Recreational Disturbance at the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast European Marine Site. Bird disturbance field work

0 Recreational Disturbance at the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast European Marine Site. Bird disturbance field work Rachel Linaker The University of York

1 Acknowledgements I would like to give special thanks to Katherine Simpson, Martin Kerby (Natural England), Mike Leakey (Natural England), Ian Bond (Hartlepool BC), and Hannah Woodhouse (Hartlepool BC) for their hard work and dedication in collecting the bird count and disturbance data for this study. Survey work involved data collection over long hours and often in very cold conditions, and without their work this would not have been possible. I would also like to give thanks to Maeve Lee (INCA) for her collation of the data and input into an Excel spreadsheet. Special thanks to Katherine Simpson, Martin Kerby, and Catherine Scott (Natural England) for accompanying me on my initial visit to the survey sites of the EMS and for introducing me to the surveying methodology. During this visit I also gained an insight into the finalisation of the voluntary Code of Conduct which was an excellent experience, and so I give thanks to Mike Leakey for holding that meeting. I am entirely grateful to Maeve Lee for her continual guidance and support through this project, particularly concerning the presentation of the maps produced by GIS. I would also like to thank Martin Kerby for his advice regarding statistical analyses and to Katherine Simpson for supplying the photograph used on the cover.

2 Abstract European Marine Sites (EMS) across England are at high risk from recreational activities. The Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS supports a population of over 20,000 migratory and overwintering waterbirds, which are of European importance. However the imminent threat of recreational disturbance has the potential to affect habitat quality and, given the condition of the EMS, the monitoring and if necessary subsequent management of recreational disturbance is imperative. Overwintering waterbirds utilise the estuarine environment to replenish fat reserves in order to fuel the migration towards breeding grounds. Increased energy expenditure and disruption of foraging on account of human disturbance can therefore have negative implications for their breeding success. This report was commissioned by Natural England to record and assess baseline data in order to increase our understanding on how overwintering birds may respond to human activity and to test the efficacy of current management methods. Six study sites across the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS were surveyed, all of high public access and of habitats important to the waterbirds. Redcar Rocks and Bran Sands supported the greatest number of individuals and species respectively. With regards to recreational activity, 1128 events were recorded including 1734 humans and 914 animals. Dog walkers accounted for the majority at all sites except for Bran Sands where the most frequented activity was bait digging. Over 28% of all activities resulted in a disturbance event with 57% showing increased vigilance, and 27% taking flight. Activities which caused the most disturbance/greatest response varied somewhat between sites. Bran Sands was the most readily disturbed and had the greatest visitor rate compared to all sites. Bait digging caused the most disturbance events, although dog walkers and kite surfers caused a greater mean response. With regards to other sites where disturbance rates were comparatively low, dog walking tended to be the most disturbing activity. This study acts as a baseline for further monitoring fieldwork to be conducted within the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS although it is not without its limitations. Using behaviour methods alone to assess the impact can give misleading results, as a number of other factors may contribute. Recommendations for methodology revision have been set out to try and address these limitations in future work.

3 Table of Contents Acknowledgements... 1 Abstract... 2 Table of Contents... 3 List of Tables... 4 List of Figures... 5 List of Maps... 6 1. Introduction... 7 Overview... 7 The Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast... 7 Disturbance... 8 Disturbance to overwintering waterbirds... 9 Aims and Objectives... 10 2. Methodology... 11 Survey sites... 11 Data collection... 12 Bird distributions... 12 Diary of recreational activity... 12 Data analysis... 14 3. Results... 15 Bird distribution... 15 Levels of human activity... 18 Levels of recreational disturbance... 19 Site overview... 21 Bird counts... 21 Recreational activities and disturbance... 22 4. Discussion... 26 Overview... 26 Activities and disturbance... 26 Potential impacts... 28 Limitations... 28 Conclusions... 29 5. Recommendations for further study... 31 References... 32 Appendix 1. Bird disturbance survey form 36 Appendix 2. Bird distributions (maps 4 12) 38 Appendix 3. Summary of activities 43

4 List of Tables Table 1. Waterbirds supported by the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA as listed under Annex I 7 Table 2. Key interest features with their importance as feeding and roosting grounds 11 Table 3. Activities list with corresponding code for surveyors. 13 Table 4. Bird responses with allocated disturbance code (and indices). 13 Table 5. All bird species recorded and their abundances. 15 Table 6. Summary of bird counts at all sites. 20 Table 7. Hours surveying each site and the total number of visitors (people and animals) and the visitor rate per hour per site 22 Table 8. A summary of the recommendations for further ornithological fieldwork as set out in the discussion 31 Table 9. Summary of recreational activity recorded (across all sites) with the response (and % of total) of the birds to each activity 43

5 List of Figures Figure 1. Mean bird count at high and low tide for all sites sampled 16 Figure 2. All activities recorded within the EMS regardless of whether it caused disturbance 18 Figure 3. Bird responses per activity (grouped across all sites and all species) 19 Figure 4. Percentage of potential disturbance events at each site resulting in disturbance 24

6 List of Maps Map 1: Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS 8 Map 2: Species counts averaged across each survey 17 Map 3: Main recreational activities per site 23 Map 4: Bran Sands (low tide) 38 Map 5: Hartlepool North Sands/ Throston Scar (Low Tide) 38 Map 6: North Gare (Low Tide) 39 Map 7: North Gare (High Tide) 39 Map 8: South Gare (Low Tide) 40 Map 9: South Gare (Hide Tide) 40 Map 10: Seaton Snook (High Tide) 41 Map 11: Seaton Snook (Low Tide) 41 Map 12: Redcar Rocks (Low Tide) 42

7 1. Introduction Overview 1.1. Recreational activities have been highlighted as having a significant impact on many European Marine Sites (hereinafter referred to as the acronym EMS) within the UK and consequently studies need to be undertaken to address the level of impact. This report has been commissioned by the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS management group in order to assess the potential for recreational activities to impact on waterbird populations within the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS. Six key sites representing three different habitats were identified and using the results from bird disturbance monitoring fieldwork carried out in winter 2011/2012, recreational disturbance was quantified. The results of this study act as a baseline for increasing our understanding on how overwintering birds are responding to human activity in the EMS. The Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast 1.2. The Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast is an important area of coastline of the north-east of England which encompasses a range of habitats within a heavily modified estuary (JNCC, 2001). The conservation of this area has been recognised as a Special Protection Area (SPA) and RAMSAR Site (JNCC, 2008). The SPA supports over 20,000 waterbirds and it qualifies under Article 4.1 and 4.2 of the EU Birds Directive (74/409/EEC) for supporting resident and migratory waterbird populations of European importance (JNCC, 2001; Table 1). Table 1. Waterbirds supported by the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA as listed under Annex I Common name Latin name Article Population Little tern Sterna albifrons 4.1 37 pairs (1.5% of the breeding population in Great Britain) Sandwich tern Ringed plover Sterna sandvicensis Charadrius hiaticula Knot Calidris canutus 4.2 4.1 2190 individuals (5.2% of Great Britain s population) 4.2 634 individuals (1.3% of the wintering Europe/Northern Africa) 4,190 individuals (1.2% of the wintering NE Canada/ Greenland/ Iceland/ NW European population) Redshank Tringa tetanus 4.2 1,648 individuals (1.1% of the wintering Eastern Atlantic population) 1.3. The intertidal and subtidal areas of the SPA are designated as a European Marine Site (EMS) and the extent is shown in Figure 1. The management of the EMS is based around 14 relevant

