Studland Bay - what you need to do

[Mistroma]

I saw an item on the BBC News yesterday about a new mooring system that protects the grass. Apparently it is not only anchoring that damages the bottom flora, heavy mooring chains do so as well. The latest idea is to screw long anchors into the seabed, and attach a length of rubber "rope" to the top. This is kept clear of the bottom by floats attached to the top end and the system continues to the surface with conventional multiplait and a surface floating buoy. The Seahorse Trust has not gone away.

Probably the same report I saw. Video of bald patches, chains destroying sea-grass, seahorse holding on to another bit of sea-grass. Lots of statements that anchoring destroys the sea-grass and that the seahorses are frightened away, only returning when there aren't any boats. At least that's the impression I got from NGM and the reporter/voice over. A bit about the "new" moorings.

Certainly only one side and pretty much all stated as proven fact. I imagine most people came away thinking.
Anchoring is destroying the sea-grass, leaving a wasteland with nowhere left for the seahorses to live and also frightening them away from their main habitat. BBC were obviously trying to give a balanced view.

 

[oldharry]

Anchoring vs mooring: few people who do not actually own boats know the difference, so it all gets lumped together. 2 very different issues. Traditional moorings do sweep a fixed area of seabed, preventing anything growing there. But it IS a fixed area, and there is absolutely no evidence that this makes any difference to the adjacent eelgrass. In Studand the eelgrass actually invaded the moorings area: Mooring owners there tell me all the moorings were originally laid in bare sand, and the eegrass invaded it right up to the edge of the swept area. So where's the issue? The same thing has happened in the Scillies where eelgrass has invaded the harbour right up to the edge of each mooring. Anchoring is a short term activity, and the worst that happens is that a few shoots are broken off. These drift off and may even take root elsewhere. The anchor itself digs in an area but we calaculated that less than 2% of the total seabed is affected in a year. Studies on Z. Marina show it recovers from minor disturbance like this within weeks..... so again where's the issue? And people have been anchoring small boats in Studland for 70+ years, so again wheres the issue?

My growing concern is that all this smoke screen about anchor damage has taken the focus off the real threats to the eelgrass, like the fact that it has one of the highest nitrate pollution levels in the country. Now that IS a real threat to it, as it allows algal growth which kills the green stuff.... Its all 'expert opinion' which is based on wider studies of seagrasses, most of which behaves very differently to the native UK eelgrass.

 

[st599]

The anchor itself digs in an area but we calaculated that less than 2% of the total seabed is affected in a year. Studies on Z. Marina show it recovers from minor disturbance like this within weeks..... so again where's the issue? And people have been anchoring small boats in Studland for 70+ years, so again wheres the issue?

Depends on whether you're aiming to protect the seagrass, or to prevent the carbon in the seabed being re-emitted. The recent papers from Natural England talk of anchors disturbing the sub-seabed region where carbon is trapped.

 

[penfold]

Sequestration in a sandy seabed will be pretty minimal, certainly compared to mud/silt; I would guess nugatory would be an appropriate term.

 

[laika]

Looking at the new moorings, I suspect some of the boats attached to them are more than 10 tonnes

 

[Mistroma]

Sequestration in a sandy seabed will be pretty minimal, certainly compared to mud/silt; I would guess nugatory would be an appropriate term.

I would agree and certainly doubt I disturb more than a couple of inches of sand in most anchorages I visit in Greece. There are a few places where the anchor might be almost buried in mud. I try to avoid weed as much as possible.

I would have liked a link to see how deeply the anchor needs to go, how much you must drag it around and sizes tested.

 

[Tranona]

I would have liked a link to see how deeply the anchor needs to go, how much you must drag it around and sizes tested.

Don't make me laugh! NGM and his mates simply do not have the intellectual ability to carry out such tests and even if they did they would not do them because the results would give the wrong answer! You may recall the experimental no anchor zone of 10 or so years ago where first he cried foul because he did not get the contract, then when the results came out to show that it made no difference he spent all his energies rubbishing the methodology and the well respected organisation that carried it out.

NGM's whole life, including his income depends on his view of the world being right so he lashes out at anything or anybody who challenge him.

