Firth of Lorn Management Plan Comments Sheet Collated Responses from 2nd Draft Consultation Period (August 2004) General comments Scottish Natural Heritage The way the Plan refers to the Argyll Marine SACs Management Forum is very inconsistent. Sometimes it is "AMSMF", sometimes its "the forum" sometimes if "The Forum". SNH suggest “AMSMF” and “the Forum” for some variation. In Management Actions SNH suggest stronger language, for example sometimes the Plan states "it is proposed..." or "it is recommended...". If it's not "the Forum has agreed..." it should at least be "the Forum recommends..." since the Plan is presenting a consensus view therefore should show that issues have been discussed before a balanced view is followed. Using the same language in the Management Actions for each activity is repetitive but when the Plan is used later people will generally only be referring to the section of the Plan relevant to their activity rather than reading it right through. Hebridean Partnership HMNPP cannot sign any management agreement that clearly opposes a majority view, including all of the major stakeholders and a relevant authority, especially an agreement which may be detrimental to the favourable conservation status of the species/habitats that are of special community interest, and for which the site has been designated. Due to the tight deadlines imposed and as Chairman of the HMNPP unless a review of the outcome is forthcoming I would be unable to be included as a signatory of the SAC Management Agreement, this decision would be subject to a full meeting of HMNPP. NB. This is not withdrawal from the management process and the Partnership would currently wish to continue receiving information. As an individual I feel that the current proceedings are being “railroaded” through in contradiction of the majority view, a majority made up not of “conservationists” per se but actual stakeholders of the Loch. The current process is not democratic nor does it give adequate protection to species or habitats. The aims of SNH, Habitats Directive, through Natura 2000 and HMNPP are concomitant: The SNH aim: “Scotland’s natural heritage is a local, national and global asset. We promote its care and improvement, its responsible enjoyment, its greater understanding and appreciation and its sustainable use now and for future generations”. And mission statement: “Working with Scotland’s people to care for our natural heritage”. Article 6 (1) of the Habitats Directive states that: “For special areas of conservation, Member States shall establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plan, appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex 1 and the species in Annex 11 present on the sites”. And Article 6 (2); Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as the disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive”. HMNPP aims: “To protect the habitats, fauna and flora within the proposed park area. To promote and encourage environmentally friendly, sustainable use of the seas and land within the proposed park area”. With these aims in common why is the stance from both the Natura team and SNH different from HMNPP? In addition, the Partnership would welcome the rationale behind such views. Scottish Executive Throughout the plan “secretary’s” of fishermen’s associations should read “secretaries”. 1 Signatures for plan participation WHISCA Include West Highlands and Islands Sailing Clubs Association Scottish Executive The Executive (all departments) should be removed from the list of signatories at the start – as I’ve mentioned before any one department cannot sign up to the plan because a collective view needs to be taken. Executive Summary WHISCA Para 4: penultimate sentence is not well worded. Do you mean “At the present time the degree of impact on the rocky reefs of the Firth of Lorn of this type of fishing is unclear”? Suggest that there should be a hyphen between “dredge” and “disturbed”. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Habitats Directive COMMENTS WHISCA Hyphen between “European” and “wide” 1.2 Argyll Marine Special Areas of Conservation Management Forum 1.3 Aims of the Management Plan Sealife Adventures We 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 last 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 2.0 SITE OVERVIEW 2.1 Site Description COMMENTS WHISCA Can the new map show the depths referred to? 2.2 Reasons for Designation: Rocky Reef Habitat and Communities Sealife Adventures Harbour porpoise is a species requiring the designation of protected areas and is a protected species, this must be taken into account when reviewing the fishing methods used within the SAC. SNH have failed to designate SAC’s for the protection of the harbour porpoise. The sightings forms submitted to Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust show that Firth of Lorne SAC to have the highest sighting rate for harbour porpoise. Because forms include a time, sightings are effort related. We call on SNH to upgrade the designation to A or B in the Firth of Lorne SAC. WHISCA 3rd line: suggest “wave- and current-sheltered” 3.0 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 3.1 Conservation Objectives COMMENTS Alistair Bullock – MRI Ltd. Line 5 should read complements Sealife Adventures Since the conservation objective of the SAC is to avoid deterioration of the rocky reefs why does SNH allow fishing methods which have been demonstrated to damage these reefs to continue? In particular we have demonstrated that scallop dredging is damaging the rocky reefs not only by direct impact but also by silt deposition. Independent scientific studies have shown this at Skomer (Bullimore B 1985,) , in the Clyde ( Hall-Spencer ), in Lyme Bay (Devon Wildlife Trust,2004), Strangford Lough(in preparation). These studies show that Scallop dredging