8 authorities who set up the management scheme for the EMS in 2009 (INCA, 2009). These relevant authorities have the jurisdiction in and around the EMS boundaries to ensure that appropriate conservation bodies are consulted when plans or projects (for example coastal developments) are proposed. It is their statutory obligation to conduct a thorough assessment prior to the authorisation of such activities (JNCC, undated) to ensure that the breeding, roosting, and foraging sites utilised by the waterbirds are not affected (INCA, 2009). Map 1. The Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS Disturbance 1.4. Estuarine habitats within north-west Europe are intrinsically important for overwintering and migratory waterbirds (Prater, 1981). These estuaries are unfortunately subject to a high level of human activity and subsequently waterbirds are at risk (Cayford, 1993). As the footprint of human activity increases the impacts associated are also likely to expand (Green and others, 2005) and as such there is an urgent call for the establishment of monitoring schemes in order to quantify disturbance and manage it accordingly. 1.5. The Defra 2008 strategic risk review of on-going activities within EMS across England identified that recreational activities pose a high risk (Coyle & Wiggins, 2010). A previous study into the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS highlighted that only 31% of SSSI units within the EMS are in favourable condition (Simpson, 2011) on account of the observed decline in key waterbird species, particularly knot, sanderling, purple sandpiper, shelduck, and bar-tailed

9 godwit (Smith, 2011). It has been postulated that disturbance could be responsible for these declines. 1.6. A disturbance is defined as any phenomenon that causes a significant change in the dynamics or ecological characteristics of populations of birds (EU Commission, 1992). Disturbance can derive from either natural (Hockin and others, 1992) or anthropogenic sources whether work or recreationally based (Woodfield & Langston, 2004). The effect of disturbance on waterbirds has been studied extensively and includes wildfowling (Fox & Madsen, 1997), coastal developments (Hockin and others, 1992), and dog walking (Banks & Bryant, 2007). Regardless of the activity, however, recreational disturbance has been highlighted as a major threat to waterbirds (Gill, 2007). Disturbance to overwintering waterbirds 1.7. To waterbirds humans are perceived as predators (Beale & Monaghan, 2004a). Since resultant behaviour is largely determined by an individual s ability to assess risks (Lima & Dill, 1990), if a human action is perceived as threatening waterbirds may show anti-predator behaviour (Frid & Dill, 2002; Yasué, 2005). Waterbirds may become more attentive, walk or swim away, or take flight (Blumstein and others, 2003). Flock size may also influence behaviour as they may feel safer in large numbers and as such not respond as readily, or use conspecific behaviour as cues about predation risk (Stankowich & Blumstein, 2005). 1.8. The ability of waterbirds to assess risks is based on the trade-off between tolerating a disturbance and chancing injury or mortality, and the increased starvation risk from not feeding and avoiding such disturbance (Stillman & Goss-Custard, 2002). Generally, birds that are in better condition (well-fed) may respond more readily to a disturbance on account that they can afford to (Beale & Monaghan, 2004b). When conditions are ideal and food is plentiful, waterbirds can compensate by feeding at other times or in undisturbed locations. 1.9. Interference with feeding and roosting activities in overwintering waterbirds is the primary cause for concern with recreational disturbances since it can have long-term consequences for the population. Building energy reserves through storing fat is a vital stage of migration and during this, disturbances may result in birds taking flight thereby spending energy and depleting fat reserves (Goss-Custard and others, 2006). These fat reserves are required to fuel the migration towards breeding grounds and so decreased foraging rates and increased flushing from sites could impede future breeding success (Goss-Custard and others, 2002). 1.10. Disturbance is difficult to quantify on account of its high variability (magnitude, frequency, and duration; Cayford, 1993) although is generally well understood with regards to distribution and success of breeding birds (Carney & Sydeman, 1999; Burton and others, 2004; Finney and

10 others, 2005). The responses of overwintering waterbirds are often difficult to quantify because responses vary greatly between sites, activities, and species (Taylor and others, 2005). Species susceptibility also varies with factors such as weather, age, and habitat use (Lafferty 2001; Cutts and others, 2009). Furthermore, individuals have the capability to habituate to the disturbance stimuli if it occurs frequently (Hockin and others, 1992; Madsen, 2008). Aims and Objectives 1.11. This report follows the recommendations of a recent study commissioned by Natural England regarding the impacts of recreational activities and the establishment of a long-term monitoring programme (Simpson, 2011). The main aim of this study is to establish a baseline dataset for disturbance within the EMS to assess the efficacy of the voluntary management measures currently implemented (INCA, 2012a).

11 2. Methodology Survey sites 2.1. The study incorporated six sites of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS which were chosen based on their public access and spatial coverage of the area; Hartlepool (North Sands and Throston Scar), North Gare, South Gare, Seaton Snook, Bran Sands, and Redcar Rocks. These survey sites cover both north and south of the Tees Estuary and represent different habitat types of importance to waterbirds (Table 2). Table 2. Key interest features with their importance as feeding and roosting grounds (information from Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council, 2006, INCA, 2009, and Leakey, 2010). Interest feature Main sites Additional sites Feeding grounds Roosting grounds Intertidal sand and mudflat Bran Sands, Seaton Snook Redcar Rocks, South Gare, and North Gare Support important invertebrate population (mud snails Hydrobia ulvae, cockles Cerastoderma edule, ragworms Nereis diversicolor, crustaceans Corophium volutator) which sustain knot and redshank. High tide levels tend to support roosting knot. Rocky shore Redcar Rocks, Hartlepool. Bran Sands, Seaton Snook, South Gare, and North Gare Support vital food source (the mussel Mytilus edulis in particular) for wintering knot population. At high tide acts as an important roosting site Sand dunes South Gare, North Gare N/A * High importance for little tern breeding grounds (May-August)