 

[Mistroma]

Don't make me laugh! NGM and his mates simply do not have the intellectual ability to carry out such tests and even if they did they would not do them because the results would give the wrong answer! You may recall the experimental no anchor zone of 10 or so years ago where first he cried foul because he did not get the contract, then when the results came out to show that it made no difference he spent all his energies rubbishing the methodology and the well respected organisation that carried it out.

NGM's whole life, including his income depends on his view of the world being right so he lashes out at anything or anybody who challenge him.

I think the person mentioned a report by "Natural England". I was interested in the methodology. Perhaps they borrowed an oil rig mooring anchor and towed it around behind a fleet of tugs or used a sensible testing procedures. I imagine you are correct about NGM who would use a dinghy anchor and then extrapolate to get silly results.

 

[Tranona]

Thing is that he does not have to prove anchors cause damage because "everybody knows" they do. In the early days he used highly doctored photos and images of Sunseekers dropping anchors near seahorses and then dragging across the sand to cause trenches, which were probably caused by SBS activity there years previously. In the BORG papers there is a review of the surveys carried out on seagrass around the UK and not one mentioned anchoring as a problem. It is all in NGMs mind and he only has to repeat it without challenge every so often to keep the myth alive.

 

[oldharry]

I imagine most people came away thinking.
Anchoring is destroying the sea-grass, leaving a wasteland with nowhere left for the seahorses to live and also frightening them away from their main habitat. BBC were obviously trying to give a balanced view.

That unfortunately is the perception the NGM has worked so hard to cultivate throughout this saga supported by the big names like Packham ( ...sunday afternoon gin and tonic swilling yachtsmen wrecking the environment .. BBCTV circa 2015)

 

[oldharry]

I think the person mentioned a report by "Natural England". I was interested in the methodology. Perhaps they borrowed an oil rig mooring anchor and towed it around behind a fleet of tugs or used a sensible testing procedures. I imagine you are correct about NGM who would use a dinghy anchor and then extrapolate to get silly results.

The methdology was actually based on the effects of beam trawling. 5 Tons of trawl taking up to 30cms off the seabed surface, powered bya 500hp diesel to smash its way through anything. They have devastated our coastal waters in the last 20 years. NGM commented that'they dont catch seahorses' in a beam trawl.

 

[MarlynSpyke]

The MMO revealed their proposals for the Studland Bay MCZ this afternoon, and they are published at Managing marine non-licensable activity in Studland Bay Marine Conservation Zone and click on the Habitat Protection Button. My summary is in the attachment, incuding maps, it will have a significant impact on the southern half of the Bay. I've approximately adjusted the maps to Mercator projection, as used by the rest of the world for small range mapping, MMO insist on using a weird projection with different scales on the N-S and E-W axes. One sensible concession that have made is to exclude the inshore seagrass-free sandy strips from the voluntary no-anchor zone, but the VNAZ does cover a large area.

 

[Seven Spades]

If the area is covered by eel grass what improvement are the expecting? Wouldn't it be better to ban anchoring in the areas where there is no eel grass because clearly anchoring is not damaging eel grass.

On the other-hand wouldn't it be better to ban anchoring in ½ the area and then you can make a long term study to see if one area is out performing the other. It seems that the area is covered in eelgrass because of anchoring and to ban it could damage the eel grass. Are Natural England prepared to take that risk?

 

[st599]

If the area is covered by eel grass what improvement are the expecting? Wouldn't it be better to ban anchoring in the areas where there is no eel grass because clearly anchoring is not damaging eel grass.

On the other-hand wouldn't it be better to ban anchoring in ½ the area and then you can make a long term study to see if one area is out performing the other. It seems that the area is covered in eelgrass because of anchoring and to ban it could damage the eel grass. Are Natural England prepared to take that risk?

They already have evidence that anchors in areas of seagrass release captured carbon - so as the published government plan is to rely on that sequestration, they won't allow that.

 

[laika]

The proposals say they'll monitor for effectiveness but was there any statement as to how that will be done without a baseline survey?

Also...The anchoring ban seems to preclude anchoring within the 5kt limit. This means that all anchoring must be done where motorboats are permitted to scream through at whatever speed they like (not that the 5knt limit is always observed). SHould they not extend the speed limit outwards if they're doing this?

