New Forest Recreation Impact Mitigation report

Summary

This report summarises the European site interest features for the New Forest’s internationally designated conservation sites which are the New Forest Special Protection Area (SPA), the New Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the New Forest Ramsar site. It considers the impacts of recreation on these features and the potential for mitigation. The report has been commissioned by Test Valley Borough Council on behalf of a partnership which also includes Eastleigh Borough Council, New Forest District Council, The New Forest National Park Authority, Southampton City Council and Wiltshire Council.

There are many benefits of recreation, including health and well-being and connectedness to nature. However, there are also potential impacts on the environment. These can summarised under the following broad headings:

• Disturbance (avoidance of breeding habitat, physiological impacts, reduced breeding success);
• Fire (resulting in direct mortality, removal of breeding habitat, long term changes to vegetation structure);
• Contamination (including litter; nutrient enrichment through dog fouling; pollution from dogs entering water courses; spread of alien species and pathogens; greywater from campervans, etc);
• Trampling/wear (soil compaction, erosion, direct damage to breeding or wintering sites, expansion of path networks, churning up sediment in water bodies);
• Harvesting (e.g. collection of wood, fungi);
• Grazing issues (impacts on grazing animals, e.g. from feeding, worrying by dogs, open gates, road traffic accidents)
• Visitor expectation including pressure for facilities and public perceptions of management resulting in difficulties achieving necessary habitat and species protection.

Issues associated with recreation in the New Forest have long been a cause for concern, and some Local Planning Authorities have implemented detailed mitigation strategies. However, the challenge to balance recreation provision with conservation management and protection of the European site interest continues to grow. Increases in housing around the SAC/SPA/Ramsar site in the coming years will exacerbate the issues and result in a marked increase in use. The pressure is particularly around the periphery of the SAC/SPA/Ramsar site.

Working with the steering group, we have listed and reviewed a range of mitigation options. These are aligned with some of the strategic actions identified to in the recent update to the New Forest National Park Recreation Management Strategy 2010-2030. The options fall under the following broad headings:

• Alternative recreational greenspace sites and routes outside the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar;
• Access management within the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar;
• Educational and communications activities, both within and outside the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar;
• Monitoring; and
• Other (siting of development to avoid/reduce impacts).

Together, the measures identified could form a ‘package’ of avoidance and mitigation measures that should resolve the cumulative impacts from recreation associated with housing growth around the New Forest. Such a package should enable Local Authorities to be able to rule out adverse effects on integrity to the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar as a result of increased recreation associated with Local Plans. The measures will however not necessarily be easy to establish and will require significant impetus to achieve. Given the broad geographic scope and need for measures to dovetail, it will be important that there is a strategic, proportionate and co-ordinated approach, which will require partnership working across a range of local authorities and stakeholders.

The alignment with the update to the Recreation Management Strategy is important as mitigation measures to resolve impacts from new housing will need to fit with existing recreation management approaches and intended future management within the New Forest; indeed, one of the strategic actions in the Strategy is to ‘Develop a coordinated approach among planning authorities in and around the New Forest to mitigate the impacts of new housing on protected areas’. The mitigation measures will however represent a legal obligation by which local planning authorities ensure compliance with the relevant legislation.

Acknowledgements

This report was commissioned by Test Valley Borough Council on behalf of a number of different local authorities. We are grateful to Karen Eastley (Test Valley Borough Council) for overseeing the work and our thanks to other members of the steering group that included: Richard Burke (Forestry Commission), Adam Egglesfield (Hampshire County Council), Louise Evans (New Forest District Council), David Illsley (New Forest National Park Authority), Dawn Heppell (Eastleigh Borough Council and Southampton City Council), Louisa Kilgallen (Wiltshire Council), Nigel Matthews (New Forest National Park Authority), Graham Smith (Test Valley Borough Council) and Nick Squirrell (Natural England).

Our thanks to Keith Betton (Hampshire Ornithological Society) for the provision of bird data. The habitat GIS data were provided by Forestry England and we are grateful to Leanne Sargeant and Lisa Macher for sharing the data. We are very grateful to a range of people for very helpful discussion and provision of background information, including Keith Betton (Hampshire Ornithological Society), Clive Chatters, Tony Davis, Nigel Matthews (New Forest National Park Authority), Lord Willie Manners and Leanne Sargeant (Forestry England). We also draw on information from discussions and contributions from a wide range of people involved in a workshop in Brockenhurst in July 2019. Our thanks to all who attended and contributed to the discussions on a very warm afternoon.

1. Introduction

Overview

This report, commissioned by a partnership of local authorities with funding from central government, is part of a series that relates to understanding the impacts of recreation (arising from new housing development) on the New Forest international nature conservation designations. The various studies are intended to inform necessary mitigation approaches.

In this report we summarise information on the interest features of the relevant conservation designations, consider the potential impacts of recreation and consider the potential options for avoidance and mitigation.

Relevant legislation

The designation, protection and restoration of key wildlife sites is embedded in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), which are commonly referred to as the ‘Habitats Regulations.’ These Regulations are in place to transpose European legislation set out within the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC), which affords protection to plants, animals and habitats that are rare or vulnerable in a European context, and the Birds Directive (Council Directive 2009/147/EC), which originally came into force in 1979, and which protects rare and vulnerable birds and their habitats. These key pieces of European legislation seek to protect, conserve and restore habitats and species that are of utmost conservation importance and concern across Europe. European sites include Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated under the Habitats Directive and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified under the Birds Directive. Ramsar sites, those wetlands of international importance that are listed in the Ramsar Convention are, through government policy, are also treated as European sites.

Public bodies, including local planning authorities, have specific duties in terms of avoiding deterioration of habitats and species for which sites are designated or classified, and stringent tests have to be met before plans and projects can be permitted. Importantly, the combined effects of individual plans or projects must be taken into account. For local planning authorities, this means that the combined effect of individual development proposals needs to be assessed collectively for their cumulative impact, as well as on an individual basis.

The New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar

The New Forest is one of the largest tracts of semi natural vegetation in the country, and as such is one of our most important wildlife sites. The area hosts three international wildlife site designations and is closely located to other international wildlife sites such as the Solent and Southampton Water.

The New Forest is classified as an SPA for its breeding and overwintering bird species of European importance, in accordance with the European Birds Directive. The designation relates to internationally significant breeding populations of Dartford Warbler Sylvia undata, Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus, Woodlark Lullula arborea, Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus, Hobby Falco subbuteo and Wood Warbler Phylloscopus sibilatrix and over-wintering Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus.