12 Data collection 2.2. The methodology undertaken for the project fieldwork was closely related to that set out by Ravenscroft and others (2007). Fieldwork took place from October 2011 to March 2012 as the overwintering birds are under the greatest pressure from limiting food resources (Cruickshanks et al, 2010). All six sites were sampled at low tide and South Gare, Seaton Snook, and North Gare at high tide, as these sites were known to support high-tide roosts. To ensure temporal coverage, surveys were undertaken at different times of the day (although tide dependent) and various days of the week including weekends. 2.3. Surveys lasted two hours and involved two components: bird counts and the diary of recreational activity. Additionally, survey-specific data with regards to tide height, survey tide, and weather were recorded. Bird and activity distributions 2.4. Each survey involved two counts, one at the start and one at the end, to provide a snapshot of waterbird and recreational activity distributions on the shore. Bird species and numbers were approximated and recorded using the BTO shorthand 1 and then marked on a map which would later be input into ArcGIS for accuracy. Locations of potentially-disturbing activities were recorded on the map to show their general movement along the shore. Diary of recreational activity 2.5. All recreational events taking place within the survey times were recorded in the form of a disturbance diary and noted in chronological order. All events were recorded regardless if it created a disturbance. These events were categorised as per Table 3. Activity locations were mapped on the survey sheets and routes marked to provide a snapshot of recreational activity. 2.6. Activity group size was recorded with respect to the number of humans and/or animals present, the activity type, and any other additional information. This was recorded onto survey sheets as shown in Appendix 1. 1 http://www.bto.org/sites/default/files/u16/downloads/forms_instructions/bto_bird_species_codes.pdf

13 Table 3. Activities list with corresponding code for surveyors. Description Dog walker (with dog(s) off lead) Dog walker (with dog(s) on lead) Bait digger Walker Runner Angler Kite surfer Boat Boat worker (boat stationary) Birdwatcher Photographer (use notes to specify subject if possible) Horse rider Sea kayak Sea coaling Golfer Other (use notes to specify what the other activity was) Code DW DWL BD W R A KS B b BW PH HR SK SC G 2.7. Recreational activities that had the potential to cause disturbance were recorded with reference to the elicited behavioural response. This was recorded using a disturbance code (Table 4). Where disturbance code B was used, the surveyor estimated the distance moved. Table 4. Bird responses with allocated disturbance code (and indices). Bird response Disturbance code No response N 0 Alert - Bird raises head and resumes activity A 1 Alert Bird moves in foot from disturbance and then resumes activity B 2 High Alertness Birds stop feeding/roosting and show agitation C 3 Short-flight (<50 m) D1 4 Long-flight (>50 m) D2 5 Birds leave the study area D3 6 Disturbance indices

14 Data analysis 2.8. The data from the bird counts and recreational disturbance diary were input into an Excel spreadsheet where the average bird numbers were calculated from the start and end counts. For subsequent analysis, potential disturbances were classified as any activity that had the potential to disturb birds, and actual disturbances were classified as any activity that resulted in a behaviour response. The disturbance indices used for surveying (A-C, D1-3) were converted into numerical terms (Table 4) before conducting a series of calculations. The mean response: using disturbance indices 0-6 The mean disturbance: using disturbance indices 1-6 2.9. All statistical analyses were conducted using R Project (version 2.15.1) and GIS data extraction and mapping conducted using ArcMap (version 10.1). 2.10. All means presented within-text show standard errors correct to one decimal place ( S.E). Given the nature of the data (natural large variation in population sizes and the use of ranked disturbance data), non-parametric statistics are used throughout: Mann Whitney U test (U) for the comparison of two samples; Kruskal-Wallis (H) for the comparison of multiple samples; and Spearman s correlation coefficient (r s ) when investigating the relationship between two variables.

15 3. Results Bird distribution 3.1. The total number of species recorded for all sites was 22 (Table 5) with the most abundant species being the oystercatcher and the least including the black-tailed godwit, red-throated diver, and Slavonian grebe. Five species were recorded at all sites; oystercatchers, redshank, ringed plover, sanderling, and turnstone. Table 5. All bird species recorded and their abundances. BTO Species Latin Numbers recorded* Total** Low tide High tide CU Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo 160 127.5 32.5 CU Curlew Numenius arquata 191 146 32.5 DN Dunlin Calidris alpina 620 72.5 45 KN Knot Calidris canuta 1589 678.5 547.5 OC Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus 2954 1858 910.5 PS Purple sandpiper Calidris maritima 116.5 116 1096 RK Redshank Tringa totanus 655 576.5 0.5 RP Ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula 103.5 47.5 78.5 SS Sanderling Calidris alba 432 217 56 TT Turnstone Arenaria interpres 316.5 189 215 BA Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica 403.5 389.5 127.5 BW Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa 15 1 14 GG Great-crested grebe Podiceps cristatus 11.5 11.5 0 GV Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria 563 107.5 455.5 L. Lapwing Vanellus vanellus 29 29 0 RM Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator 15.5 15.5 0 BN Black-necked grebe Podiceps nigricollis 1.5 1.5 0 MS Mute swan Cygnus olor 3 3 0 RH Red-throated diver Gavia stellata 0.5 0.5 0 SU Shelduck Tadorna tadorna 10 10 0 SZ Slavonian grebe Podiceps auritus 0.5 0.5 0 E. Eider Somateria mollissima 2 2 0 TOTAL 8178.5 4600 3611 * Figure calculated from the average of the start and end of bird counts. Where total = 0.5, only one bird was counted at either start or end. ** Total calculated from high and low tide numbers.

Bird count (mean) Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS 16 3.2. There were significant differences between sites in the mean numbers of birds recorded (H = 13.6, d.f = 5, p < 0.05); Redcar Rocks had the greatest abundance ( 228.58 ± 35.7) and Seaton Snook the least ( 66.05 ± 19.2). Mean species richness was also significantly different between sites (H = 26.1, d.f = 5, p < 0.01) with Bran Sands supporting all species. Map 2 summarises the mean species counts and species composition across sites. 3.3. Mean bird count was highest in rocky shore habitats (collectively Redcar Rocks and Hartlepool; 159.71 ± 18.4) and mean species richness highest in intertidal sand and mudflats (collectively Bran Sands and Seaton Snook; 5.61 ± 0.3), however differences were insignificant (H = 4.8 and 5.9 respectively, d.f = 5, n.s). Bird numbers and species richness in sites that were sampled at both high and low tide were aggregated. 3.4. There was a significant difference between the mean bird counts sampled at high tide and low tide (U = 658.5, p < 0.05). From the three sites that were surveyed at both tides, North Gare had the greatest total mean bird count ( 239.6 49.5) and South Gare the lowest ( 123.8 46.6) at high tide. Low tide counts for sites sampled at both tides were considerably reduced compared to the low tide counts for those sites only sampled at low tide (figure 1). This reflects the importance of South Gare, Seaton Snook and North Gare as roost sites, and the importance of Redcar, Hartlepool and Bran Sands as foraging areas. 300 250 200 150 100 Low High 50 0 South Gare Seaton Snook North Gare Redcar Rocks Hartlepool Bran Sands Survey location Figure 1. Mean bird count at high and low tide for all sites sampled. Note that only three of the survey locations were sampled during both tides.

