STUDLAND - How much do they want???

[oldharry]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, MCZ's are OBLIGED to take into account 'social impact'. If the figures for boats impacted by any legislation in Studland are at or above 10,000 then I can't imagine any other site having a greater social impact.
I strongly believe BORG, RYA et al should be pushing this line VERY hard. There is a strong possibility of being compromised into insignificance.

We are. It is our No1 line of attack with Finding Sanctuary and MMO. However, Government conservation advisors present a strong lobby, and my previous post, and the discussions we are holding, are intended to give us more 'ammunition' to support our primary point. Studland is a KEY social and receational facility, and should be regarded as such with all the economic implications of lost business for the marine leisure support businesses in the area.

 

[alahol2]

Glad to hear it. And just to reiterate, thanks to the 'BORG committee' for all the time and effort.

 

[ARCO7]

HMP's in STUDLAND BAY

Instead of screwing these 30 plus Eco moorings HMP's (helix mooring points) 8ft down in fragile seabed in one big sweep, why doesn't Natural England conduct a proper trial by sticking just one in and attaching a 35 ft ex-ships lifeboat to it for 12-24 months .
I believe these lifeboats can even be purchased on ebay for under £1000 and are unsinkable so would be ideal for the job .
It would be an ideal way to test this HMP in UK open waters and provide a welcome rest place for seabirds , shags and cormorants .
Its no good putting 30 in and then finding out they're not up to it...and another waste of limited public funds on Studland Bay Conservation that isn't really required !!!!!
Can I just take this chance to promote the Facebook Group "SAVE STUDLAND BAY" which has a sister site STUDLAND BAY PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION at http://studlandbpa.blogspot.com/ and are all tried in with BORG and would welcome more new members and healthy debate.
Lastly, and very strangely can I draw your attention to THE SEAHORSE TRUST website and the ABOUT US SECTION which now contains a 14 minute video on their work at Studland Bay ...see if you can spot the bits that secretly back up our version of events . Seahorse like moorings , even in an aquarium !

 

[Seajet]

ARCO 7,

As I said on the 'message from F.S.' thread, nothing has been decided about having any moorings at all, let alone their type and number.

 

[Vrboska Bound]

PArdon my niavety but wouldn't a number of fixed mooring in this area, coupled with the restriction on anchoring address everyones needs?

 

[Seajet]

There is general agreement among most interested groups that the provision of some Environmentally Friendly Moorings ( E.F.M.'s ) would take a lot of the pressure off, but there will never be enough provided to do without anchoring as well.

The MMO is still undecided as to the use of EFM's at all, let alone how many, but a figure of 30 - 50 moorings is often mentioned.

On busy summer weekends there can be 300 boats anchored at Studland, so anchoring remains a vital option, and the latest bulletins from the MCA state that anchoring will NOT be banned.

If a relatively small number of moorings are supplied, it is reasonable to assume that fast boats from Poole Harbour will get them first, and good luck to them as long as others have the option to anchor.

A large number of EFM's seems relatively unlikely, as these things are not cheap and it has not been decided yet who can be made to pay for any, let alone lots.

Some interested parties say they would find a bay full of mooring buoys unsightly, too.

 

[SailBobSquarePants]

Finding Sanctuary: Third Progress Report Posted

For those who are curious, or even obsessed, the latest Progress Report from the Finding Sanctuary working group is available:

http://www.finding-sanctuary.org/page/news/407

The last one was huge, and dense, so I will make no pretense of having read it yet. But as per the YBW web article, the key feature is that now they are considering declaring estuaries as Marine Conservation Zones, with potential far-reaching effects.

 

[Twister_Ken]

More of the same

Can I draw attention to the latest reports from the various regional consultation/recommendation bodies.

These can be accessed via a ybw.com news page at:

http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/news/518390/latest-marine-conservation-zone-reports-published

I've taken a brief look at one part of one group's report and it was 'dense', full or acronyms and jargon, and difficult for a layperson to make sense of (which may be the objective).

However, the overall impression I got is that the direction is towards a high level of control and certainly I fear that recreational activities may be seriously curtailed because of conservation concerns about things like seagrass, sub-tidal mud, lagoon sand shrimps, tentacled lagoon worm, etc.

Can I urge 'butters to take a look at some of this material (750 pages in total, apparently) and try and reach conclusions about whether and what cruising activities are under threat.

 

[oldharry]

'Curious or obsessed...' well, SWMBO would say the latter. However for the rest of you, wanting to know about Studland, the report on the Poole Bay pMCZ is on pp 200 - 206, including a map, to which there appears to be no key for all its pretty colours! Maybe there is, somewhere in the report, havent looked yet.