The New Forest is also designated as an SAC for its habitats and non-avian species of European importance, in accordance with the European Habitats Directive. This designation reflects the unique mosaic of habitats across the New Forest, which includes eight Annex 1 heathland, grassland, woodland, wetland, bog and open water habitats, together with three Annex 2 species, Stag Beetle Lucanus cervus, and Southern Damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale, and Great Crested Newt Triturus cristatus.

Also relevant is the New Forest’s listing as a Ramsar site, under the Ramsar Convention. This recognises the international importance of the site as a wetland, supporting wetland flora and fauna of international importance, and adding to the global network of Ramsar listed wetlands.

Housing growth and recreation impacts

A challenging issue for UK nature conservation is how to respond to increasing demand for access without compromising the integrity of protected wildlife sites. Areas that are important for nature conservation are often important for a range of other services, including the provision of space for recreation for an increasing population. Such recreation space can be used for a wide variety of activities, ranging from the daily dog walks to competitive adventure and endurance sports.

There is now a strong body of evidence showing how increasing levels of access can have negative impacts on wildlife. Visits to the natural environment have shown a significant increase in England as a result of the increase in population and a trend to visit more (O’Neill, 2019). The issues are particularly acute in southern England, where population density is highest. Issues are varied and include disturbance, increased fire risk, contamination and damage (for general reviews see: Liley et al., 2010; Lowen, Liley, Underhill-Day, & Whitehouse, 2008; Ross et al., 2014; Underhill-Day, 2005).

The issues are not however straightforward. It is now increasingly recognised that access to the countryside is crucial to the long term success of nature conservation projects, for example through enforcing pro-environmental behaviours and a greater respect for the world around us (Richardson, Cormack, McRobert, & Underhill, 2016). Access also brings wider benefits to society that include benefits to mental/physical health (Keniger, Gaston, Irvine, & Fuller, 2013; Lee & Maheswaran, 2011; Pretty et al., 2005) and economic benefits (ICF GHK, 2013; ICRT, 2011; Keniger et al., 2013; The Land Trust, 2018). Nature conservation bodies are trying to encourage people to spend more time outside and government policy is also promoting countryside access in general (e.g. through enhancing coastal access).

There are two statutory purposes for national parks in England and Wales. The first is to conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage and the second is to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of national parks by the public. This second purpose includes opportunities for open air recreation. However, if it appears that there is a conflict between the two National Park purposes, the Environment Act 1995 requires greater weight to be attached to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park (this is known as the Sandford Principle¹). When national parks carry out these purposes, they also have the duty to encourage the social and economic well-being of local communities within the national park.

There is therefore, a significant challenge: to avoid or mitigate potential negative impacts associated with recreation so as to comply with legislation without compromising the ability of people to be outside enjoying sites for recreation.

Aims of this work

This report has been commissioned to summarise the European site interest features and review the various pathways and mechanisms by which recreation may impact them. These findings then lead to consideration of the implications in terms of mitigation or avoidance measures. This provides context for the visitor survey work conducted in parallel (see and will provide the basis for future appropriate assessment and consideration of future approaches to resolve issues associated with recreation pressure from new housing.

¹ Named after Lord Sandford, who chaired the 1974 National Parks Policy Review Committee.

Other reports

The work forms part of a series of reports that relates to understanding the impacts of new development on the New Forest international nature conservation designations. The project as a whole involves visitor surveys combined with work to understand the impacts of recreation and relevant mitigation approaches. Other reports, produced in parallel with this one, include:

• Recreation use of the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar: New Forest visitor survey 2018/19 - results of on-site face-face interviews with visitors conducted at formal car parks and other locations across the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar;
• Recreation use of the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar: New Forest vehicle counts 2018/19 – results of vehicle counts across the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar car parks, counting all parked vehicles on a range of different dates over a year;
• Recreation use of the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar: Results of a telephone survey with people living within 25km - the results of a telephone survey with 2,000 residents living within a 25km radius of the woodland/heathland areas of the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar;
• Recreation use of the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar: Overview of visitor results and implications of housing change on visitor numbers - a summary of the visitor survey results, drawing the findings from the telephone survey, on-site survey and vehicle counts together and making predictions for change in recreation as a result of new housing.

2. New Forest SPA, SAC and Ramsar interest features and distributions

SPA features

The SPA qualified for designation under Article 4.1 of the Birds Directive as it is used regularly by 1% or more of the Great Britain population of three heathland species (Dartford Warbler Sylvia undata, Woodlark Lullula arborea and Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus) and Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus (all breeding) and Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus (wintering). The SPA also qualifies under Article 4.2 for breeding Hobby Falco subbuteo and Wood Warbler Phylloscopus sibilatrix. While not qualifying species, the SPA citation also highlights the notable populations of breeding waders and breeding Redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus.

Heathland breeding species

At the time of classification (in 1992), the SPA supported 300 Nightjar territories (estimated to be at least 15% of the UK population at the time); 51-54 pairs of Woodlarks (24% of the UK population) and 454 pairs of Dartford Warblers (75% of the UK population).

Bird counts over time are summarised by the National Park Authority (2016) and recent surveys (undertaken by the Hampshire Ornithological Society HOS) have been commissioned by the Verderers as part of the Higher Level Stewardship Agreement. Plots showing changes in bird numbers for the three species over time are shown in Figure 1, and Map 1 shows recent distribution (occupied km squares). These counts indicate that numbers of all three species have previously been higher and in the case of Nightjar and Dartford Warbler, a decline is evident.

The 2018 survey (Jackson, 2018) showed a decline in the number of Nightjar compared to 2004/5 and to 2013, with a reduction in the number of territories across the whole of the New Forest. The results from the 2018 survey of Dartford Warblers (Clements, 2019) suggests numbers were at an all-time low, albeit after two spells of severe cold weather late in the winter. However, the data for population changes for these three species do not mirror those of nearby Dorset heathland sites (Liley & Fearnley, 2014; Panter & Caals, in prep). For example, Dartford Warbler numbers remained broadly stable over the period 1990 -2009 across the Dorset Heaths as a whole (Liley & Fearnley, 2014) and Nightjar numbers have increased at multiple sites in recent years (Panter & Caals, in prep).

Figure 1: Summary of bird numbers over time. Drawn from New Forest NPA (New Forest NPA 2016) and more recent surveys (e.g. Jackson, 2018 and HOS surveys in 2019).