devastates attached fauna on all seabed type studied including rocky reefs. We submit that the rock type has no bearing on the damage as it is the fragility of the fauna that is relevant. We have submitted witness evidence supported by video of damage to the rocky reefs caused by scallop dredgers in the Firth of Lorne, we note that R Handy commented on similar damage in the consultation, we are also investigating further report of damage within the SAC and expect to video this soon. We also have photographic evidence of 2 dredgers heeled over, putting out black smoke having come fast in rocky reef areas. We believe that the advice currently proposed by SNH should be changed to a ban on scallop dredging in the light of new evidence. We would point out that the SNH publication applying the precautionary principle to decisions on the natural heritage states that the adaptive precaution can only be applied if the industry is co-operative and if a negative feedback regime can be established. We submit that the former is unlikely and the funds are not available for the latter. WHISCA Complements (not compliments!) 3.2 Sustainable Economic Development Objectives Scottish Natural Heritage 3.2 - para last. Would prefer to see the last sentence replaced with "Overall, there should be a presumption that any resource use is done in a way that is sustainable and that it is compatible with the requirements of the Habitats Directive" 4.0 ACTIVITIES AND MANAGEMENT MEASURES 4.1 Management of Fishing Activities COMMENTS Sealife Adventures The statement that sea fishing is an important provider of employment cannot be ignored however it should be justified by giving actual numbers instead of emotive statements. In the whole working population of the areas surrounding the SAC there would not be a large majority of fishermen or associated employment and more importantly if you looked at the numbers employed in scallop dredging it would not be greater than 5 out of a working population of several hundred. In a review of 1997 fisheries statistics scallop dredgers represented 5% of the regional fishing fleet.(Gill, 1999). We do not underestimate the importance of these jobs but our argument that if dredging was stopped in the SAC the local boats would have to steam a bit further to other grounds but the SAC represents a tiny proportion of the scallop grounds available to them. It should also be pointed out that there are other fishing methods which could be carried out which do not impact on the reefs in the SAC such as scallop diving which would employ more people. Scottish Executive No comments on proposed management actions at this time. Perhaps worth noting that fishing for razor clams is on increase on west coast, although perhaps not within the cSAC area. 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: Hebridean Partnership “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 response to 1st Consultative Draft) SNH admitted that it has been unable to conduct species specific scientific studies therefore unable to substantiate this statement and does not take into account the question of potential sediment loading in this area which is prone to extreme and complicated tidal influence. At the management meeting it was clearly stated and recorded in the minutes that, “scallop dredgers would not concede any more fishing grounds”; thereby the Adaptive Precaution suggested by SNH is in contravention of their own guidelines. While uncertainty exists there can be only one acceptable approach: the restriction of dredging until a full and sound, species specific scientific evaluation is carried out. HMNPP have already objected to the ultimate judgement going to SEERAD and the Inshore Fisheries Branch to give the final say on conservation issues. Especially so after the outspoken views given by the head of the Inshore Fisheries Branch at the previous Firth of Lorn SAC management meeting. A balanced unbiased view is severely in doubt. Argyll & Bute Council through its Natura 2000 Officers and SNH appear to be in contravention of the Habitats Directive. Following the relevant Articles within the 3 Habitats Directive this also affects competent, relevant authorities and the Ministers. Representatives of SNH and the Natura team should review their decisions. Especially in light of unseen evidence and the possibility of new evidence emerging. Due to the current untenable situation clarification has been sought from the Ministers. If this situation continues in the same manner a decision from the European Commission will be the only alternative. Sealife Adventures I am repeating several of the points I raised in the first consultation as I feel they have not been addressed in the 2nd draft of the management plan. Our preferred option was option 4 and it was stated that of the 15 responses to the first draft 10 called for option 4 and one called for option 2. Why have these responses and requests been completely ignored in the 2 nd draft? We make the following observations: Whilst scallop dredging was a traditional activity, due to recent major advances in electronic 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. We read with interest the comment that the fishermen view their navigation technology as a means of preventing contact with the reefs. Every day we see dredgers heeled over giving our black smoke as they attempt to free their dredges from rocky areas. I have photographs to prove this and also expect new video evidence soon of damage to reefs from dredgers which has occurred during August 2004. Scallop dredging has changed markedly recently and this must be taken into account when deciding whether to allow it to continue as it is no longer the “traditional activity” imagined by SNH. Dredging produces significant and continuous noise. (Shrimpton & Parsons, 2000). This noise which