Community Drop in events for S Coast MCZs start this week

[{151760}]

Just got back from the Southampton event, nice choccie cookies in a jar with tea/coffee outside

Lots of information with charts and colours with a key that shows seabed/species etc but little to tie it all together. I spoke to one of the NE staff, I'm guessing from the science side, and one of the MMO staff. I didnt get the impression that the work on seagrass done by BORG has been recognised, a report by Myers (sp?) was mentioned with an intention to republish part of it - cant find any reference to a seagrass report of that name so perhaps I misheard, and I sort of assumed it was the Collins work. The comment I got on Newtown was that there little interest in anchoring there as no seagrass.

I hope I got across the pleasure that many people get from being able to anchor in many of the areas under investigation. Whether that has an economic value seemed hard to determine.

Pleasure boating has a huge economic impact on the Isle of Wight, so too, I dare say, in Poole. I mentioned this to the MMO guys who obviously recognised that fact.

 

[Iminei]

I couldn't get to the Poole event. Although Studland is closer to me I'm a member of Weymouth Sailing club so I think I'll go the the Portland one. Good feedback here, thanks.

 

[vyv_cox]

On seahorses - I am a tourist in London for a few days and yesterday visited Tower bridge. A poster in the walkway informed me that seahorses are native to the Thames.

 

[Colvic Watson]

On seahorses - I am a tourist in London for a few days and yesterday visited Tower bridge. A poster in the walkway informed me that seahorses are native to the Thames.

Surely not with all those ships and boats about? I thought they needed utter peace and tranquillity

 

[Niffler]

Could OldHarry etc give five simple one liners of facts and points to get across? I'll just be waffling a bit about the seagrass extending and seahorse populations thriving in marinas.

 

[MarlynSpyke]

Thanks, everyone, that’s really useful feedback from the drop-in events. So MMO (Marine Management Organisation) are there too. That’s the outfit which would eventually, with Natural England’s advice, decide what management measures are needed for a site once designated as an MCZ, and then implement them. Since MMO live in the real world and do stuff like enforcing fisheries rules, that is why they are more concerned with activities that cause real damage, like heavy trawls and scallop dredging. It seems to be some people in NE that have had this obsession with recreational boating – plus of course Mr Garrick-Maidment and his chums.

The report mentioned in RobbieW’s post would have been the MAIA report (you did not mis-hear, it’s an acronym of something obscure, life’s too short to explain). This was in two parts, NECR111 parts 1 and 2. The second part did have Collins as a co-author, it dealt with the eelgrass in Studland Bay, and contained some outrageously biased conclusions as well as serious errors from using image analysis techniques which they clearly did not understand. I lodged a formal complaint about it, it was investigated, and NE withdrew part 2 of the report in early 2014, saying it would be corrected and re-published – which hasn’t happened yet. (see http://boatownersresponse.org.uk/critique_of_NECR111.pdf ) I did get, through an FOI request, the original images which they tried to torture into giving the results they were looking for, and these are published in their original form as part of the aerial image evidence of expanding eelgrass beds which BORG has published.

I suspect NE are reluctant to acknowledge BORG’s publications as they are not peer- reviewed. However they are aware of this evidence, which is out in the public domain and would be hard to ignore – it is all properly referenced and can be independently confirmed by anyone who chooses to. We will certainly use it if necessary during the public consultation stages, as we have already in the Tranche 1 and 2 consultations.

Incidentally, talking of reports, in 2015 Defra commissioned a report (ME6003) on "Recreational and Commercial Anchoring and Mooring Impacts in Marine Protected Areas in England and Wales" . This was due to be completed in March 2016. A year later it still has not appeared, and rumour has it that the authors were having trouble finding any reports of adverse impacts…. It might be worth asking at future drop-in sessions what has happened to this report. Details at http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.a...ore&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=19777 . Or Google ME6003 anchoring.

Oh, just seen vyv_Cox’s comment about seahorses in the Thames, yes, they have been reported in the lower reaches of the Thames, they seem to turn up all over the place.

 

[chrishscorp]

Went to the southampton display, this is a display to get some feed back, there are 65 areas they are looking at putting MCZ's on all around the UK. They will then make a recommendation to the Minister of State who will decide which proposed MCZ's will be put forward, then the consultation document will come out and there will be 3 months in which to make comment and formal representation.