Breeding raptors

Both Honey Buzzard and Hobby have exhibited large national range expansions and population increases (the latter +144% and +133%, respectively) over the 25 years up to 2016 (Holling & Rare Breeding Birds Panel, 2018), with the New Forest comprising a key site historically for both species. The Honey Buzzard population within the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar has remained stable (or possibly slightly increased) since the classification of the SPA (at classification the site supported 2 pairs, around 7% of the UK population), with high levels of productivity also recorded (Hampshire Ornithological Society, 2015a). There were thought to be 4-5 pairs in 2019 (Betton pers. comm.).

Contrastingly, and despite having a sizeable and healthy population across Hampshire as a whole, there are indications of a decline in the New Forest Hobby population (Hampshire Ornithological Society, 2015a), potentially linked to changes in prey availability and colonisation by predatory Goshawk Accipiter gentilis. At classification the SPA was estimated to support 25 pairs of Hobby (3% of the UK population), while the conservation objectives (supplementary advice) suggests a total of just 6 pairs in 2016². More recently the breeding totals are perhaps around 4 pairs (Hampshire Ornithological Society, 2018).

Hen Harrier

Hen Harriers are only present within the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar as winter visitors, during which the species uses communal roosts at traditional localities. The winter distribution of the species across Hampshire as a whole has increased in recent decades, although the number of individuals recorded has continued to decline (Hampshire Ornithological Society, 2015a) and numbers using the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar during the winter are now very low, with just lone birds recorded in recent winters (Keith Betton pers. comm.). There has been a continuing downward annual trend in the number of wintering individuals between 2013 and 2015 (Hampshire Ornithological Society, 2015b, 2015c, 2016). The New Forest however still has the greatest density of records of this scarce and declining winter visitor within the county (Hampshire Ornithological Society, 2015a).

Wood Warbler

Within Hampshire, breeding Wood Warbler is now confined to the New Forest (Hampshire Ornithological Society, 2015a), with the breeding range of the species within the county declining by 76% between 1986 - 1991 and 2007 - 2012.

² Natural England: European Site Conservation Objectives: Supplementary advice on conserving and restoring site features - New Forest Special Protection Area (SPA) Site code: UK9011031

Numbers within the New Forest itself have continued to decrease, in line with a well-documented national range contraction and population decline (Balmer et al., 2013) and the species is in real danger of becoming extinct as a breeding species within the next few years within the New Forest (T. Davis, pers comm.). Comparison of breeding populations in Wales (a relatively stable population), Devon (a declining population) and the New Forest (declining population) found high rates of nest predation for the New Forest, but not at the Devon site (P. Bellamy, 2015; P. E. Bellamy et al., 2018). There is a suggestion that demographics in other parts of their breeding range or in their wintering areas are likely reasons for local population declines (P. Bellamy, 2015; Mallord, Smith, Bellamy, Charman, & Gregory, 2016).

Breeding waders

Breeding waders are not an interest feature of the SPA but are mentioned in the SPA citation. They are a distinctive and notable feature of the New Forest. Key species are Lapwing Vanellus vanellus, Snipe Gallinago gallinago, Curlew Numenius arquata and Redshank Tringa totanus. There have been very marked declines over the last two decades and possibly longer (e.g. Goater, Houghton, & Temple, 2004; HOS, 2019; Wyn & Page, 2018). Recent estimates for the New Forest for 2019 (HOS, 2019) are for around 40 pairs of Curlew, 48 pairs of Lapwing and just 7 Redshank territories. The most recent data for Snipe were 102 drumming males in 2014 (RPS, 2014). Recent distribution data from the period 2016-18, provided by the Hampshire Ornithological Society are summarised in Map 3.

SAC features

SAC habitats

The New Forest SAC is unique in the extent and natural dynamism of its semi-natural habitats. It is characterised by a fluctuating mosaic of habitat types that were once common across lowland western Europe but are now generally highly fragmented. Woodlands include ancient wood pasture, inclosure woodland and smaller areas of riverine woodland and bog woodland. Heathlands comprise extensive dry and wet heaths intersected by valley mires and streams with pools, temporary ponds and dry and wet grassland. Thirteen Annex I habitats are represented, included two priority habitats. Veteran trees and dead wood mean the New Forest SAC is of exceptional importance for its saprophytic invertebrate fauna and lichen and bryophyte flora while the heathlands, grasslands and wetlands support vegetation communities and species reflective of the long continuous history of livestock grazing. Habitats are listed and described in Table 1. Map 4 shows the habitat data.

³ Priority feature

⁴ Annex I habitats present as a qualifying feature, but not a primary reason for selection of this site

SAC species

Two species on Annex II of the Habitats Directive are primary features of the site: Great Crested Newt is also a qualifying feature of the site, but not a primary reason for its designation.

Stag Beetles require broad-leaved tree stumps, or fallen trees in contact with the ground, within which their larvae can develop over a period of 3 to 4 years. They are the largest, and arguably the most spectacular, of the terrestrial British Coleoptera, and the New Forest SAC comprises a key stronghold for the species within the UK (and forms a core unit within the species’ main Hampshire/Sussex population centre). The New Forest SAC as a whole has been recognised for its importance to saproxylic invertebrate species, including species such as the Stag Beetle. A summary of the species’ distribution across the New Forest (data from 1999 onwards) are shown in Map 5.

Great Crested Newts are present in a large number of ponds, primarily distributed around the perimeter of the New Forest SAC. The species uses these freshwater habitats during the breeding season, with eggs laid amongst aquatic vegetation in the early spring and the resulting juveniles emerging from the breeding ponds in late summer/early autumn, following an aquatic development phase. Both adult and juvenile newts spend extended periods living and foraging within terrestrial environments, and the availability of suitable terrestrial habitat (as well as breeding sites) is therefore of key importance for the species.

Southern Damselflies are widespread across the New Forest SAC, which is the major population centre for the species in Britain, with nearly 20 populations and 1,800 males recorded in 2015/16 (Panter, Lake & Liley 2016). Distribution data (from Panter, Lake & Liley) are summarised in Map 5. It is found in shallow, well-vegetated, base-rich funnels and flushes with gently flowing, well-oxygenated water on wet heaths or in valley mires. Females lay eggs on submerged plants and the larvae, which remain in the runnels, and take two years to mature. The species is therefore susceptible to drought, freezing and deterioration in water quality. The UK population is thought to be a major European stronghold of the species.

⁵ https://ptes.org/press-release-stag-beetles/

⁶ Qualifying features that are not primary reasons for selection

Ramsar features

The New Forest Ramsar site is described as complex, with examples of semi-natural habitats essential to the genetic and ecological diversity of southern England.

Habitat features of the New Forest Ramsar overlap with the SAC (see Table 1) and are therefore not described again here.