17 Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS Map 2. Species counts averaged across each survey Hartlepool North Gare South Gare Seaton Snook Bran Sands Redcar Rocks Reproduced from Ordnance Survey 1: 50 000 Scale Raster with permission of Her Majesty's Stationary Office Crown Copyright/database right 2012

Activity Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS 18 Levels of human activity 3.5. From the recreational diary a total of 1,128 activities were recorded. These records included 1,734 people and 914 animals (907 dogs and 7 horses). 22 different activities were recorded across all sites with dog walking being the main activity recorded (51.9% of all observations) of which 92.1% of dog owners kept their dog(s) off a lead. The combination of dog walkers (with dogs unleashed), bait diggers and walkers make up the majority of activity observations (84.3%; figure 2). Dog walker, dogs off lead Bait digger Walking Kite surfer Dog walker, dogs on lead Jogger/Runner Birdwatcher Photographer Other* Sea coaler Horse Rider Sea kayak School group and children Working on boat Golfer Boat Frequency Angler 0 100 200 300 400 500 The total number of observations per activity *Other includes a number of activities that could either not be easily classified or were unknown. This group also includes three disturbances that were not associated with recreational activities such as helicopter, concrete mixer, and predation. Figure 2. All activities recorded within the EMS regardless of whether it caused disturbance.

19 3.6. The expected survey length was two hours however due to extreme weather and other unforeseen circumstances this varied between surveys and sites. As a result, approximately 114 hours of fieldwork were undertaken. Considering this and taking the data from all sites combined, the hourly visitor rate was 15.2 humans and 8 dogs. 3.7. There was a significant difference between the number of activities recorded between the two tidal states with more activity occurring at low tide ( 17.1 ± 0.262; U = 281, p < 0.01). More people were present at low tide ( 26.3 ± 0.44; U = 318.5, p < 0.05). 3.8. The mean number of human visitors recorded were significantly different between the six sites (H = 42.6, d.f = 5, p < 0.0001), as was the mean number of animals (H = 39.2, d.f = 5, p < 0.0001), however mean number of visitors did not vary between differing habitat types (H = 1.0 for people, 2.1 for animals, d.f = 2, n.s) suggesting that there was no particular preference for substrate type. Levels of recreational disturbance 3.9. From the 1,218 records of recreational activity, 91.1% were classed as potential disturbances whereby they occurred within the presence of waterbirds. From these activities, 28.2% were regarded as actual disturbances where birds elicited some form of behavioural response. Where a response was observed, 57.9% of birds showed alertness and awareness but continued with their activity, 11.5% showed local displacement and continuation of activity, 3.2% showed high alertness/agitation with original activity ceased and 27.4% showed flight disturbance. This involved taking short flight (10.2%), long flight (14.1%), or leaving the survey site entirely (3.2%). 3.10. The mean response of waterbirds to a disturbance is significantly different between activity type (H = 130.4, d.f = 19, p < 0.0001). Some activities, whilst clearly resulting in disturbance responses, did not appear to be automatically perceived as threatening; these were dog walkers (both with dogs on and off the lead), walkers, and runners in particular (figure 3). By comparison, activities involving boats, horse riders and kite surfers were more likely to result in a disturbance response and tended to have a high impact with a substantial proportion of birds either taking long flight or leaving the site altogether.

20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Dog walker, dogs off lead Bait digger Walking Kite surfer Dog walker, dogs on lead Jogger/Runner Birdwatcher Photographer Other* Horse Rider Boat No response Alert Short walk/swim High alertness Short flight <50m Long flight >50m Left study area Figure 3. Bird responses per activity (grouped across all sites and all species). 3.11. Previous studies have reported the potential for waterbirds to habituate to the disturbance stimuli (Webb & Blumstein, 2005), however there is no evidence that this is occurring on the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast as the total number of actual disturbances was positively correlated with the number of people (r s = 0.6, p < 0.0001), animals (r s = 0.4, p < 0.01), and events (r s = 0.7, p < 0.0001). Similarly, when the correlation between the number of actual disturbance events and average impact of the birds was tested this was also insignificant (r 2 = -0.2, p > 0.05). The results suggest that there may be other factors influencing the result such as activity type, or site and habitat type. 3.12. Although the mean number of actual disturbance events and average response of the birds to an activity was highest at low tide, the differences were not significant (U = 340 and U = 410.5 both n.s. respectively). The mean impact of the disturbances was higher at high tide, although the difference was not significant (U = 273, n.s.). The number of disturbance events differed significantly with site and habitat type (H = 37.5, d.f = 5, p < 0.0001; H = 7.2, d.f = 2, p < 0.05 respectively), with mean disturbance higher in Bran Sands ( 14.5 ± 0.5) and, consequently, intertidal sand and mud flats ( 8.0 ± 0.3).

21 Site overview Bird counts 3.13. There was substantial variation between the bird counts, count rate (per hour), species richness and dominant species between different sites of which is summarised in table 6. Whilst Bran Sands had the potential to support more species, there was a greater abundance (controlled by sampling effort) at Redcar Rocks. Waterbird activities (foraging or roosting) also varied somewhat between sites, but more so with tide. From this study it was found that particularly important feeding habitats are Bran Sands and Redcar Rocks where the majority of birds were observed feeding (97.5% and 100% respectively). Specific bird distributions per site are shown in Maps 4-9 (appendix 2). Table 6. Summary of bird counts at all sites. Location Bird counts (per hour) Bran Sands 3554 (148.1) 9.8 ± 0.2 Hartlepool 2687 (153.5) 6.2 ± 0.2 Redcar Rocks 2743 (322.7) 5.7 ± 0.3 South Gare (high tide) South Gare (low tide) North Gare (high tide) North Gare (low tide) Seaton Snook (high tide) Seaton Snook (low tide) 1238 (247.6) 3.0 ± 0.0 110 (24.4) 4.0 ± 0.5 4791 (290.4) 7.1 ± 0.2 75 (3.8) 2.4 ± 0.1 1771 (221.4) 4.8 ± 0.3 35 (3.5) 1.7 ± 0.2 Species richness (mean ± SE) Top three species (total) 1. Bar-tailed godwit (776) 2. Redshank (720) 3. Oystercatcher (593) 1. Oystercatcher (1951) 2. Redshank (272) 3. Knot (251) 1. Oystercatcher (1031) 2. Knot (845) 3. Redshank (366) 1. Oystercatcher (631) 2. Sanderling (332) 3. Turnstone (127) 1. Oystercatcher (39) 2. Cormorant (49) 3. Curlews (11) 1. Knot (1653) 2. Dunlin (1015) 3. Oystercatcher (1008) 1. Redshank (31) 2. Oystercatcher (13) 3. Knot (11) 1. Oystercatcher (1316) 2. Knot (168) 3. Sanderling (93) 1. Oystercatcher (15) 2. Redshank (10) 3. Turnstone (6) % of total 58.8% 92.1% 81.7% 100.0% 83.6%. 76.6% 73.3% 89.0% 88.6%

