Firth of Lorn Management Plan Comments Sheet

Firth of Lorn Management Plan Comments Sheet

Collated Responses from 1st Draft Consultation Period (April-May 2004)

Signatures for plan endorsement / Inshore Fisheries Branch, Scottish ExecutiveThe Executive Departments should not be listed as signatories to endorse the management plan, since this could potentially compromise Scottish Ministers’ position in fulfilling their responsibilities in regard to the Habitats Directive.
1.0 INTRODUCTION /

COMMENTS

1.1The Habitats Directive / Scottish Natural HeritageSNH suggest the following changes: The Firth of Lorn candidate Marine Special Area of Conservation (SAC) [it is still a cSAC but you might want to leave this so you don’t have to reprint] is part of a European wide network of sites known as Natura 2000. Natura 2000 is the title for the areas designated under the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) to conserve important natural habitats and species of wildlife that are rare, endangered or vulnerable in the European Community. The implementation of the Habitats Directive is transposed into domestic[GB legislation does not cover NI] legislation by the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994, referred to as the Habitats Regulations. Responsibility is placed on the government to ensure that for Natura 2000 sites, management is designed to protect the conservation interests and secure long-term sustainable development of the site. [We mostly refer to the Regulations as Habitats Regulations rather than Conservation Regulations, if this is changed it will have to be changed throughout].
David Ainsley, Porpoise Dive ChartersThe intent of the Habitats Directive and the network of SACs is to protect important underwater sites. This level of protection is in keeping with public demand. Government papers repeatedly refer to ‘sustainability’ and ‘biodiversity’. However, despite all this, almost nothing has been achieved so far to protect Scotland’s rich underwater natural heritage. It is vital that both the letter and the spirit of the legislation be adhered to, and that the Precautionary Principal be applied. The relevant authorities must not seek ‘let-outs’, which will allow damaging influences to continue. If necessary clarification of the legislations INTENT should be sought from the European Union.
Argyll Charter Boats AssociationThe Habitats Directive must be adhered to and the Precautionary Principle applied to any situation of doubt.
Dalriada DivingDalriada Diving does not have any specific comments on this section. However Dalriada Diving is disappointed to note a general lack of rigor in applying the Habitats Directive, particularly the precautionary principle. Dalriada also notes the general tenor of the document is one that appears to be one of acceptance of the status quo. As noted below dredging and fin fish farming are damaging to the environment, although little will be achieved by the Management plan in its current form to protect the Firth of Lorne from these activities for example.
The current state of the Plan has led a number of our members to question what if anything has been achieved and how the plan will make any difference.
Hebridean Partnership
The ethos of the Habitats Directive should be taken at face value and not as an attempt to seek “loop holes” within the phrasing. With so few areas being selected as Marine Sites compared with the total possible sea area in Scotland the “Precautionary Principle” MUST be applied in any situation of doubt! To venture in any other direction may be too late for species and habitats within this region to successfully recover from anthropogenic activity. Further more if the Precautionary Principle is not applied in the first instance then matters need to be referred to Europe for clarification.
Amanda Bell, DiverAim of the Habitats Directive is to protect the ? interests and secure long term sustainable development. This has not been the case here. Many areas have deteriorated.
Dr. Richard Handy, Diver, PlymouthShould be applied to this site
G. Bruce, DiverI assumed the Directive was to protect underwater sites. However, I see no protection – dredging is still carried out and fish farms are more prolific
1.2 Argyll Marine Special Areas of Conservation Management Forum / Crown EstateMight be worth explaining here the difference between competent and relevant authorities.
Hebridean PartnershipWhy has the Hebridean Partnership not been included within the stakeholders? As we are a stakeholder group please can we be added to the list.
David Ainsley, Porpoise Dive ChartersPlease include Hebridean Partnership in forum.
Argyll Charter Boats AssociationInclude Hebridean Partnership in forum.
1.3Aims of the Management Plan / Scottish Natural Heritage
SNH suggest the following changes: change ethos to requirements in last line of first paragraph; 4th bullet is not a requirement of the Directive; reporting every 6 yrs is (Art 17) and surveillance of all habitats and species is (Art 11); 5th bullet is required by Article 2 and is delivered with respect to assessment of plans etc by the 2nd part of the 3rd bullet.
David Ainsley, Porpoise Dive ChartersWe welcome the commitment to ‘restoring habitats and species to favourable conservation status’. I have concerns about the deterioration to rocky reefs, which has occurred over the past few years, due to scallop dredgers working closer to and in gullies between the rocky reefs.
Monitoring – I am concerned that the relevant authorities do not currently have the resources to properly monitor the SAC’s. The majority of species on rocky reefs are very small and detailed monitoring is required. The monitoring which was carried out by the relevant authorities on the rocky reef 230 metres from the Lunga fish farm site did not detect the damage that occurred as a result of the farm’s activities.
There was no pre-impact survey. Inappropriate techniques were initially used (the resolution of drop-video is far too poor to detect the UK-BAP protected sea-fan anemone which is 10mm in size). Despite this SEPA produced a report that indicated that there were no problems with the reef. Subsequently the SEPA / SNH dive team did detect the anemone, but some eighteen months AFTER commencement of fish farming on the site. In future scientific monitoring by competent authorities must be robust, independent, and subject to peer-review.
During the eighteen months the fish farm was in operation, a group of divers, myself included, surveyed the site, returning to film the same stations every three months, on broadcast quality video. The number of sea-fan anemones decreased from 24 in the week that farming commenced, to only two some eighteen months later. A number of other species were affected, and patches of begiatoa mat appeared.
I trust that sufficient funds will be made available for the relevant authorities to carry out proper monitoring as required by the Habitats Directive.
Crown EstatePossibly consider what would happen if a Management Plan was not produced – ie imposition of restrictions from EU?
Hebridean PartnershipThe SNH opinion viewed at the last Loch Creran meeting (concerning species protection throughout the SAC) is what one would have expected from such an agency, why is the same criteria not being applied to the Firth of Lorn? Why have the Natura Officers pick up on this issue?
Amanda Bell, DiverHappy with the aims in general. Dredging a problem on rocky reefs – doesn’t seem to be any monitoring. Not sure why allow fish farms to locate in vulnerable areas.
Karen Aspinall, DiverRestoring habitats and species is good
G. Bruce, DiverThe Management Plan is flawed as no monitoring is taking place. SNH dive team should be accountable and show the evidence.
2.0 SITE OVERVIEW /