Species

Overlap between SPA, SAC and Ramsar site designated features include the nationally important breeding population of Dartford Warbler and wintering population of Hen Harrier, and internationally important populations of both Southern Damselfly and Stag Beetle (see SPA and SAC information above).

Additional nationally important species recorded from the site include Great Crested Newt, Bullhead Cottus gobio, and Brook Lamprey Lampetra planeri.

The site is of particular importance for its rare invertebrate assemblage, with 159 Red Data Book species listed on the site’s citation, in addition to a further 21 non-designated habitat specialists. Several of the species listed (e.g. Arctosa fulvolineata; a wolf spider species) are saltmarsh specialists associated with coastal habitats on the periphery of the New Forest Ramsar. Nevertheless, the majority of the species listed specialise upon, or are primarily associated with, the New Forest’s heathland, broad-leaved woodland (including dead wood and veteran tree micro-habitats), and wetland habitats.

The 159 species listed can largely be categorised by the habitat/s within which they specialise. These key habitat types are provided below, along with examples of the Red Data Book invertebrate species they support:

• Heathland/heather specialists (e.g. Heath Grasshopper Chorthippus vagans, Shoulder-striped Clover Heliothis maritima (a moth), Coniocleonus nebulosus (a weevil), Mottled Bee-fly Thyridanthrax fenestratus, and Halpodrassus umbratilis (a spider));
• Established broad-leaved woodland/saproxylic species (e.g. Euplectus punctatus (a short-winged mould beetle), Procraerus tibialis (a click beetle), The Triangle Heterogenea asella (a moth), and Pocota personata (a hoverfly));
• Bog and mire specialists (e.g. Large Marsh Grasshopper Stethophyma grossum, Sundew Plume Buckleria paludum (a moth), Pachybrachius luridus (a ground bug), and Bagous frit (a sloth weevil)), and;
• Wetland, pool, and stream specialists (e.g. Medicinal Leech Hirudo medicinalis, Donacia bicolora (a leaf beetle), and Agabus brunneus (a water beetle)).

The noteworthy flora within the Ramsar sites includes several species. Many of these are associated with disturbed, seasonally wet ground. They are listed here by microhabitat (note some may be found in more than one):

• Wet valley mire & bog pool species: Bog Orchid Hammarbya paludosa, Brown Beak-sedge Rhynchospora fusca, Slender Cottongrass Eriophorum gracile Intermediate Bladderwort Utricularia intermedia,
• Species associated with damp bare ground (e.g. track ruts, seasonal pools, winter-wet hollows): Marsh Clubmoss Lycopodiella inundata, Yellow Centaury Cicendia filiformis, Three-lobed Water Crowfoot Ranunculus tripartitus Mousetail Myosurus minimus, Pennyroyal Mentha pulegium, Coral Necklace Illecebrum verticillatum, Brown Beak-sedge, Small Fleabane Pulicaria vulgaris, Bog Hair-grass Deschampsia setacea, Slender Marsh-bedstraw Galium constrictum (debile),
• Pond margins Hampshire-purslane Ludwigia palustris, Six-stamened Waterwort Elatine hexandra, Needle spike-rush Eleocharis acicularis, Pillwort Pilularia globulifera, Slender Marsh-bedstraw
• Wet heath species: Marsh Gentian Gentiana pneumonanthe
• Wet woodland (carr): Marsh Fern Thelypteris palustris
• New Forest lawns: Slender Marsh-bedstraw
• Other: Annual Beard-grass Polypogon monspeliensis (coastal grassland, disturbed ground), Yellow Bartsia Parentucellia viscose (damp acid grassland), Soft-leaved Sedge Carex montana (bracken/grass heath), Dwarf spike-rush Eleocharis parvula (saltmarsh pans, brackish pool), Corky-fruited water-dropwort Oenanthe pimpinelloides (meadows)

Touch-me-not-Balsam Impatiens noli-tangere is listed in the noteworthy flora but has not been recorded since 1986 and is considered extinct in the New Forest (Rand & Mundell, 2011).

3. Potential impacts of recreation

In this section we consider how recreation can impact the relevant interest features described above. Interest features may also be impacted by other factors (such as changes in agri-environment schemes, habitat management techniques, weather conditions, climate change, atmospheric pollution and natural processes) and in some cases these may interact with recreation impacts.

We identified the main pathways through which recreational activities may impact on the designated features of the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar, drawing on our experience, observation during the collection of the visitor data, reviews of literature and discussion. We have drawn on general reviews of recreation impacts undertaken at a national level (e.g. Lowen et al. 2008; Liley et al. 2010) and specific work on the New Forest (Tubbs, 2001). Concerns regarding recreation impacts go back many years, for example it was in the early 1970s that concern regarding the lack of restrictions on camping and vehicular access led to extensive recreation management proposals and the provision of dedicated car parks, campsites and restrictions on where people could drive (see New Forest Joint Steering Committee, 1971 for details). Moving forwards 30 years, Tubbs (2001) provides a detailed account of growing pressure for recreation in the Forest, highlighting a growth in nearby urban populations and an increase in the number of visitors. He perceived recreation pressure as a particular concern:

“…I am reaffirmed in my portrait of the Forest as a highly dynamic ecosystem resilient to trauma or catastrophe. Indeed, events and process which can be regarded as catastrophic are to my mind part of the ecosystem. They include drought, hurricanes, summer fires, the recession of the beech population, intensive grazing the past exploitation of the heaths for gravel, turf and marl. All such events, however, are cyclic or periodic. The new pressure for public recreation may be an altogether different matter”.

We can summarise recreational impacts under the broad headings listed below and in Figure 2. There can also be interactions between the different impacts (e.g. fire may open up new routes).

• Disturbance;
• Fire;
• Contamination;
• Trampling/wear;
• Harvesting;
• Grazing issues
• Visitor expectation.

They are reviewed in a national context in various sources and a previous review (Fearnley, Hoskin, Liley, White, & Lake, 2012) considered some of the issues from a New Forest perspective. Here we summarise the activities involved in each pathway and the conservation features likely to be impacted in the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar.

Figure 2: Summary of recreation impacts including examples of features and species affected.

Disturbance

Disturbance occurs where human activity influences an animal’s behaviour or survival. By far the majority of the literature (and there are thousands of studies), focuses on birds (Brawn, Robinson, & III, 2001; Hill et al., 1997; for general reviews see Hockin et al., 1992; Lowen et al., 2008; Showler, 2010; Steven, Pickering, & Guy Castley, 2011; Whitfield, Ruddock, & Bullman, 2008). Disturbance can also affect mammals, herptiles (see Edgar, 2002 for review) and invertebrates.