Studland afficianados can look at the map and see the green areas in Studland Bay as the 'official' seagrass beds. The light brown hatching is the area defined by Sea Horse Trust in which they have observed Seahorses. The large purple area represents a habitat area for a range of species, and the pink spots are reported location of listed species, one of which NE of Old Harry rocks is the extremley rare Couches Gobi, of which there are only two or three others on record on the entire Dorset coast.

One paragraph on p205 bullet point 8 sums up the debate about Studland in a few lines, which rather puts it in context of the huge scale of the MCZ project. It will take time to plow trhough the whole thing, and you do need to know 'MCZ speak' to understand it properly.

And of course the whole thing is purely 'recommendations'. NOTHING has been decided yet!

To translate MCZ speak - this report is the 'where'. That is this is the defintion of all the areas that are being considered for MCZ status. The next stage is the 'how' - MCZ speak for deciding what steps need to be taken in each area to 'acheive conservation objectives'.

So Studland is noted as an 'important Eelgrass Bed' with the note that it is also an importnat and heavily used leisure boat anchorage. The 'how'stage' is the critical one for us. This is where they will decide how to acheive conservation of the feature: what will happen if the allow activity to continue as it is? WIll it only survive if they ban anchoring altogether? Or, to what extent does the incidence of anchoring need to be reduced in order to ensure the beds not only survive, but remain healthy? How can any of these restrictive options be implemented in order to 'acheive the conservation objectives'?

 

[strakeryrius]

Phew! I've just trawled through all of that stuff about Studland in the report, and a couple of key things stood out to me.

Anchoring is going to still be allowed to small vessels, but they haven't decided yet what constitutes a small vessel.

The conservation lobby have pushed hard to convince FS that "methods and numbers" of vessels mooring/anchoring up at Studland "need to be controlled" which I asssume means curtailed in plain speaking.

So its obvious that our guys are getting the message across, that anchoring at Studland is vital for safety reasons, but we're a long way to go to convince them that anchoring is not damaging the eelgrass.

 

[alahol2]

Phew! I've just trawled through all of that stuff about Studland in the report, and a couple of key things stood out to me.

Anchoring is going to still be allowed to small vessels, but they haven't decided yet what constitutes a small vessel.

Firstly, Studland Bay only forms a very small part of the proposed MCZ. The full MCZ covers virtually all of Poole Bay.
The report actually states that FS has made the assumption that anchoring of small vessels will be allowed in order that they can make progress in selecting pMCZ's. They also point out that they do not have any guidance from above about what activities could or should be 'controlled'. So, although they state that anchoring will be allowed, they don't actually know. It could be that anchoring be allowed in Poole Bay except for the small area of Studland.

I would agree that the boating communities' concerns have been included in the report and for that we should thank the founders of BORG and (to a lesser extent) the RYA.

 

[Sans Bateau]

I would agree that the boating communities' concerns have been included in the report and for that we should thank the founders of BORG and (to a lesser extent) the RYA.

That is not strictly fair on the RYA. It was quite apparent when we visited the RYA that they have done a great deal on behalf of the cruiser sailing community on the subject of MCZ's, the MCZ recommendations would be far more draconian if the RYA had not been fighting our corner from day one. What they are guilty of is poor PR.

 

[oldharry]

The core of the argument about anchoring was defined by Finding Sanctuary in December, when they said that leisure boat anchoring would not be restricted in MCZs unless it was seen to be causing specific damage to an identified area like an Eelgrss bed.

So yes, anchoring of small craft will be permitted in all parts of the Poole MCZ, except where it is identified to cause potential damage - i.e. the Eelgrass Beds where it 'may be restricted'. The report rather tends to wash its hands of it and hand it over to the MMO to find a solution (p205 para 9). Natural England has said that it will definitely be seeking restrictions on the anchorage. BORG has taken something of a lead in this and I have spoken to NE, RYA, MMO, SBPA and Seahorse Trust who have all agreed in principle to a compromise solution which would allow the anchorage to remain open while acheiving the conservation objectives of the MCZ. There is a great deal to be done yet before we can say the problem is solved though, and MMO is proposing a 'workshop' to examine it later this spring.

 

[oldharry]

3rd Report - the areas being proposed fas MCZs

The '3rd Reports' from the regional MCZ groups have been published, and list the sites that have been identified SO FAR as possible MCZs. Many MCZ areas are offshore, and will not affect Leisure Boating at all, though many have serious implications for the Fishing Industry.

BORGs list includes only those areas we consider will have some impact on our activities.