The eel grass is strewn throughout the the Solent and parts of Dorset, some of it already has EU protection but as was said by an earlier poster, the main areas of concern are....dredging, scallop dredging and any methods of fishing that disturb the sea bed, so anchoring, IS an area of concern and may mean some restrictions are brought in in some areas.

About 50 people attended the Newport IOW event, not sure on numbers for the Southampton bash.

The staff where very friendly very happy to chat and informative, i suggested they have a stand at the Soton boat show, that had also been mooted by someone else as it would fit in with the proposed consultation time scale.

They have promised to send me some more info by email and i did take away some gumpf that i will try and scan tonight and put up on here for those who were unable to attend.

 

[oldharry]

Surely not with all those ships and boats about? I thought they needed utter peace and tranquillity

Yep. Known colonies in the Lower Thames around the marshes and Medway. But even NE balked at taking on the might of the PLA to try and get any sort of protection for them!

 

[colhel]

I got the impression from the Poole event that they were aware seahorses have caused some controversy and were quite low on the agenda and NE were more concerned about the effect on seagrass from leisure boating. The point I was keen to make was that seagrass was still there and according to the evidence I've seen is thriving and boats have been anchoring in these spots for years, but, I still felt they wanted to enforce some restrictions but not a blanket ban.

 

[oldharry]

Could OldHarry etc give five simple one liners of facts and points to get across? I'll just be waffling a bit about the seagrass extending and seahorse populations thriving in marinas.

This is the best I can do. its a huge topic. I suggest you brief yourself on one or two of the following areas and concentrate on them. Theres quite a few other aspects I haven't covered, including the side issue of seahorses. As reported above, NE arent really interested in them anyway. They're much more concerned about protecting the eelgrass as it is so beneficial to the marine environment as a whole.

Eelgrass evidence in Studland:
 Aerial photography shows consistent growth 1953 – date
 Has spread shoreward by aprox 10m in last 10 years
 Seastar Survey in 2011 showed above average shoot density in eelgrass
 Recent checks (July 2016 Borg) show similar shoot density in central anchorage area
 Similar rates of growth seen in Solent North Wight eelgrass.

Eco Friendly Moorings – not so straightforward!
 Largely untested in UK, RYA report disappointing results from various UK locations
 Studland is ‘open sea’. Moorings must be strong enough to cope with onshore severe weather
 EFMs require frequent careful maintenance by divers. They cannot be lifted like conventional moorings. Will fail quickly if not properly maintained. (<70% fail rate reported where maintenance is lacking)
 Boats must be closely matched to EFMs. Not just SWL but elastic or spring loads only operate within quite narrow loading bands.
 Unsuitable for visitor moorings without careful allocation according to size/weight.
 Crown Estates Business plan showed EFMs not viable business proposition, and can never pay their way in Studland.

Management measures:
 Existing legislation gives ample protection already (Wildlife Act, Fisheries legislation)
 Lack of policing, lack of funding, issues that will not change with creation of MCZs
 Makes the whole thing a paper exercise.
 Open to abuse by self appointed vigilantes if relying on legislation. Already beginning in Studland.
 Boaters already have Voluntary agreements with the Wildlife Trusts in place per BORG and RYA. What more is needed except wider publicity? (RYA Anchoring with Care leaflet initiated by BORG 2014). This could be built on if necessary.

Safety:
 Studland is only shelter immediately accessible without difficult/dangerous estuaries/bars on 40 miles of coast.
 Define an ‘emergency’ which overrides legislation. Tired seasick crew needing rest? Engine not running quite right? S/hander needing a break? Domino effect of minor problems escalating at sea well documented by RNLI.

(Old harry has spent many many hours debating safety aspects with Natural England! Come back to me for more if you want)

Economic impacts. Legislation requires assessment of impact locally of an MCZ
 Defra estimated £112k for Studland. Realistic figure £2m ++ (See BORG website for figures) directly on leisure boating industry in Poole
 Indirect impact regionaly, shops, suppliers, accomodation etc if Studland unavailable/ too expensive for visitors. Needs quantifying by economists as not allowed for at all.
 Impact on crowded anchorages in Solent. Osborne is a major Cowes week overspill when marinas are full.