General principles

The presence of people in the countryside will influence wildlife in many ways. For many species, the people or their pets (e.g. dogs) are a potential threat and as such it is to be expected that the response will be to modify behaviour, for example fleeing. The relative trade-off as to when to change behaviour and respond to the threat will relate to the perceived scale of the threat and the costs involved (e.g. lost foraging time). This perspective can be used to understand the behavioural responses to people and led one author to describe human disturbance as predation-free predators (Beale & Monaghan, 2004).

With people (and their pets) viewed as potential predators, there is clearly a greater threat posed (and therefore a greater behavioural response) when, for example, there are more people, in larger groups (Beale & Monaghan, 2004, 2005) or when people approach directly (Smith-Castro & Rodewald, 2010) or faster (Bellefleur, Lee, & Ronconi, 2009).

The presence of people may also draw particular predators, for example a study in America showed the Crow (corvid) populations were centred around campgrounds (Marzluff & Neatherlin, 2006) while Kays et al. (2017) used camera traps to show a range of predators actively selected human-made paths. As such the presence of people may also influence the distribution and abundance of predators with a knock-on effect for potential prey species.

Impacts

Disturbance can therefore have a range of different impacts, potentially affecting distribution, breeding success and health. Impacts can be chronic, for example otherwise suitable nesting habitat being completely avoided (e.g. Liley & Sutherland, 2007) or more short-term in nature, for example birds becoming alert and then resuming the initial activity (e.g. Fernandez-Juricic, Jimenez, & Lucas, 2001). Birds might be temporarily displaced from particular locations and such behavioural responses will have some energetic costs, even if only very short term in duration. Impacts can also include indirect mortality, for example through increased predation associated with disturbance (e.g. Brambilla, Rubolini, & Guidali, 2004). There are also examples of direct predation by pet dogs, for example dogs were recorded as predators of nests and incubating adult Ringed Plovers Charadrius hiaticula on Lindisfarne (Pienkowski, 1984). Some studies have shown evidence of accidental trampling of nests and young, including herptiles (Edgar, 2002) and birds (Durwyn Liley & Sutherland, 2007). Much harder to measure and record are physiological effects, for example related to stress, and these may in turn affect fitness. While studies are limited, there is evidence of physiological effects in terms of increased heart rate (Ellenberg, Mattern, & Seddon, 2013) and stress-hormones (Thiel, Jenni-Eiermann, Palme, & Jenni, 2011). As such the presence of people may affect birds and other wildlife in a range of ways that are not always easy to measure or record. Many people simply assume disturbance to relate to birds taking flight or fleeing, but in reality these behavioural responses are likely to be only part of a much wider picture.

Types of access

Disturbance has been shown to occur with a range of different types of activities, for example Steven et al. (2011), in their review of disturbance impacts to birds listed the following activities and research findings:

• Standing/observing: 15 studies, 14 showing negative effects of disturbance;
• Touring/walking/hiking: 51 studies, 45 showing negative effects of disturbance;
• Running: 6 studies, 6 showing negative effects of disturbance
• Cycling/Mountain bike riding: 3 studies, 3 showing negative effects of disturbance;
• Canoeing: 3 studies, 3 showing negative effects of disturbance;
• Dog walking: 11 studies, 11 showing negative effects of disturbance;
• Horse riding: 0 studies, 0 showing negative effects of disturbance.

More recent studies have highlighted emerging activities such as drones (Mulero-Pázmány et al., 2017).

It is often difficult to separate different types of activities as at many sites multiple activities tend to overlap in space and time. Nonetheless, dogs are often identified as having a disproportionate effect (Banks & Bryant, 2007; Cavalli, Baladrón, Isacch, Biondi, & Bó, 2016; Lafferty, 2001; D. Liley & Fearnley, 2012; Taylor, Green, & Perrins, 2007; Thomas, Kvitek, & Bretz, 2003); dogs are likely to be perceived as a greater threat (i.e. as a predator), will actively chase birds and are able to track wildlife by smell.

Identifying vulnerable species

Virtually all bird species will respond negatively to the presence of people if approached too closely and the conservation objectives (supplementary advice) for the SPA recognise the risk of disturbance for each of the interest features.

In particular, we would highlight:

• Ground-nesting birds as nests will be vulnerable to trampling and chicks to predation by dogs and there is a risk of flushing and predation associated with disturbance;
• Breeding raptors as large birds tend to flush at bigger distances and raptors can often be sensitive to people around the nest;
• Breeding birds of all relevant species are likely to avoid areas with high levels of access;
• Hen Harriers at roost sites, as disturbance may cause displacement and prevent birds from roosting;
• Very rare species, as there is a greater risk of local extinction for species with small population sizes;

High levels of access (e.g. Figure 3a) will deter breeding birds and render otherwise suitable habitat unavailable. For both Nightjar and Woodlark studies have shown recreation use affects the distribution of birds within sites, such that busy areas are avoided (Liley et al. 2006; Mallord et al. 2007; Lowe, Rogers & Durrant 2014). For Dartford warblers, breeding productivity is lower in heather-dominated territories where access levels are high (Murison et al. 2007), this is because disturbed birds nest later in the season. For Nightjar there is also evidence of breeding success being lower on busier sites and busier parts of sites (Murison 2002). For woodlarks (Figure 3b) at least, there are clear population-level impacts as a result of the presence of people on the heaths (Mallord et al. 2007).

Previous analyses of predicted visitor distributions and heathland breeding bird distributions in the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar (Sharp, Lowen, & Liley, 2008) found some evidence (particularly for Woodlark) that areas with high levels of recreation use were avoided.

Wood Warblers are also ground nesting and can nest on banks, even those alongside tracks (Tony Davis pers. comm.). Recreation impacts are however thought to be relatively minor although nest monitoring in the New Forest has recorded two nests predated by domestic dogs (Tony Davis pers comm.).

Disturbance is known to be an issue for Hobby when nesting and has been associated with breeding failure, even on areas with limited public access (Messenger & Roome, 2007). Breeding Honey Buzzards are widely considered highly susceptible to disturbance, and although some authors contest this they still suggest that Honey Buzzards will avoid nesting in areas subject to continuous disturbance (Roberts, Lewis, & Williams, 1999).

Little work has been undertaken on disturbance impacts for wintering Hen Harrier. Traditional roost sites are identified as places where access management measures, or exclusions/restrictions, should be implemented in relation to CRoW (Brown and Langston, 2001). A well-known hen harrier roost site in Dorset was abandoned in 1997, with local counters believing that increased access by walkers and other recreational activities was the cause (Lowen et al., 2008).