22 Recreational activities and disturbance 3.14. A summary of activity levels per site is summarised in Map 3. 3.15. After standardising the number of visitors based on sampling effort per site, it becomes evident which sites are used more than others (Table 7). With regards to the number of human visitors, Bran Sands was the busiest although a greater number of people with animals (notably dogs in this case) visited the survey site at Hartlepool. Table 7. Hours surveying each site and the total number of visitors (people and animals) and the visitor rate per hour per site. Location Total survey hours* Number of people Number of animals Visitor rate per hour (people) Bran Sands (low) 24 647 164 27.0 6.8 Hartlepool (low) 17.5 384 247 21.9 14.1 Redcar Rocks (low) 8.5 123 69 14.5 8.1 North Gare (high) 16.5 233 156 14.1 9.5 North Gare (low) 19 204 171 10.7 9.0 Seaton Snook (high) Seaton Snook (low) 8 38 34 4.8 4.25 10 31 25 3.1 2.5 South Gare (high) 5 29 15 5.8 3.0 South Gare (low) 4.5 23 14 5.1 3.33 *Number of hours rounded down to the nearest half hour ** Animals include both dogs and horses. Visitor rate per hour (animals**) Bran Sands 3.16. From the 382 accounts of activity (potential disturbances), approximately 75% were actual disturbances. This site had the largest range of human activities with 10 different activities being recorded of which bait diggers accounted 66.8% of all activities. The most frequent activities to cause disturbance were the bait diggers (61.2% of disturbance) followed by dog walkers with their dog(s) off the lead (19.6%), and then kite surfers (13.4%). 3.17. Compared to the other survey sites, Bran Sands is heavily disturbed with regards to the large proportion of disturbance events causing local displacement (figure 4). Two of the activities recorded caused the greatest mean impact on the waterbirds; these were dog walkers with dog(s) on the lead ( 4.3 ± 0.0) and kite surfers ( 4.3 ± 0.1).

23 Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS Map 3. Main recreational activities per site. Hartlepool North Gare Seaton Snook South Gare Bran Sands Redcar Rocks Reproduced from Ordnance Survey 1: 50 000 Scale Raster with permission of Her Majesty's Stationary Office Crown Copyright/database right 2012

24 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 10 South Gare (H) South Gare (L) Seaton Snook (H) Seaton Snook (L) Redcar Rocks (L) North Gare (H) North Gare (L) Hartlepool (L) Bran Sands (L) No response Alert Short walk/swim High alertness Short flight <50m Long flight >50m Left study area Figure 4. Percentage of potential disturbance events at each site resulting in disturbance. Hartlepool 3.18. 253 events were recorded at Hartlepool from eight different activities. Only about 16% of these caused a disturbance. The most frequented activity was dog walkers which accounted for 63.2% of all recorded. Those walking dogs without animals on the lead caused 50% of all disturbances with a greatest mean impact of 4.5 ± 0.1. This means that, on average, birds were likely to respond to the disturbance by either taking short flight or long flight. Incidentally, dog owners who kept their dogs on the lead had a lesser impact on the waterbirds, with a mean impact 7% less than if the dogs had been kept off the lead. Redcar Rocks 3.19. Four activities were recorded at Redcar Rocks as well as two incidences that were not regarded as recreational disturbances (concrete mixer/helicopter), the most common of which being dog walkers with dogs kept off the lead (47.4%) and walkers (36.1%). From the 97 separate accounts of activity, approximately 36% caused disturbance. Dog walkers that kept their dogs off the lead caused the majority of disturbances (61.9%) and, on average, caused waterbirds to take short flight ( 4.1 ± 0.2). Rather unexpectedly, dog walkers who ensured that their dogs were kept on the lead had the highest mean impact on birds with the average response of waterbirds being that they either took short or long flight ( 4.5 ± 0.5).

25 South Gare 3.20. South Gare had few visitors at either tide, however was most frequented by dog walkers (whereby owners kept their dogs off the lead) accounting for 66.7% of all activities at high tide and 52.9% of all activities at low tide. Approximately 25% (high tide) and 17% (low tide) of activities caused disturbance, with walkers accounting for the majority at both tides (66.7%). Although walkers caused the most disturbances, the mean impact was highest when dog walkers (where owners kept the dogs off the lead) caused a disturbance ( 5.5 at high tide and 5.0 at low tide). Here, the average response observed was where birds either took long flight or left the study site entirely. North Gare 3.21. As with the case at the majority of the sites, dog walkers where owners did not keep the dogs on a lead accounted for the majority of all events recorded at North Gare where 68.8% were at high tide and 74.8% at low tide. Of these, approximately 23% (high tide) and 17% (low tide) resulted in a disturbance, with dog walkers (with their dogs off the lead) accounting for the majority (84.2% at high tide and 58.5% at low tide). In instances where dogs were kept on the lead, dog walkers accounted for 5.9% of total disturbances with their impact 6% less than if they had been off the lead. Although not frequent, horse riding caused a high level of disturbance. This activity was only recorded at North Gare, however disturbances resulted in birds taking long flight at high tide ( 5 ± 0.0) and either showing high alertness or short flight at low tide (3.5 ± 1.8). Seaton Snook 3.22. At Seaton Snook, where there were very few visitors, 27 (high tide) and 25 (low tide) events were recorded of which dog walking (off lead) accounted for the majority (74.1% and 80.0% respectively). Approximately 28% (high tide) and 15% (low tide) of events caused disturbance. At both tides, dog walking where owners kept their dogs off a lead accounted for the majority of disturbances (88.3% and 100%) with a mean impact of 4.6 ± 0.9 (high tide) and 4.33 ± 0.5 (low tide).

26 4. Discussion Overview 4.1. The results provide an overview of the range of activities and disturbance events that can affect the waterbird population of the Teesmouth and Cleveland EMS. The baseline data set is highly complex with various species, sites, and activities involved across various time scales, weather conditions, and tide heights. Despite this, it provides an excellent starting point for further work to be undertaken. Activities and disturbance 4.2. With regards to specific activities occurring throughout the EMS, there are a number of activities which appear to pose a large threat on the waterbirds. Bait digging 4.3. The potential impacts of bait digging within the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS is a contentious issue; from an initial analysis it would appear that this activity poses a great threat to the waterbirds given the frequency and the number of disturbance events. Despite this however, there are other factors that need to be considered before conclusions regarding its significance can be drawn, for example with the mean disturbance response to bait-diggers. Compared to other activities (for example dog walkers and kite surfers) the mean response of birds to bait-diggers is lower (figure 3). 4.4. General observations from surveyors noted that some species (particularly redshank) flew in to forage at recently dug sites. This could suggest that waterbirds benefit from this activity since it exposes sediment and potential prey, although it could be argued that regular disturbance of intertidal habitat and exposure of anoxic sediments could have negative implications on the benthic communities and therefore bird food resources. Furthermore this benefit may only arise when visitor numbers and potential disturbances are low. The Wetland and Wildfowl Trust (WWT) (2003) reported an increase in redshank numbers relating to bait digging, however the WWT also reported that shelduck have been adversely affected. Whilst few shelduck were recorded in this study, those that were recorded appeared to coincide with low levels of bait digging activity supporting the above statement from WWT (2003).