...and finally BOATERS (well BORG anyway!) ARE NOT AGAINST CONSERVATION. We are very concerned that some of the deeply biased and inaccurate reporting about eelgrass may actually REDUCE the effectiveness of conservation measures. We want to do our bit to help get it right, and make it work. We appreciate at first hand the wildlife and environment of the sea, for which our boats provide a unique viewing platform and for many this is a major element in the enjoyment of our sport. (Anyone who has had the excitement and privilege of having dolphins playing with their boat will know what i mean!)

 

[MarlynSpyke]

There’s now some coverage of the drop-in events on the PBO website at http://www.pbo.co.uk/news/boaters-flock-marine-conservation-zones-information-events-51030

They quote NE’s Gavin Black as saying “In Studland there is quite a big crossover and our advice to Defra will be that it has been impacting”. I think this means a crossover between conservation and recreational interests, and impacting means they think boating is impacting the site. We need to be aware of this

The sort of questions we could ask are “You say boats are impacting the site: what, if any, is your evidence for this? Just how much are they impacting it? In the hypothetical case that boats were excluded entirely, by how much would the seagrass and other features be improved? Management measures will cost, they will cause people pain: what do you think would be the actual gain?”

(Note that conservationists want Garden-of-Eden perfection, a sort of underwater Chelsea Flower Show. In the real world where people wish to share the coast with the natural world, reasonable compromises may have to be made. We need to make this sort of point. Cost / benefit is important).

 

[Seajet]

I suspect ' impacting ' means ' we can see some boats - the only visible thing going on '...

 

[KINGFISHER 8]

I've only half followed the Studland threads ... presumably these so called 'activists' will be wanting to ban divers as well as boats?

 

[MarlynSpyke]

Following my previous post, and the mention of “impacting”, it is worth spelling out some details. I suspect a zealous conservationist would look on anything less than perfection as an “impact”, but in fact the definition applied to existing MCZ’s is not so rigorous, and actually seems rather sensible. Please excuse the arcane language, but the conservation objective for MCZ’s is that the features in them are in “favourable condition”, and the definition in the designation orders (for habitats eg eelgrass) is

(2) In paragraph (1), ―favourable condition —
(a) with respect to a broadscale marine habitat within the Zone, means that—
(i) its extent is stable or increasing; and
(ii) its structures and functions, its quality, and the composition of its characteristic
biological communities are such as to ensure that it remains in a condition which is
healthy and not deteriorating;

So I take that as meaning that if the extent is stable or increasing and the stuff is healthy, then it is in favourable condition and therefore should need no “management” or intervention. BORG considers that the eelgrass in Studland bay, and likely elsewhere along the Solent etc, is indeed in “favourable condition” according to the evidence we have gathered and published.

This might be helpful to anyone wanting to explore these issues with the NE / MMO staff at future drop-in meetings, and indeed at the public consultation stage if it comes to that. We must be alert to conservationists trying to gold-plate the criteria.

 

[oldharry]

Many of the activists are divers, chasing seahorses. The boats get in the way and make it dangerous for them. Draw your own conclusions.

Seahorse Trust claimed around 40 seahorse sightings in the Bay in 2008. This had dropped to zero by 2015. Many Seahorse experts warn that over exposure to divers will disperse a colony. In the meantime beach workers at Studland in 2011 noted nearly 400 'seahorse tourist' divers in just 12 weeks following the publicity. Coincidence?

 

[colhel]

Is it worthwhile​ asking about the impact of shore based activities on proposed MCZs? (Aswell as diving) Studland is quite an active beach with many watersport activities on offer pp. I did see on "their" Facebook book page a bag of rubbish floating around, obviously boaters got the blame, but it could have come from anywhere and more likely to have been blown in from the shore.
There was a headline last year about the state of Bournemouth beach after a hot summers day.

 

[oldharry]

When boats are in the sights, then everything gets blamed on us, regardless. However, MCZs are meant to conserve all natural aspects of marine life. Because the majority of sealife lives on the seabed this tends to be the primary area of interest, however if there is something interesting living in the 'water column' then this will be taken in to account. However, organisms in the water column tend to be pretty mobile, and at the moment they havent found any way of telling them to stay put and be protected.

Seabed life tends to stay put, apart from the odd seahorse which insists on swimming away giving some activists another excuse to blame the boats.