Figure 3: Examples of disturbance. a) Janesmoor on Easter Sunday 2019 showing a high density of people across wide area; b) dog walker and dog unwittingly approaching a Woodlark family with recently fledged chicks (birds are visible top left).

Fire

Wildfire is a much greater issue on heathland than in wet habitats and woodland, as these are less flammable. The incidence of wildfire has been shown to increase with proximity to housing (Tantram, Boobyer, & Kirby, 1999). It tends to be most common in the summer months (Rose & Clarke, 2005) when it is most harmful. Uncontrolled fires can kill many reptiles, and on heathland sites re-colonisation from adjacent unburnt areas can take from 5–25 years (see Underhill-Day, 2005). Similarly, the impact on invertebrates can last many years (see Underhill-Day, 2005). On heathlands, fire can result in the loss of shallow peat soils (see review in Liley et al. 2010). Depending on the vegetation type and burn intensity, wildfires may result in a temporary shift from heathers to grasses (Bullock & Webb, 1995) or to birch woodland soils (see review in Liley et al. 2010). Summer wildfires also remove breeding and foraging habitat for a range of species. Fires can also open up new access routes by reducing the height of vegetation.

Wildfire may decrease nutrient build up through the removal of the organic litter layer, but this is done more constructively during controlled burns carried out in winter for habitat management purposes.

Some fires are a consequence of arson, others are results of barbeques and campfires (which are frequent in popular areas in the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar). Disposable barbeques are only permitted at designated sites where stands and water are provided. Raised non-disposable barbeques are allowed in gravelled car parks only. However, currently these rules are not always adhered to (see Figure 4a-d).

Contamination

Dog fouling is a widely recognised issue in low-nutrient semi-natural systems. The resulting increase in nitrogen and phosphorus changes vegetation communities, encouraging bulky competitive species at the expense of less vigorous species adapted to low-nutrients situations. Due to their low nutrient status, heathlands and acid grassland are particularly vulnerable. A change from typical heathland species to rank species-poor grassland communities is common along and on the margins of paths and tracks and around car parks.

Urination is also an issue, particularly where dogs scent-mark the base of trees. This can result in the loss of lower plant communities in the affected area (see Figure 4h). The ammonium in urine is toxic in quantity and may also harm the tree bark and potentially the cambium layer. The build-up of nutrients may also damage mycorrhizal associations. The build-up of nutrients may also damage mycorrhizal associations.

Contamination may also result from persistent veterinary compounds that are transferred into the aquatic environment by domestic animals (mostly dogs and ridden horses). These may include worming treatments and external parasite treatments. The impact of such compounds on invertebrates in New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar water bodies is unknown.

A further consideration is that of sunscreen and other personal care products. Personal care products containing oxybenzone and octinoxate are being banned from some areas of the world where they are thought to be contributing to the disruption of marine ecosytems. In freshwater systems, carbon-based and nano-particulate UV filters have been shown to negatively impact invertebrates (e.g. (Schmitt, Oetken, Dittberner, Wagner, & Oehlmann, 2008) and may impact algae and fish through DNA damage, bio-accumulation of harmful chemicals, and lower quality and quantity of food sources at the base of the food web. Many of the waterbodies in the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar are entered by people in the summer, particularly playing children likely to be wearing sunscreen. Any impacts in the aquatic systems of the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar are unknown.

Waterbodies may also be contaminated by greywater from the many campervans that use the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar. Run-off from roads may also add contaminants to water bodies. A further issue relating to the contamination of permanent water bodies is the fish that many are stocked with, both officially and unofficially, which results in detrimental turbidity, eutrophication and herbivory.

Littering is also a problem related to recreation pressure. In most cases this is unsightly rather than damaging to the interest features of the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar (although it can impact small mammals, lizards and wading birds through being trapped in bottles or cans, becoming tangled in fishing lines or ingesting lead weights). However, some litter can be a serious problem if ingested by livestock (e.g. plastic bags, inappropriate or contaminated food etc.). Fly-tipping of garden waste can also be a hazard to livestock, as shrub prunings and mown grass may be toxic, but this is not directly associated with recreational pressure.

The spread of exotic species can be associated with recreation pressure. For example, there is an issue with people introducing non-native carnivorous plants such as Pitcher Plant Sarracenia purpurea into valley mires and water lilies into ponds. Additional footfall and dogs entering water bodies may increase the spread of species such as New Zealand Pigmyweed Crassula helmsii. A sensitive issue is the ornamental species that may be introduced at ‘in memoria’ sites including those where funeral ashes/caskets are sited.

Figure 4: Examples of fire and contamination impacts from the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar. a) Fireman putting out campfire, b) fire risk sign, c) barbeque at Longcross; d) barbeques at Linford bottom; e) discarded rubbish at Fritham car park; f) fly-tipping example; g) garden rubbish dumped at Janesmoor; h) tree with signs of dog urine impact, Burley Cricket; i) dogs fouling near Appleslade.

Trampling/wear

Trampling can directly damage plants, lead to loss of vegetation and/or a change in plant species composition and cause compaction or poaching of the substrate, with implications for plant species composition. The level of trampling that will cause damage depends on a variety of factors including soil type and moisture content, aspect and slope, season, microclimate, behaviour of walkers etc (e.g. walking up or down the slope) and the vegetation type (see Liley et al. 2010 for a review). Due to this range of factors, it is difficult to predict thresholds at which significant vegetation change will occur. Pascoe (2013) found a significant correlation between the distribution of Field Gentian Gentianella campestris and trampling on the grasslands of the New Forest, but suggested that it, together with Autumn Lady’s-tresses Spiranthes spiralis, may not be under threat from trampling provided the trampling impact does not extend further into previously lightly or untrampled areas.

In supressing plant growth and creating bare ground (Figure 5e), trampling can also result in conditions suitable for scarce heathland specialities for which the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar is a stronghold, such as Yellow Centaury Cicendia filiformis, Marsh Clubmoss Lycopodiella inundata and Coral Necklace Illecebrum verticillatum that would otherwise be outcompeted by more vigorous species. Bare ground is also required for a large number of invertebrates (particularly bees and wasps) and species such as Sand Lizard Lacerta agilis. There is a balance between sufficient trampling to create and maintain bare ground, and excessive wear (e.g. from horses or mountain bikes) that continually disturbs the substrate and damages or destroys any colonising species.