can carry for many miles could have an impact on cetaceans. Wild life operators in the SAC have recently been watching many Minke whales around the west end of the Corryvreckan. Since a dredger started in that area last week there have been no sightings. This obviously impacts on the income of tour operators in the area. There have been many other areas around the country that have been devastated by scallop dredging. In Strangford Lough , the unique horse mussel community which supported many hundreds of other species in its centuries –old structures, has been destroyed by scallop dredging. Over 90% of the mussels have been wiped out. The UK has now been cautioned by Europe for failing to protect the area and fines of E40000/ day have been proposed. Europe will act when areas that should be protected are not and SNH should not ignore this. Lyme bay in Devon has also seen damage done by dredgers and video evidence of this has been gathered by Devon and Dorset wildlife trust. There is not “potential” for damage there is actual damage occurring daily. The management forum cannot justify allowing dredging to continue in sensitive areas of the SAC on the grounds of economic impact on local areas and communities that is a false claim and will be seen as such if the case were taken up in Europe. Only one local boat dredges the area of the SAC regularly. Scallop dredgers are big, sea-worthy boats capable of fishing all areas. While the scallop dredgers have a large political voice, they only represent about 5% of the fishing industry. A typical dredger, towing 16 dredgers, ploughs an area of 6½ square kilometers per 100 hours of fishing. Look at a chart of the West Coast of Scotland. The areas we are looking at are extremely small. To close the small zones we are talking about would not jeopardise any jobs in the dredging industry, although it might occasionally involve a longer steam to some fishing grounds. It would however create sustainable jobs in diver tourism and scallop diving. 4 When the Labrador cod fishery was closed to all mobile gear, sealife proliferated. When controlled zones were re-opened to dredging, scallop catches had significantly increased, resulting in a five-fold increase in yield for the same fishing effort. The experience worldwide is that closing areas provides improved fishing in adjacent areas. The major man-made impact in the Firth of Lorne is from Scallop dredging. The Habitats Directive puts a clear responsibility on SEERAD, as the responsible body, to stop this increasing damage and indeed to restore the area. One of the major requirements of the Habitats Directive is “management should enable the natural habitat types and the species concerned to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favourable conservation status.” Notice must be taken of the decline in certain species. With reference to the NCC study of 1982, take site 20 as an example. This site was famous for Arachnanthus and Pachycerianthus. Virgularia & Pennatula were also found. Despite several recent dives Pachycerianthus has not been found and Virgularia and Pennatula are now rare. As mentioned before it is now far more difficult to find Arachnanthus. It is important to accept that these species attract divers to the area, bringing money and supporting jobs in the local economy. Because this is a SAC, the precautionary principle must be invoked and the reefs protected (reference SNH booklet ‘Applying the Precautionary Principal to decisions on the Natural Heritage’). If scientific work is undertaken it must be robust and of a high enough standard to take note of changes on the reefs and must be able to stand up to peer review. It should be stated that there is already a wealth of scientific evidence that shows how damaging scallop dredging is, and in light of this SEERAD has a legal responsibility to impose precautionary measures under the Habitats Directive. It could be argued that the options proposed, except for option number 4, would not comply with the duties imposed by the Habitats Directive. The restriction on dredging must be statutory not voluntary as although the local boat might comply there would be no such compliance by boats from out with the area. WHISCA 1st para: “further afield, e,g. the Firth of Clyde, Isle of Man and Northern Ireland, to fish.” 3rd para: coarser (not courser) Last bullet: the plural of Secretary is Secretaries – this error is consistently perpetuated throughout the rest of the document (at least 8 times), so I suggest you do a “Find and Substitute” operation! 4.1.2 Benthic Trawling 4.1.3 Creel Fishing 4.1.4 Bottom Set Gill & Tangle Nets Sealife Adventures Studies have shown that approx 10,000 porpoises die in mono and multi mono filament nets each year-(Tregenza et al 1997, Northridge & Hammond 1999) Note that Harbour porpoises are protected species requiring the designation of protected areas. They are a priority species which are globally threatened. We have many sightings of porpoises in the area and they must be protected by banning tangle nets within the SAC. We welcome the initiative taken by local fishermen and Natura Officers to replace bottom-set tangle nets with creels, in order to protect our valuable stock of porpoises. To protect the interests of the local fishermen, who have been so far-sighted as to take up this scheme, it is necessary to introduce a by-law immediately to prevent the use of nets in this area. This will prevent boats from out with the area from using bottom-set nets in the Firth Of Lorne. 4.1.5 Shellfish Diving 4.2 Management of Gathering and Harvesting from Foreshore 5 4.2.1 Shellfish and Bait Collection from Foreshore WHISCA Suggest hyphen between “Estate” and “issued” 4.2.2 Gathering Cast Seaweed WHISCA Potential Impacts: Can this location be shown on a map, in view of the area’s popularity with yachtsmen? Scottish Executive On the seaweed point, the local Agriculture office can advise. 