At this stage the Regional Groups have concentrated on identifying and defining where they propose MCZs should be established. Neither Balanced Seas nor Finding Sanctuary have yet suggested what restrictions should be imposed to achieve the conservation objectives in any specific area, and this will be discussed over the next few months.

The reports carry information about activities which are likely to be causing damage in these proposed areas, and what measures may be needed to protect the area. They do not attempt to identify how the protection should be achieved, or to identify what measures need to be put in place to protect the area as this is the next stage of the process. I have made a note of all the areas where recreational boat activity is mentioned as a potential problem, and highlighted anything that may affect us.

NOTE 1: these are only 'proposals', and is in no way the final or definitive list. However at this late stage it is unlikely that they will make any major changes to the proposals - there simply is not time.

NOTE 2: The inclusion or omission from these lists of any area or information does NOT mean that decisions will or will not be taken about the future of ANY area of sea. Lists are reproduced for information only about the current stage of thinking in the MCZ process.

For more details of what is proposed on each site see the BORG website: http://www.boatownersresponsegroup.com/index.php/finding-sanctuary-3d-progress-report

The following sites are proposed in the 3rd reports:

BALANCED SEAS AREA

S.E.SECTOR: R.Deben to Selsey



03 Suffolk Rivers No designation yet Many important FOCI habitats
and species present

05 Thames estuary above Southend " " " "

06 Medway pMCZ Some restrictions likely

10 The Swale pMCZ NAZ and No Go zones possible

07 Ramsgate and N Foreland pMCZ Possible NAZs locally

11.1 and 11.3 Dover Cliffs E and W pMCZ No issues

13.1 and 13.3 Brighton to Hastings pMCZ No issues

25.1 and 25.2 Pagham Harbour Reference MCZ No Go and NAZ likely

Selsey Bill (west) ?Anchoring issues?


SOLENT AREA (Balanced Seas)

Chichester and Langstone Harbours are already protected under SSSIs and are considered to have sufficient protection already. Certain aspects of SSSI protection may be upgraded and reinforced.

24.2 Portsmouth Harbour pMCZ Extend existing EMCZ
22 Seaview to Ventnor Including Bembridge Harbour No designation yet, but this site has MAJOR CONSERVATION ISSUES


19 Ryde to Osborne Bay pMCZ NAZ and further rare species protection.

23 Yarmouth to Cowes (w of Gurnard)
pMCZ Some local limitations possible
Newtown River - SSSI: as Chichester

20 Needles Channel pMCZ " " " "


Note that the whole of the Isle of Wight Coast, most of Southampton Water excluding the docks area, Rivers Hamble, Beaulieu and Lymington, and all the mainland coast between, also Langstone, Hayling Bay and Chichester are all subject to either SAC or SPA status orders, giving them protection from developement etc. In general SPA and SAC status does not affect our activities directly.


FINDING SANCTUARY area

Sector Christchurch to Welsh Border of the Severn estuary.

The third report has a long introduction. Useful listings of FOCI species on p40 ff and FOCI habitats p45 ff. These identify what is being conserved.

Anchoring: there are two references to small vessel anchoring policies: P58 para 4
and Recreational anchoring p68 para 3


Poole Bay 196 MCZ No restrictions
Studland ?anchoring

Portland and the Fleet MCZ Reference area no go zone in the Fleet

Torbay Inshore zone MCZ Localised NAZs, localised speed limits.

Whitsand and Looe Bay MCZ No restrictions

S E Falmouth MCZ Offshore area near Falmouth - speed limits

Manacles MCZ No restrictions

Mounts Bay MCZ Some NAZ areas

Lands End MCZ Localised No Go areas

Scillies MCZs x11 proposed 1 full NAZ, other NAZs for vessels 10m+.

St Ives Bay MCZ No restrictions

Newquay and the Gunnel MCZ No restrictions

Padstow Bay MCZ Posssible NAZs

Hartland to Tintagel MCZ Inshore local No go zones possible

Lundy MCZ No change to existing NAZ and MCZ


Estuarine MCZs
Otter Estuary, Erme estuary Seahorse habitats under consideration
Axe estuary Possible restrictions anchoring/movement

DEFINITIONS:
pMCZ - proposed MCZ. EMCZ - Emergency MCZ. NAZ No Anchor Zone - anchoring may be restricted or prohibited altogether
No Go Area - area likely to be closed to public access altogether to preserve eg bird nesting sites.

 

[Sgeir]

What they are guilty of is poor PR.

Could be, but they also have to operate within a "political" space, and it's always difficult to get the balance right. One of the difficulties for the RYA is that taking public credit for changing proposals can sometimes be resented by the decision makers, and make it more difficult to exert influence in the future.