27 Dog walking 4.5. Bait digging aside, the most frequent visitors to the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS are dog walkers. This study reports that this activity has a considerable impact on the waterbirds. Birds view dogs intrinsically as predators (Gabrielsen & Smith 1995) and so are naturally wary of their presence. Lafferty (2001) stated that birds may be conditioned to be more cautious with dogs than they are with general walkers given that the dogs often take chase if they are kept off a lead; as such dog walkers were expected to have a greater impact on the birds than walkers. 4.6. It is recommended in the Code of Conduct for the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast (INCA, 2012b) that dogs should be kept under control/leashed during winter to reduce disturbance to birds and is supported by a number of studies (Lafferty, 2001; Thomas and others, 2003). In Hartlepool and North Gare, dogs that were kept on the leash instigated a lower mean impact than dogs that were kept off a leash; dogs that are kept under control in this way are less likely to attempt to run and chase waterbirds and subsequently this lower impact was to be expected. However, in some instances at Redcar Rocks and Bran Sands dogs kept on the leash caused a greater impact than dogs off the leash which was an unexpected observation. One possible explanation is that as humans and dogs are seen as predators, the combination of both within the vicinity doubled the threat. Another explanation could be due to the size or breed of dog, however this was not quantified in this study therefore cannot be used to explain the unexpected observations. Other 4.7. Horse riders present on North Gare cause disturbance in 100% of events although, gauging from the activity maps, horse riders did appear to avoid the shore line as recommended in the Code of Conduct (INCA 2012b).Although the Code of Conduct had not been published at the time of this survey, prior engagement with the equestrian clubs may have influenced this although this is not conclusive. 4.8. In response to horse riders, a full range of responses were exhibited ranging from birds becoming vigilant to them actually leaving the study site. Hence, further work needs to be conducted to assess the risk and establish an appropriate method for managing this disturbance. 4.9. Nearly half of kite surfing activities caused disturbance, all of which were located in Bran Sands. Kite surfing occurs at the shore edge and waters just offshore, where the majority of birds forage, therefore the level of disturbance recorded was expected. Kite surfers may also be present with dogs which could heighten the expected result.

28 4.10. Overall, despite the levels of disturbance within the EMS, very few events flushed the birds from the study site with the majority resuming feeding/roosting despite being aware of threats. Relating to decision-making in animals, this could suggest that the threat of disturbance is not as extreme as to force the birds to relocate. Equally, it could be that there were no other suitable locations for the birds to relocate to and the requirement for food surpassed the cost of potential danger. Potential impacts 4.11. At high tide waterbirds will select their preferred roosting sites based on predation risk, proximity to feeding sites, and shelter availability (Rehfisch and others, 2003). Levels of human disturbance may be factored into account in some species (Peters & Otis, 2006). High-site fidelity has been observed in waterbirds (Rehfisch and others, 1996; Burton, 2000; Rehfisch and others, 2003) however if they are continually disturbed each winter then they may abandon these sites and choose to forage/ roost in other locations. This may be outside the designated protected site, thereby lessening their level of protection. Disturbance levels for sites surveyed at high tide were all relatively low (less than 1 per hour) but impacts were high from dog walkers where owners kept their dog(s) off a lead. Hence at high tide dog walkers should be advised to keep their dogs on a leash and to keep an appropriate distance away from notable roosting locations. 4.12 The primary reason for the selection of foraging sites at low tide is the density of prey (Bryant, 1979) and predation risk (Cresswell, 1994). Providing that food resources are highly abundant and well accessible, although a disturbance may disrupt feeding activities it may have very little impact on the overall wellbeing of the waterbird (Stillman & Goss-Custard, 2002). Taking Bran Sands as an example on account of its high level of disturbance, it may be that although the waterbirds appear highly disturbed due to the activity frequency, the impact may be less than expected. Equally, modelling research has indicated that numerous small disturbances could be more damaging that a few large disturbance events (West et al, 2002). Further more detailed analyses, such as Individual Based Models (IBM) could help quantify the significance of low-tide disturbance for foraging waterbirds using the survey sites. Limitations 4.13 Whilst this baseline data provides great insight into the impact of recreational activity on waterbirds of the EMS, the conclusions drawn are not entirely representative, once further work is undertaken results found will be more robust. One of the key oversights of this study was the inconsistency in the sampling effort at each of the sites and between different tides due to poor weather conditions. It is recommended for future work that survey times are consistent and maintained throughout the survey period.

29 4.12. Using the behavioural response as an indication of the true impacts of disturbance may be misleading and influenced by extrinsic factors such as prey availability and the weather (Gill and others, 2001). When prey is a limiting resource the benefits of continuing feeding supersedes the cost of fleeing a potential threat (Navedo & Herrera, 2012). Additionally, responses vary between species and so using the general response to an activity makes it difficult to tailor management towards specific species requirements. For example the distance at which a species responds to activities varies inter-specifically (Blumstein and others, 2005) and so by observing the distances of the most sensitive species set-back distances can be established as a conservation tool (Glover and others, 2011). 4.13. Although these results may imply that disturbance does have an effect on the waterbirds of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS, it does not necessarily imply that there is a great impact on individuals or populations (Gill, 2007; Ravenscroft and others, 2007). Waterbirds have the capability to compensate for any lost feeding time by shifting their activities to another time, location, or by lengthening the overall feeding time (Urfi and others, 1996). Furthermore, the mass of human activities tend to be restricted to daylight hours whilst waterbirds are still active at night (Mouritsen, 1994). On the other hand, should recreational activities disturb the birds during their nocturnal activities, the chances of failing to reach their target fat reserves would greatly increase (Stillman and others, 2007). Considering this it would be ideal to assess activity levels and disturbance rates during the evening, however this is not feasible for this study. Conclusions 4.14. The results indicate that there is a substantial amount of disturbance occurring within the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS that needs to be understood in more detail and potentially addressed through appropriate actions. Key points are highlighted below; Disturbance levels were disproportionately high in Bran Sands compared to the other survey sites and further work such as modelling needs to be undertaken to give a realistic estimation of these levels and obtain a better understanding of the energetic implications for the birds based on their responses. Dogs, being a natural predator to birds, are posing a risk particularly when their presence is combined with other activities. Alone, dog walkers where dogs are kept off the lead are already causing a considerable amount of disturbance, however in conjunction with other activities (namely bait diggers and kite surfers), a greater response is elicited. Further work needs to be undertaken to quantify this and identify potential ways to address dog-related disturbance.

30 Possibly due to their location on the shore or proximity to foraging and roosting birds, horse riders have an large effect on waterbirds. Although the frequency of this activity was less than others, the average impact was great. All birds responded to horse riders as an imminent threat. This is a site-specific concern for North Gare in particular, however there were very few instances of the activity. Similarly to horse riders, although the frequency of kite-surfing was low, the impacts appear greater. Further work on the temporal and spatial spread of kitesurfing within the EMS would be helpful, and the significance of disturbance events caused by this activity requires further investigation. Further work assessing the impacts of bait-digging needs to be carried out, looking at the benefits of bait-digging as well as the potentially negative consequences: a number of individual redshank were seen flying into post-dig sites to feed on exposed prey. On the whole, disturbance levels appeared high where birds were most likely to be disturbed (and to a greater extent) if the bait digger brought their dog. All observations of this showed that the dog was not on the lead. Further work needs to be carried out with respect to why birds respond the way they do. Variables such as prey availability, conspecific response, weather, air temperature, and specific tide heights were not factored into this study but other work has demonstrated that they elicit a response. A series of recommendations for future ornithological fieldwork has been suggested in section 5.