 

[Seven Spades]

They already have evidence that anchors in areas of seagrass release captured carbon - so as the published government plan is to rely on that sequestration, they won't allow that.

There is no sea grass there. That area only has eel grass.

 

[oldharry]

They already have evidence that anchors in areas of seagrass release captured carbon - so as the published government plan is to rely on that sequestration, they won't allow that.

That's not given as the reason for creating the MCZ. It's about conserving the ecology of this specific location. NE has decided in its wisdom that because seagrasses generally respond badly to abrasion and disturbance. (which applies to most seagrass species) there must therefore be significant risk to Studland seagrass from anchoring. The Precautionary Principle, defined in the Treaty of Rio then comes into play and says if therevis a risk it must be mitigated.

In Studland the 'only', risk to the environment is that of excessive anchoring in the seagrass. NE decided that Studland eel grass is below par, and is in need of 'restoration', and advised accordingly. MMO has a statutory duty to implement measures based on that advice, so they have to act.

An interim VNAZ will come into force on 17th December 21, to give people time to get used to it. Early in June when visitors will have got used to the idea, the VNAZ will be extended. MMO will not themselves lay more moorings but are happy to approve more suitable moorings being laid, like the Boatfolk/NGM initiative.

Of course by the beginning of June we will all have visited several times already, so will know all about it before they confuse everyone and change it.... Hmm.

The MMO papers are about 200 pages, so will take a little time to analyse. What is clear is that if voluntary measures are ignored MMO will move to more drastic measures which could include creating byelaws actually banning anchoring in the NAZs.

They make it clear this is Not an experiment to prove anchoring is harming the environment. It is to protect the seabed in this specific location so as to allow it develop naturally without disturbance from human activity.

I've said before. Watch this space. More and more of our coastline is in line for this kind of 'protection', and Conservation interests are rapidly learning how to sidestep commercial and leisure interests likely to be affected. Sailing in 30 years time will be hugely more restricted, with many areas inaccessible to us.

 

[Concerto]

That's not given as the reason for creating the MCZ. It's about conserving the ecology of this specific location. NE has decided in its wisdom that because seagrasses generally respond badly to abrasion and disturbance. (which applies to most seagrass species) there must therefore be significant risk to Studland seagrass from anchoring. The Precautionary Principle, defined in the Treaty of Rio then comes into play and says if therevis a risk it must be mitigated.

In Studland the 'only', risk to the environment is that of excessive anchoring in the seagrass. NE decided that Studland eel grass is below par, and is in need of 'restoration', and advised accordingly. MMO has a statutory duty to implement measures based on that advice, so they have to act.

An interim VNAZ will come into force on 17th December 21, to give people time to get used to it. Early in June when visitors will have got used to the idea, the VNAZ will be extended. MMO will not themselves lay more moorings but are happy to approve more suitable moorings being laid, like the Boatfolk/NGM initiative.

Of course by the beginning of June we will all have visited several times already, so will know all about it before they confuse everyone and change it.... Hmm.

The MMO papers are about 200 pages, so will take a little time to analyse. What is clear is that if voluntary measures are ignored MMO will move to more drastic measures which could include creating byelaws actually banning anchoring in the NAZs.

They make it clear this is Not an experiment to prove anchoring is harming the environment. It is to protect the seabed in this specific location so as to allow it develop naturally without disturbance from human activity.

I've said before. Watch this space. More and more of our coastline is in line for this kind of 'protection', and Conservation interests are rapidly learning how to sidestep commercial and leisure interests likely to be affected. Sailing in 30 years time will be hugely more restricted, with many areas inaccessible to us.

It seems that the MMO are acting as the prosecution, the judge, the jury and excutioner at the same time.

 

[ryanroberts]

That inshore stretch is probably doable with beaching legs? NE would love me scrubbing my boat there. But not something I would want to be setting up at 12AM coming round from Portland.

 

[st599]

It seems that the MMO are acting as the prosecution, the judge, the jury and excutioner at the same time.

The MMO only has the remit to implement what Natural England told them to implement. They have no remit to change the decision - but they at least seem to be open to concessions.