In the very early days, RSPB jumped on the bandwagon wanting to use MCZs as a means of isolating bird colonies from 'interference' by boats. Large moving objects - specifically yachts, coming close inshore were claimed to disturb colonies of nesting seabirds. Great, we can ban boats from coming anywhere close inshore in an MCZ! The Government gnomes were busy writing this in to the legislation when RYA's Gus Lewis upset them by asking which birds nested underwater? The legislation refers specifically to life below the HW mark.

RSPB is still wanting legislation to cover this form of 'disturbance', and with many big names in key places supporting them, they may well eventually get it.

 

[Colvic Watson]

This is the best I can do. its a huge topic. I suggest you brief yourself on one or two of the following areas and concentrate on them. Theres quite a few other aspects I haven't covered, including the side issue of seahorses. As reported above, NE arent really interested in them anyway. They're much more concerned about protecting the eelgrass as it is so beneficial to the marine environment as a whole.

Eelgrass evidence in Studland:
 Aerial photography shows consistent growth 1953 – date
 Has spread shoreward by aprox 10m in last 10 years
 Seastar Survey in 2011 showed above average shoot density in eelgrass
 Recent checks (July 2016 Borg) show similar shoot density in central anchorage area
 Similar rates of growth seen in Solent North Wight eelgrass.

Eco Friendly Moorings – not so straightforward!
 Largely untested in UK, RYA report disappointing results from various UK locations
 Studland is ‘open sea’. Moorings must be strong enough to cope with onshore severe weather
 EFMs require frequent careful maintenance by divers. They cannot be lifted like conventional moorings. Will fail quickly if not properly maintained. (<70% fail rate reported where maintenance is lacking)
 Boats must be closely matched to EFMs. Not just SWL but elastic or spring loads only operate within quite narrow loading bands.
 Unsuitable for visitor moorings without careful allocation according to size/weight.
 Crown Estates Business plan showed EFMs not viable business proposition, and can never pay their way in Studland.

Management measures:
 Existing legislation gives ample protection already (Wildlife Act, Fisheries legislation)
 Lack of policing, lack of funding, issues that will not change with creation of MCZs
 Makes the whole thing a paper exercise.
 Open to abuse by self appointed vigilantes if relying on legislation. Already beginning in Studland.
 Boaters already have Voluntary agreements with the Wildlife Trusts in place per BORG and RYA. What more is needed except wider publicity? (RYA Anchoring with Care leaflet initiated by BORG 2014). This could be built on if necessary.

Safety:
 Studland is only shelter immediately accessible without difficult/dangerous estuaries/bars on 40 miles of coast.
 Define an ‘emergency’ which overrides legislation. Tired seasick crew needing rest? Engine not running quite right? S/hander needing a break? Domino effect of minor problems escalating at sea well documented by RNLI.

(Old harry has spent many many hours debating safety aspects with Natural England! Come back to me for more if you want)

Economic impacts. Legislation requires assessment of impact locally of an MCZ
 Defra estimated £112k for Studland. Realistic figure £2m ++ (See BORG website for figures) directly on leisure boating industry in Poole
 Indirect impact regionaly, shops, suppliers, accomodation etc if Studland unavailable/ too expensive for visitors. Needs quantifying by economists as not allowed for at all.
 Impact on crowded anchorages in Solent. Osborne is a major Cowes week overspill when marinas are full.

...and finally BOATERS (well BORG anyway!) ARE NOT AGAINST CONSERVATION. We are very concerned that some of the deeply biased and inaccurate reporting about eelgrass may actually REDUCE the effectiveness of conservation measures. We want to do our bit to help get it right, and make it work. We appreciate at first hand the wildlife and environment of the sea, for which our boats provide a unique viewing platform and for many this is a major element in the enjoyment of our sport. (Anyone who has had the excitement and privilege of having dolphins playing with their boat will know what i mean!)

We are so fortunate to have BORG working for environmentally conscious boaters. Thank you.

 

[KINGFISHER 8]

We are so fortunate to have BORG working for environmentally conscious boaters. Thank you.

Are BORG making a 'big thing' about banning divers?

 

[oldharry]

Are BORG making a 'big thing' about banning divers?

No, because generally speaking they aren't a problem to anyone. The collapse of the Studland seahorse colony is a one off as far as we know. Wild Seahorses as a protected species cannot be researched or handled except by individuals licensed to do so by MMO. We submitted all the information we have to them.