proposed measures will (a) support fish nursery areas;(b) provide areas of refuge for fish; (c) provide protection for migratory species, such as salmon and sea trout?

Question 9: How do you believe net fishing by recreational users should be managed?

22

Question 10: How would you like to see fishing nets marked in the district?

Question 11: What are the anticipated costs or benefits to you as a result of these measures? Where possible, please provide financial estimates.

Question 12: Are there any further comments you would like to make on the impact of the proposal?

23

4. Next StepsThe closing date for this consultation is 7th December 2018. A summary of responses for this consultation will be published on the Southern IFCA website.

All responses received from this consultation will be analysed and considered by the Authority ahead of the development of any future net management arrangements for the district. As measures are drafted there may be the need to further engage with the community through informal consultation.

Should the Authority choose to make a byelaw it will be advertised in local publications and on the Authority website. The byelaw will then be subjected to a 28-day statutory consultation, during which the community will have the opportunity to formally respond. The Authority will in turn reply to each of these responses before deciding whether to seek Secretary of State confirmation. The byelaw will only become active once it has been confirmed by the Secretary of State.

5. Data Protection and ConfidentialityAny consultation responses you send will be seen in full by IFCA staff and members of the Authority dealing with the issues covered by this consultation. When this consultation ends, we will summarise all responses and place a summary on the IFCA website. The summary

24

may include a list of organisation names that responded but not personal names, addresses or other contact details.

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent and where relevant who else they have consulted in reaching their conclusions when they respond.

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal data, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes these are primarily the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs), the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). We have obligations, mainly under the EIRs, FOIA and DPA, to disclose information to particular recipients or to the public in certain circumstances.

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, as a public authority, the Authority is bound by the Freedom of Information Act and may therefore be obliged to disclose all or some of the information you provide. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Authority. Please state in your response if you do not wish to receive any further communications from us relating to this consultation.