31 5. Recommendations for further study 5.1. This report has established a set of baseline data for assessing the impacts of recreational disturbance on waterbirds at the Teesmouth and Cleveland European Marine Site. For the long-term monitoring of recreational activity within the EMS, it is recommended that the methodology should be revised as per table 8 to deal with the study s shortcomings. Table 8. A summary of the recommendations for further ornithological fieldwork as set out in the discussion. Factor Recommendation Reasoning Tide Day of the week Time of day Weather Response distance Additional information Sample sites at high and low tide and over a wide variety of tide heights. Survey at weekends and weekdays. Sample sites at various temporal scales (morning, afternoon, and evening) Survey sites during daylight hours and through the night. Record temperature for all surveys. Estimate the distance at which the bird responded to a disturbance. Provide additional information regarding dog walkers (for example which species if known or at a minimum the size of the dog). Allows any relationships between tide and bird numbers, composition, recreational activity, and disturbance levels to be made. Activity levels and disturbance levels may vary substantially between days of the week. Weekend disturbance expected to be higher than weekday but needs to be quantified Allows any temporal relationships to be established. Recreational activity expected to be lower at night (although is not quantified within the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS). Nocturnal activities (birds) may contribute to their resilience to disturbances. Bird responses to disturbances tend to vary with temperature. Can be used to establish set-back distances the conservation of waterbirds. Can be used to explain results and give reasons for why birds responded the way they did to a dog walker. In terms of additional analyses, it might be revealing to see if there are any relationships between bird numbers and levels of activity (or disturbance events) during the survey periods on a site-by-site basis, to see whether bird numbers are elevated at times of lower human activity. It would also be useful to map recreational activities to investigate whether there are any broad spatial relationships between those activities and bird numbers.

32 References Banks, P.B. & Bryant, J.V., 2007. Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds from natural areas. Biology Letters, 3(6): 611 613 Beale, C. & Monaghan, P., 2004a. Behavioural responses to human disturbance: a matter of choice? Animal Behaviour, 68(5), 1065 1069 Beale, C.M. & Monaghan, P., 2004b. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? Journal of Applied Ecology, 41(2), 335 343 Blumstein, D.T., Anthony, L.L., Harcourt, R. & Ross, G. 2003. Testing a key assumption of wildlife buffer zones: is flight initiation distance a species-specific trait? Biological Conservation, 110(1), 97 100. Blumstein, D.T., Fernandez-Juricic, E., Zollner, P.A. & Garity, S.C. 2005. Inter-specific variation in avian responses to human disturbance. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(5), 943 953. Bryant, D.M., 1979. Effects of prey density and site characteristic on estuary usage by overwintering waders (Charadrii). Estuarine and Coastal Marine Studies, 9, 369-384. Burton, N. H. K., 2000. Winter site-fidelity and survival of redshank Tringa totanus at Cardiff, South Wales. Bird Study 47:102 112. Burton, N.H.J., Goddard, A.P. & Grant, A., 2004. Impacts of changes in sewage disposal on populations of waterbirds wintering on the Northumbrian coast Report for 2003/04. The British Trust for Ornithology. BTO Research Report No. 371. Carney, K.M. & Sydeman, W.J., 1999. A review of human disturbance effects on nesting colonial waterbirds. Waterbirds, 22, 68 79. Cayford, J., 1993. Wader disturbance : a theoretical overview. Wader Study Group Bull, 68, 3 5. Coyle, M.D. & Wiggins, S.M. 2010 European Marine Site Risk Review. Natural England Research Reports, Number 038. Cresswell, W., 1994. Age dependent choice of redshank (Tringa totanus) feeding location: profitability or risk? Journal of Applied Ecology, 63, 589-600. Cruickshanks, K., Liley, D., Fearnley, H., Stillman, R., Harvell, P., Hoskin, R. & Underhill-Day, J., 2010. Desk Based Study on Recreational Disturbance to birds on the Humber Estuary. Footprint Ecology / Humber Management Scheme. Cutts, N., Phelps, A., & Burdon, D., 2009. Construction and Waterfowl : Defining Sensitivity, Response, Impacts and Guidance Report to Humber INCA Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies University of Hull February 2009 Report : ZBB710-F-2009. Defra. 2010. Generic plan for recreational activities causing disturbances in European marine sites [Online] URL: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/interim2/ems-generic-plan.pdf [Accessed September 2012]

33 EC Bird Directive. 1979. Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.04.1979. EU COMMISSION. (1992). EU Journal, No. C289/16. Finney, S.K., Pearce-Higgins, J.W. & Yalden, D.W., 2005. The effect of recreational disturbance on an upland breeding bird, the golden plover Pluvialis apricaria. Biology Conservation. 121, 53-63 Fox, A. & Madsen, J. 1997. Behavioural and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds in Europe: implications for refuge design. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34(1), 1 13. Frid, A. & Dill, L., 2002. Human-caused Disturbance Stimuli as a Form of Predation Risk. Conservation Ecology, 6(1). Gabrielsen, G.W. & Smith, E.N., 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance. In: Lafferty, K., 2001. Birds at a Southern California beach: seasonality, habitat use and disturbance by human activity. Biodiversity and Conservation, (10), 1949 1962. Gill, J., Norris, K. & Sutherland, W., 2001. Why behavioural responses may not reflect the population consequences of human disturbance. Biological Conservation, 97, 265 268. Gill, J.A. 2007. Approaches to measuring the effects of human disturbance on birds. Ibis, 149: 9 14. Glover, H.K., Weston, M.A., Maguire, G.S., Miller, K.K. & Christie, B.A. 2011. Towards ecologically meaningful and socially acceptable buffers: Response distances of shorebirds in Victoria, Australia, to human disturbance. Landscape and Urban Planning. 103(3-4): 326-334 Goss-Custard, J.D., Stillman, R.A., West, A.D., Caldow, R.W.G., 2002. Carrying capacity in overwintering migratory birds. Biological Conservation, 105 (1), pp. 27-41. Goss-Custard, J.D., Triplet, P., Sueur, F. & West, A.D., 2006. Critical thresholds of disturbance by people and raptors in foraging wading birds. Biological Conservation, 127(1), 88 97. Green, R.E., Cornell, S., Scharlemann J.P.W., Balmford, A., 2005. Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science. 307, 550-555. Hockin, D., Ounsted, M., Gorman, M., Hill, D., Keller, V. & Barker, M.A., 1992. Examination of the effects of disturbance on birds with reference to its importance in ecological assessments. Journal of Environmental Management, 36(4), 253 286. INCA. 2009. Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast European Marine Site. [Online] URL: http://www.inca.uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/marine-site.pdf [Accessed September 2012]. INCA. 2012a. Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS. Bird Disturbance Monitoring Scheme [Online] URL: http://www.inca.uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/volunteer-disturbance-monitoring-project- 2012.pdf [Accessed August 2012] INCA. 2012b. Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast EMS Voluntary Code of Conduct [Online]. URL: http://www.inca.uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/code-of-conduct-final-pdf.pdf [Accessed September 2012]