Heather-dominated communities are particularly vulnerable to trampling, which can shift communities towards grassland. Within the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar, wet heath and valley mire are most vulnerable to persistent trampling, with bog mosses (Sphagnum spp.) among the most susceptible species (one study in Scotland found that 80 passes was sufficient to destroy the Sphagnum plants – see Liley et al 2010 for a review). Tufted species such as Deer-grass and Black Bog Rush are more resilient, while a limited amount of trampling will create bare ground niches for species such as Sundews Drosera spp. and Pale Butterwort Pinguicula lustitanica. However, these habitats are in general less likely to be accessed due to the wet conditions underfoot than dry heathland and grassland or open woodland.

In general, woodland ground floras are susceptible to trampling as many woodland species have adapted to shady conditions with large leaves and thin cell walls. The New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar woodlands do not support many vascular plant species of national conservation concern (Wright & Westerhoff, 2001), but do have a rich flora of characteristic species. Excessive trampling by people, for example at honeypots and along tracks (e.g. Figure 5d), can result in the localised loss of ground flora and this has been well documented within the New Forest (Cox, 1996b, 1996a, cited in ; Tubbs, 2001). The New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar is of particular significance for its veteran trees, which can be negatively affected by trampling. Trampling resulting in compaction around the roots will have a detrimental effect on roots and associated soil fungi and can lead to tree death in veteran trees, which may be preferentially approached. Climbing of trees may also lead to damage.

Trampling can also be an issue in and around waterbodies, including permanent, ephemeral and seasonal pools and running waters. Water bodies such as Hatchet Pond, Janesmoor Pond, Cadnam’s Pool, Longcross Pond, Setley Pond, Ocknell Pond, the Lymington River at Puttles Bridge, Ivy Wood, and Brockenhurst Splash Bridge tend to be targeted as visitor destinations. Although a degree of trampling in the margins of pools can create ideal conditions for species such as Pillwort Pilularia globulifera, continued trampling (for example from dogs, horses and people on the bankside or entering the water) can stir up the sediment, reducing water quality and damaging aquatic plants. Excessive trampling will result in the loss of fringing vegetation and the creation of worn, compacted edges (e.g. Figure 5c) – this has resulted in the complete loss of the transition from aquatic to terrestrial vegetation at, for example, Cadnam’s Pool and reaches of the running water sites listed above (C. Chatters pers. comm.).

Soil compaction and erosion issues are not only related to footfall. Bicycles can damage soils and vegetation more than foot passage (Martin, Butler, & Klier, 2018) and the impact of a horse plus rider is even greater in terms of ground pressure (see Liddle, 1997 for review). Vehicles parking on road verges (e.g. Figure 5a) are a particular issue, leading to localised damage alongside some roads (e.g. Figure 5b). Repeated wear will result in bare edges and a loss of vegetation, likely to be of particular concern for those verges with specialist flora such as small fleabane.

Figure 5: Examples of trampling damage. a) Verge parking at Furzeley; b) road verges at Cadnam; c) Ocknell Pond with lack of fringing vegetation around pond; d) heavily poached path at Wilverley; e) eroded path across heath, Hinchelsea Moor; f) Rockford Sandpit (with NT sign inset)

Grazing issues

Livestock grazing is an integral part of the traditional management of the New Forest and plays a key role in shaping habitats. There are several pathways through which recreational pressure can impact on grazing livestock: worrying, road accidents (although many may not be due to recreation), transfer of diseases, feeding and petting livestock, damage to infrastructure and visitor perceptions and expectations of the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar as an area for recreation. Increased visitor pressure in combination with increases in the numbers of animals turned out on the Forest, is likely to exacerbate all of these.

Livestock worrying is generally considered to be a particular issue with sheep, but young calves and foals are also vulnerable to dog attacks and fatal attacks are reported⁷ each year. Dogs will approach and chase all livestock (e.g. Figure 6d) and this can be dangerous, for example when animals run onto the road or towards people. Where young animals are killed, injured or threatened, adult livestock may be more likely to react badly to the presence of dogs, endangering both dogs and people. It also has implications for the sustainability of livestock grazing, as, if aggressive individuals cannot be identified, entire herds may have to be removed from the Forest⁸. Attacks may be carried out by dogs escaping from properties in or directly adjacent to the Forest in addition to those being exercised in the Forest.

Dogs are also an issue for the welfare of livestock through the transfer of pathogens such as Neospora from dogs to cattle through dog faeces. Neospora causes abortion in infected cattle.

While dogs are a particular issue, other activities can also alarm livestock. In addition to increasing the potential for accidents, this can interfere with livestock management.

The New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar is bisected by numerous roads, bringing cars and livestock into proximity (e.g. Figure 6f). Road traffic accidents involving livestock are also a regular occurrence in the New Forest – for example the Verderers reported 63 animals killed or put down due to the severity of their injuries in 2018, with a further 26 animals injured. Parking on verges (e.g. Figure 6a) rather than in car parks can limit drivers’ view of livestock, adding to the risk. Parking in gateways can prevent access by livestock keepers. Depending on the management of parking, this could increase with a rise in visitor numbers.

⁷ https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/new-forest-dog-attack

⁸ https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/new-forest-cows-slaughtered

Feeding and petting ponies is an issue in the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar (e.g. Figure 6b, c, e). Visitors enjoying the interaction with free-roaming ponies and donkeys are often tempted to feed them. This can attract them to locations where they are more vulnerable to traffic accidents or dog attacks, such as roadsides (see Figure 6h) and car parks and influence the distribution of livestock within the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar. It can also result in incidents of aggression, as it increases the number of interactions between equines and people, and ponies learn to expect food and may respond aggressively if it is not forthcoming. It may also result in the livestock being fed inappropriate foodstuffs.

Recreational pressure can also result in the displacement of livestock with, for example, reports of incidents such as livestock being driven away from a pond to allow model power boating.

There is a link between fire risk and grazing, as grazing can reduce fuel loads on heathlands and therefore the risk of major wildfires (e.g. Cavan & McMorrow, 2009; Legg & Davies, 2009). Any future marked reductions in grazing (e.g. as a result of the challenges of grazing alongside high levels of access) could have knock on effects for fire risk across the Forest.

The New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar is a pastoral system – the nature conservation features for which it is designated are dependent on the maintenance of appropriate grazing. The various issues arising from interactions between recreation pressure and livestock highlighted above potentially jeopardise the future of commoning, the long-standing land-use system that has allowed the continuation of extensive grazing within the New Forest. These impacts should be considered in the context of a suite of issues currently impacting on commoning in the New Forest (see Chatters & Kernohan 2013).

Figure 6: Examples of grazing issues. a) verge parking near Furzeley to view ponies; b) pony being fed; c) pony and ice cream van; d) dog approaching pony at Wilverley; e) pony approaching family barbeque at Stoney Cross; f) car and pony, near Janesmoor; g) mountain biker approaching ponies near Stoney Cross; h) abandoned carrots at Stoney Cross.