In many different spheres, to engage effectively means that an engaging organisation often has to avoid the glare of publicity. Like you, I am pleased that BORG, as a "community initiative" seems to be working well with the RYA.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

SOLENT AREA (Balanced Seas)

Chichester and Langstone Harbours are already protected under SSSIs and are considered to have sufficient protection already. Certain aspects of SSSI protection may be upgraded and reinforced.

24.2 Portsmouth Harbour pMCZ Extend existing EMCZ
22 Seaview to Ventnor Including Bembridge Harbour No designation yet, but this site has MAJOR CONSERVATION ISSUES


19 Ryde to Osborne Bay pMCZ NAZ and further rare species protection.

23 Yarmouth to Cowes (w of Gurnard)
pMCZ Some local limitations possible
Newtown River - SSSI: as Chichester

20 Needles Channel pMCZ " " " "

I find the notion that Portsmouth Harbour is protected in view of all the sewage that has been pumped into it in recent months laughable & also the SSSI on the Cams Hall bank that is supposed to be protected & yet is regularly flouted by bait diggers (not to mention the amount of rubbish that is dumped in it) & that is the problem;stuff that is supposed to be protected is'nt & places that don't need to be protected like much of the above surrounding the Isle of Wight we are told have rare species that need protection.........what does "NAZ and further rare species protection" mean?
It seems like a bureaucrats charter & we are all under threat by it.

 

[Twister_Ken]

I find the notion that Portsmouth Harbour is protected in view of all the sewage that has been pumped into it in recent months laughable & also the SSSI on the Cams Hall bank that is supposed to be protected & yet is regularly flouted by bait diggers (not to mention the amount of rubbish that is dumped in it) & that is the problem;stuff that is supposed to be protected is'nt & places that don't need to be protected like much of the above surrounding the Isle of Wight we are told have rare species that need protection.........what does "NAZ and further rare species protection" mean?
It seems like a bureaucrats charter & we are all under threat by it.

Which points up a dilemma of the current process; it's easy to propose protection zones, and - presumably - easy to pass them into law, but how on earth are hundreds of different zones, each with different restrictions, going to be policed? Answer, in all probability, is that they're not, except in cases of gross abuse.

 

[oldharry]

Which points up a dilemma of the current process; it's easy to propose protection zones, and - presumably - easy to pass them into law, but how on earth are hundreds of different zones, each with different restrictions, going to be policed? Answer, in all probability, is that they're not, except in cases of gross abuse.

Very good question: Natural England with a wages bill alone last year of over £86m is being severely cut back, while MMO, with responsibiolity for policing and enfrocement are quoted as undergoing 'streamlining' of their operation.

Uneforceable law is bad law. Bad law is worse than no law at all. There will be huge problems policing the many offshore MCZs and although efforts have been made to minimise the impact on the fishing industry, inevitably a number oif existing fishing grounds will be closed, or sertain types of fishing will be prohibited. How to Police all that AND stop US anchoring in the odd bed of special seaweed even without cutbacks beggars belief. The more involved I become the more improbable ethe whole project seems to me.


Kritifercolumnbus: 'NAZ and possible other retrictions' means basically there are bottom dwelling species or habitats listed for for protection under the new laws. If anchoring or motoring over shallows is shown to disturb and damage the habitat and so to be 'against the conservation objective by causing damage or disturbance' then the recommendation may well be that such actvities should be stopped, or reduced to a manageable level.

Bait digging IS a contentious issue, but there is apparently a 'common law right' in most areas allowing anyone to collect bait and to fish from the foreshore which goes right back to the Magna Carta, so the legal position of trying to control it, is quite dodgy.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Gentlemen;Does anyone actually know what the rare species is between Ryde on the Isle of Wight & Osbourn Bay & how it is being threatened by what exactly?
This whole thing just looks like people making work for themselves to me.
The answer to who polices this in "the big society" is that lots of people like good old Niel who have their own axes to grind will probably harass us & become even more officious

Meanwhile real issues like the sewage that is routinely discharged into Portsmouth Harbour & the endless amount of rubbish like plastic bags & stuff that either litter the bottom or float out to sea continues.......

 

[Twister_Ken]

The rare species is, I believe, the tentacled lagoon worm.

As to who is threatening it, delete as appropriate:

Coalition Government/Met Police/Al Quaida/The Tea Party/Militant Seahorses/Colonel Gaddaffi/Illegal Immigrants/The Banking Sector/Global Warming/Global Worming/MRSA/Bavaria Keels/Japanese Nuclear Radiation/Giant Knotweed/Scots Nats/Revolting Students/Rocna Anchors/Grey Squirrels/Binge Drinking/Charlie Sheen