COMMENTS

2.1 Site Description / SEPAUse of the term “hectares” is meaningless to most readers. A more appropriate unit for the general reader might be “km2 “
2.2 Reasons for Designation: Rocky Reef Habitat and Communities / Chris Stephenson
Adequate survey work in advance would have been helpful to identify the most important rocky reef sites.
I. Butler, Slough Sub Aqua Club
The area of the Lorn MSAC is outstanding for its diversity of marine life. I have not encountered any other area in Northern Europe that can offer anything like the range of conditions, habitats and life that are routinely encountered in a day of diving in this area.
David Ainsley, Porpoise Dive ChartersI am concerned about the UK-BAP protected Sea-fan anemone. The NCC 1982 survey states that it was rarely recorded in the British Isles at that time, but was recorded on several sites in this area. I have concerns that this anemone is becoming rarer. We see this anemone much less frequently, and are concerned that its population density may be reaching a critical point. We believe this may generally be due to siltation from scallop dredgers. See notes on Lunga fish farm site.
Another species mentioned in the report, the Jewel anemone, requires a high level of water quality and clarity. We have seen this species become devastated on particular sites, notably exposed reefs around the Garvellachs. We regularly dive a number of sites in the SAC. One particular site at the south end of the Garvellachs had a thriving population of jewel anemones, and associated fauna. We were present when a scallop dredger was working close to this reef. We dived it shortly afterwards. The reef was then covered in silt. The jewel anemones and other species died, and the reef has never fully recovered. It had used to be one of our best dive sites, and known to us as ‘Jewel Wall’, but now we rarely dive there due to its impoverished state. This is only one example. Many other reefs have been affected in a similar way.
Although not strictly a reef species, the very rare deep-water anemone, Arachnanthus sarsi, is also under threat from scallop dredging, and would be protected by having zones around the sensitive reefs that are not dredged. The Fireworks Anemone, Pachycerianthus multiplicatus recorded in 1982 around the Black Isles can no longer be found, despite frequent dives. This species would also be expected to be susceptible to scallop dredging.
SEPA
The 2 species of barnacle appear to have their names mixed up. They should be :
Balanus crenatus and Chirona hameri
Amanda Bell, Diver
I am concerned about the sea fan and jewel anemone population. I don’t see so many sea fan or jewel anemones
Karen Aspinall, Diver
Less jewel anemones seen when diving
G. Bruce, DiverI have seen the damage 1st hand and am prepared to show anyone the damage.
3.0 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES /

COMMENTS

3.1 Conservation Objectives / Chris Stephenson
It is important that all parties keep in mind the accurate definition of ‘conservation’ – i.e. not ‘preservation’ necessarily.
David Ainsley, Porpoise Dive Charters
We are waiting for further clarification from Europe as to what is meant by Scottish Circular 6.95 which states “ conservation objectives of European sites are broader than first thought in 1995; the European Commission has taken the clear view that all habitats and species which occur at a significant level on any SAC should be taken into account when the effects of plans or projects on that site are assessed.” The outcome may affect how objectives for this site are defined.
G. Bruce, Ellenabeich
Stop dredging!!
3.2 Sustainable Economic Development Objectives /

Scottish Natural Heritage

SNH would like to see these when they are produced.