Harvesting

Removal of deadwood is a major threat to saproxylic (deadwood) invertebrates (Kirby, 2001; Alexander et al., 2005g; Alexander et al., 2005h; Alexander et al., 2005i; Alexander et al., 2005j). This micro-habitat is often removed for health and safety reasons and also by the public for campfires etc. Campfires are not permitted at campsites within the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar, wood collection is not permitted and there is a safe barbeque code. However, barbeques are frequent in the summer away from designated sites and campfires do occur (e.g. Figure 4, a, c and d), and these may involve wood collection and possibly bark stripping. Deadwood is also collected by children for den-making (Figure 7a), in which it is generally propped vertically against a branch or similar. Repeated and protracted den-making in popular areas can result in the removal of significant amounts of deadwood from the woodland floor, greatly reducing its value for invertebrates.

There has been concern about the impact of harvesting fungi in the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar (and at other much-visited sites) in the light of apparent increases in commercial harvesting. Long-term research from Switzerland found that the trampling associated with harvesting reduced the abundance of fruiting bodies affecting species diversity, but that cutting and picking themselves did not significantly reduce the overall abundance or diversity of fungi (Egli et al. 2006 and references therein). Given a lack of knowledge about the abundance of spores required to maintain populations, a ‘closed season’ was recommended by the authors. A reduction in fruiting bodies could also impact on invertebrates associated with fungi.

Commercial picking is an offence under the Theft Act 1968 without the permission of the landowner and since 2016 the Forestry Commission (now Forestry England) have made this clearer to the public with the use of “No Picking” signs (Figure 7b).

There are some particular issues associated with fishing, these relate to stocking (see under contamination) and also trampling damage around the edge of water bodies (see trampling). Also, possibly of localised concern is impacts associated with children with fishing nets in streams and water bodies. This may be an issue where rare species such as Southern Damselfly are present.

Figure 7: Examples of harvesting impacts. a) den near Vereley; b) sign about mushroom picking

Visitor expectation

Visitor perception of the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar is vital as it influences visitors’ behaviour and shapes their expectations. For example, well-maintained infrastructure is more likely to result in careful and considerate use of and respect for car parks, bins etc. and also signs and their messages. In less well-maintained situations the reverse is more likely to be the case.

Where visitor expectations and understanding are not aligned with the rural nature of the Forest, conflict can arise. This is a component of some above issues, such as petting and feeding or harassment of livestock. It may also be an issue if visitors are not comfortable with some elements of traditional land-use in the Forest, particularly livestock grazing and the associated practice of controlled burning. Visitors who consider the Forest first and foremost as a recreational destination may be less willing to take into account requirements dictated by land use or the wildlife of the Forest (such as keeping dogs under control). Increasing visitor use can lead to the expectation that certain areas should be primarily available for recreational pursuits or to a lack of willingness to see changes required for conservation or pastoral purposes, particularly changes that might result in a perceived loss of amenity. This issue is identified by Grant & Edwards (2008), who identify the risk that management strategies in the New Forest will be greatly constrained unless conflicts about values and uses are resolved.

Perceived visitor requirements can also influence management decisions, for example, surfacing heathland paths (to the detriment of specialist species that exploit the bare ground habitat) or creating additional routes, board walks etc for recreational purposes. The use of verges for parking leads to vegetation loss, soil compaction and, as such sites become more widely used, the creation of unofficial car parks.

In Table 3 we provide an overview of the different impact pathways and the interest features that are potentially vulnerable to that impact. Clearly the impacts identified vary in severity, likelihood of occurrence (risk) and some affect particular interest features while others are more general. While there are some marked differences between the issues raised (den building is perhaps of less concern compared to access fundamentally undermining the long-term future of the traditional grazing), we have refrained from ranking or scoring them. This is because some issues are likely to vary in their severity or risk in both time and space, for example wildfires are only likely to start in particular weather conditions. Some impacts will depend on the status of the species concerned. With Wood Warbler being on the verge of extinction in the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar, any impact of disturbance on the species will be of concern. Furthermore, some of the issues might, on their own, be considered of relatively little consequence when broken down and discussed on an individual basis, as a single occurrence in one part of the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar. Yet it is the overall impact of all the issues in synergy that needs to be considered, in the context of how access is spread across the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar, all year round.

Condition and general evidence for impacts

Natural England’s site improvement plan from 2014 identifies a range of pressures and threats to the condition of the New Forest SAC and SPA, and in particular highlights:

• A significant long-term reduction in grazing pressure through loss of commoning. This would lead to a dramatic change in the flora and fauna of the New Forest and the impoverishment of the special features for which is was designated.
• Impacts of recreation including disturbance to qualifying Natura 2000 species and compaction, abrasion and other modifications to vegetation, soils and watercourses.
• Historic drainage of wetlands which leads to a loss of extent of wetland habitats such as wet heath, mire, riverine and bog woodland.
• Sylviculture plantations with recognisable remnants of SAC Annex 1 habitats such as heathland, mire, lawn, riverine and bog woodland.
• Loss of traditional management practices which can lead to a loss of extent and diversity of open habitats.

The SSSI condition assessment⁹ records that 54.4% of the SSSI is in favourable condition, 41.9% is in unfavourable recovering condition, 2.1% is unfavourable no change and 1.4% unfavourable declining.

It is important to note that the SSSI condition assessments are not necessarily designed to pick up and record recreation impacts and are based on a single visit by a Natural England officer. Issues such as bird disturbance are unlikely to be picked up or systematically recorded. Many of the units are very large, and if recreation issues are only in a part of the unit, they may not necessarily be picked up. Nonetheless, recreation impacts (or possible recreation impacts) are identified in the condition assessment for 18 different SSSI units, with comments covering topics such as trampling, disturbance, vehicular damage, dead wood removal and littering. Some of the units with issues are in favourable condition. We have included selected extracts from the condition assessments in Appendix 1. Some units clearly have very marked recreation issues, for example at Hollands Wood Campsite:

“The whole area is subject to very high visitor pressure and high levels of trampling, removal of dead wood and disturbance of wildlife. There are numerous indications of damaging impacts on the special interest features.”

At Balmer Lawn:

“In places there are indicators that recreational use is having a negative effect on diversity especially close to the campsite from trampling and BBQ’s”

At Hatchet Pond:

“high levels of recreational disturbance have left much of the bank closest to the car park bare and compacted”

⁹ Accessed from the Natural England website on 22/10/19