34 JNCC. 2001. Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast [Online] URL: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=1993 [Accessed August 2012]. JNCC. 2008. Information sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS) [Online] URL: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/ris/uk11068.pdf [Accessed August 2012]. JNCC. Undated. Management of the UK s European Marine Sites. [Online] URL: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4215 [Accessed September 2012]. Lafferty, K., 2001. Birds at a Southern California beach: seasonality, habitat use and disturbance by human activity. Biodiversity and Conservation, (10), 1949 1962. Leakey, M. 2010. Intertidal mudflats and saltmarsh Habitat Action Plan 2010-2014. Tees Valley Biodiversity Partnership [Online]. URL: http://teesvalleybiodiversity.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/tvmudflats-and-saltmarsh-last-revised-feb-2010.pdf [Accessed September 2012] Lima, S. L., and L. M. Dill., 1990. Behavioural decisions made under the risk of predation. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 68,619-640 Madsen, J., 2008. Impacts of disturbance on migratory waterfowl. Ibis, 137, 67-74. Mouritsen, K. N. 1994, Day and night feeding in Dunlins Calidris alpilla; choice of habitat, foraging technique and prey. Journal of Avian Biology. 25: 55-62, Navedo, J. G., & Herrera, A. G., (2012). Effects of recreational disturbance on tidal wetlands: supporting the importance of undisturbed roosting sites for waterbird conservation. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 16(3), 373 381. doi:10.1007/s11852-012-0208-1 Navedo, J.G. & Herrera, A.G., 2012. Effects of recreational disturbance on tidal wetlands: supporting the importance of undisturbed roosting sites for waterbird conservation. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 16(3), 373 381. Peters, K.A. & Otis, D.L., 2006. Shorebird roost-site selection at two temporal scales: is human disturbance a factor? Journal of Applied Ecology, 44(1), 196 209. Prater, A.J., 1981. Estuary Birds of Britain and Ireland. In: Cayford, J., 1993. Wader disturbance : a theoretical overview. Wader Study Group Bull, 68, 3 5. Ravenscroft, N., Parker, B., Vonk, R. & Wright, M. 2007 Disturbance to waterbirds wintering in the Stour-Orwell estuaries SPA. A Report from Wildside Ecology to the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Unit. Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council. 2006. Report on the Appropriate Assessment of the Core Strategy DPD and the Development Policies DPD on the integrity of the European sites: The Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) and The North York Moors SPA and Special Area of Conservation (SAC). [Online] URL: http://www.redcarcleveland.gov.uk/main.nsf/eceefdd271501368802571f60032c06b/$file/aahd_oct06.pdf. [Accessed September 2012]. Rehfisch, M.M., Clark, N.A. & Langston, R.H.W., 1996. A guide to the provision of refuges for waders: An analysis of 30 years of ringing data from the Wash, England. Journal of Applied Ecology. 33(4), 673-687

35 Rehfisch, M.M., Insley, H & Swann B., 2003. Fidelity of overwintering shorebirds to roosts on the Moray Basin, Scotland: implications for predicting impacts of habitat loss. Ardea, 91, 53-70. Riddington, R., Hassall, M., Lane, S.J., Turner, P.S. & Walters, P.A., 1996. The impact of disturbance on the behaviour and energy budgets of Brent Geese Branta b. bernicla, Bird Study, 43:3, 269-279 Simpson, K., 2011. Implementing an Ecosystem Approach: The case of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast European Marine Site. MSc by research thesis, University of York [Online] URL: http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/2337/. [Accessed August 2012]. Smith, K. 2011. The State of the Natural Environment of the Tees Estuary A 2011 Review of Bird Data. INCA Reports. [Online] URL: http://www.inca.uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/birds-sonet- UPDATE-2011.pdf [Accessed August 2012]. Stankowich, T. & Blumstein, D.T. 2005. Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment. Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society, 272(1581): 2627 34. Stillman, R.A. & Goss-Custard, J.D., 2002. Seasonal changes in the response of oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus to human disturbance. Journal of Avian Biology 33:358 365 Stillman, R.A., West, A.D., Caldow, R.W.G. & Dit Durell, S.E.A. 2007. Predicting the effect of disturbance on coastal birds. Ibis, 149: 73 81. Taylor, K., Anderson, P., Taylor, R.P., Longden, K. & Fisher,P., 2005. Dogs, access and nature conservation. English Nature Research Report No. 649. English Nature, Peterborough. Thomas, K., Kvitek, R.G., & Bretz, C., 2003. Effects of human activity on the foraging behaviour of sanderlings Calidris alba. Biological Conservation, 109, 67-71. Urfi, A. J., Goss-Custard, J. D. & Durell, S. E. A. L. 1996. The ability of oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus to compensate for lost feeding time: Field studies on individually marked birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 33, 873 883. Webb N.V. & Blumstein D.T., 2005. Variation in human disturbance differentially affects predation risk assessment in western gulls. Condor, 107: 178 181 West, A. D., Goss-Custard, J. D., Stillman, R. A., Caldow, R. W. G., le V dit Durell, S. E. A., McGrorty, S., 2002. Predicting the impacts of disturbance on shorebird mortality using a behaviour-based model. Biological Conservation, 106: 319-328 Woodfield, E. and Langston, R. (2004) Literature review on the impact on bird populations of disturbance due to human access on foot. Sandy, UK: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (Research Report No. 9). WWT., 2003. Study of long term changes in bird usage of the Tees Estuary. WWT Wetlands Advisory Service. Report to English Nature.

36

37 Appendix 1. Bird disturbance survey form Location Start Time High Tide Date End Time Low Tide Weather Bird Species Start Count End Cormorant Curlew Dunlin Knot Oystercatcher Purple sandpiper Redshank Ringed plover Sanderling Turnstone Other species Disturbance Code Bird Activity Code a) Bird raises head and continues feeding/ roosting. F = Feeding b) Birds move in foot from disturbance and then continue feeding/ roosting (the distance moved should be recorded) R = Roosting c) Birds stop feeding/ roosting and show high alertness/ agitation. d) The bird takes flight. Flight disturbance categorised as: 1) Birds move less than 50 m 2) Birds move over 50 m 3) Birds leave the study site.

38 Recreational Activity Bird Disturbed Y/N? Disturbance Level Species & Numbers Affected

39 Appendix 2. Bird distributions (maps 4 12) Map 4: Bran Sands (low tide) Map 5: Hartlepool North Sands/ Throston Scar (Low Tide)

40 Map 6: North Gare (Low Tide) Map 7: North Gare (High Tide)

41 Map 8: South Gare (Low Tide) Map 9: South Gare (High Tide)

42 Map 10: Seaton Snook (High Tide) Map 11: Seaton Snook (Low Tide)

43 Map 12: Redcar Rocks (Low Tide)