Argyll Charter Boats Association

Wildlife tourism is a growing sector, and correctly carried out, there should be no impact on existing species.

G. Bruce, Ellenabeich

Tourism brings all the money in.

4.0 ACTIVITIES AND MANAGEMENT MEASURES /

COMMENTS

4.1 Management of Fishing Activities

/ Inshore Fisheries Branch, Scottish ExecutiveFRS and SFPA shouldn’t really be listed as relevant or competent authorities for sea fisheries activities. FRS provide the Executive with advice and the SFPA enforces the restrictions we introduce through Parliament following that advice. So neither agency in itself has statutory responsibilities in ensuring that fishing activities do not harm the designation.
We see that the reference to SIFAG providing information to fishermen about the designations has been removed from 4.1.1 (benthic dredging), 4.1.2 (benthic trawling), 4.1.3 (creel fishing) and 4.1.4 (bottom set tangle nets). I don’t think this is a problem given the Secretaries of Fishermen’s Associations will be actively involved in this function – but you need to make sure that you are aware of all the relevant associations. The use of vessel lists was suggested only as an illustration of the way in which we ensure that we can reach all fishermen in pursuit of our licensing etc responsibilities. SEERAD can’t commit to permitting the use of the system in this way, as it could be the thin end of a wedge of information descending on licence holders.
4.1.1 Benthic Dredging / Preferred Option – 1 2 3 4 5(please circle if you have an opinion) outline other options or comments below:
Scottish Natural Heritage
SNH is concerned about the potential impact that scallop dredging may have on the Firth of Lorn SAC. However, we feel that the nature of the impact is not such that it risks the complete loss of the feature (scallop dredging is likely to damage reef margins, but is unlikely to destroy reefs entirely).
SNH do not consider that a voluntary approach (as suggested in Option 2 and 3) to management of the Firth of Lorn SAC is appropriate or achievable at this time given the open nature of the site and the potential difficulties with surveillance and enforcement. If results of site condition monitoring or a specific study indicate that action is needed then it is likely that statutory protection will be the most appropriate course of action.
Option 3 and 4 are examples of what SNH would term “strict precaution”. What is most appropriate in this case is an “adaptive precaution”, i.e. we acknowledge that there is a risk of impact on the features of interest and that steps should be taken to determine what the impact is. On the basis of results action can then be taken.
Regarding Option 5, the SNH monitoring surveys (as currently being implemented) are unlikely to provide the information required to inform management of this activity since they are designed to assess the status of the conservation interest of a SAC overall. Monitoring will be targeted in certain areas and towards activities that are of concern but it is unlikely that resources will be available to investigate the full effects of a single activity (such as scallop dredging) in order to unequivocally prove or disprove impact on the SAC. SNH feel that an targeted investigation is required in order to gain a proper understanding of the impacts of scallop dredging on rocky reefs in the Firth of Lorn SAC (both direct and indirect via increased sedimentation), so that we can either discount the concerns or move to a statutory solution. It is in the interest of all members of the Argyll Marine SAC Management Forum that such an investigation is carried out as soon as possible.
Inshore Fisheries Branch, Scottish ExecutiveContent with amended list of responsibilities and also range of options. SNH advice/monitoring will be crucial in deciding which one to follow. Note continuing discussions with the CFA.
Clyde Fishermen’s Association
Proposed amendments to section 4.1.1 attached as Appendix A.
Chris Stephenson
1 or 4 – but realistic survey must be started immediately
Hebridean PartnershipRestriction to dredging in this area is the only way forward to reduce potential damage occurring on the reefs, option 4 is essential. Due to advances in modern mobile gear and technology potential damage from these activities has altered and increased. Prevention of such activity could provide an opportunity for scientific experiment of seabed community recovery. Additionally quantitative assessment could be carried out on other target species and any additional biomass introduced as a result. Due to extreme tidal regime this should extend outside of the SAC area.
Eoghann MacLachlanI totally agree with Patrick Stewart, Clyde Fishermen’s Association and the points he makes in his letter to you of the 29th April. Being a local scallop fishermen who fishes this area 99% of my fishing time, without damaging the ‘rocky reefs’, I am very worried about the living of family’s from Luing and the area who depend on fishing here.
David Ainsley, Porpoise Dive ChartersOur preferred option is Option 4. We make the following observations:
Whilst scallop dredging is a traditional activity, due to the recent, major advances in electronic navigation technology, scallop dredgers are now able to navigate more accurately. Resultantly they are concentrating on the areas close to the rocky reefs and the gullies between these reefs, which were previously inaccessible. As divers this has become self-evident due to the increased siltation on the rocky reefs, and the devastation to the adjacent seabed. We have supplied video to the forum of an area of the seabed in Dun Chonnuill Sound, showing its state before and after scallop dredging, and also of a rocky reef at the south end of the Garvellachs, where dredgers have gone straight across the reef.