4.3 Management of Aquaculture Activities Scottish Executive The Scottish Executive is actually the statutory consultee on fish farm applications (not Sea Fisheries Divisions), but you can say that the Sea Fisheries Divisions comment on potential implications for fishing. 6 4.3.1 Finfish Farming Sealife Adventures My comments on the 1st draft are repeated here as they have not been included in the 2nd draft. There is a lack of scientific knowledge on the effects of finfish farming effluents on rocky reefs. However, we have a video record, taken at three monthly intervals on the effects of Lunga fish farm on the nearby reef. It is clear that some fauna living on rocky reefs is less tolerant to siltation than the fauna living in and on sediment seabeds. The precautionary principle must be invoked. As well as being a SAC, part of this area is also a National Scenic Area. Finfish farming supports a small number of jobs in Argyll, whereas tourism supports over 1/3 rd of the working population, and brings over £700 million to the local economy over the year. Fish farming jobs are very important, however the farms could be sited in areas of lower conservation importance. The perception of wilderness is one of the major draws on tourists to Scotland, and an inappropriate siting of fish farms has a negative effect on our most important industry, and the jobs that it supports. The situation where fish farms pay for their own environmental impact assessments and surveys is clearly open to abuse. It became clear that the relevant authority, SEPA, was unable to undertake sufficiently detailed and effective monitoring of the Lunga Fish Farm site. It is important to point out that most of the species living on rocky reefs are small in size, and detailed diver surveying is necessary which MUST commence BEFORE the fish farm is installed. While it is possible to survey the seabed, the effects of various effluents going into the water column are unquantifiable. I believe that within the ethos of the Habitats Directive that finfish farming is inappropriate in this SAC. Should another finfish farm be opened in the SAC, local divers, including myself would ensure that it was subject to the most rigorous, independent monitoring, using video techniques that are open to all to review. Based on our experiences from the Lunga site, we believe that proper monitoring would quickly show impacts to rocky reefs, even at some distance to the site. SEPA cannot monitor effectively as was demonstrated in their survey of the Lunga site. The fact that they have no concerns does not mean that no damage occurred. We have demonstrated effect within the allowable zone of impact on other fishfarm sites and this has been ignored by SEPA. SEPA are obliged to take best available evidence but have so far refused to see the tapes we have of the reef next to the Lunga fishfarm which demonstrate a decline from 24 to 2 Anthianthus dornii filmed between our baseline survey October 2001 and 18 months later. Note the SNH team could also only find two around this time. Please include this information in the executive summary. Placing moorings on the rocky reefs would be the smallest problem the area would have to cope with if more fishfarms were sighted in the SAC. It shows the short sightedness of the management forum that this is included in the draft as a recommendation but there is no recommendation that there should never be another fishfarm consent given within the SAC. It is my understanding that under the Habitats Directive the onus is places on those responsible for a potentially damaging impact to prove that they are not causing damage to conservation interests of an SAC. Why is this not included in the draft management plan? Scottish Executive FRS does not issues FEPA licences for fish farm developments such as cages, moorings etc. FRS licence the construction of shoreline facilities such as jetties, piers, slipways, outfalls etc. 4.3.2 Shellfish Farming WHISCA Description of Activity: Last two sentences should read as one (comma instead of full stop & small “a”) Potential Impacts: Remove space following “pseudofaeces” Scottish Executive As for finfish, and FRS do not issue licences for trestles and tables or cages, even if in inter-tidal zone. 4.4 Management of Recreation and Tourism 7 Activities 4.4.1 Anchoring and Mooring WHAM Association Correct name of organisation to Anchorages 2nd para – suggest altered to read – Anchoring is not regulated by any authority and is regarded as a public right associated with the public right of navigation. The Admiralty…. WHISCA Description of Activity: Scottish Islands Peaks Race. Suggest “en route” should be italicised. Potential Impacts: “outwith” (in the sense of outside of) is one word, notwithstanding the spellchecker! Management Action: The last point is entirely superfluous – by definition this is how every mooring should be. Better say that the mooring should carry a notice defining the maximum tonnage of vessel it is designed to secure – visiting mariners can then interpret this in the light of conditions obtaining at the time. 4.4.2SCUBA Diving WHISCA “Although both organisations produce Safe Diving Practice Guidelines,….., there is (?no) oversight to ensure that all members of BSAC and SSAC adhere to these guidelines.” 4.4.3 Charter Boat Operations WHISCA Cruising yacht use of the SAC is essentially similar to the charter boat operations, except as regards the MCA Code of Practice requirement, and could probably be referred to in this section. This significantly increases (probably more than doubles) the economic importance of leisure marine activity in Argyll (from marinas, boatyards and other infrastructure). 4.5 Management of Effluent Discharges and Marine Dumping 4.5.1 Trade Effluent WHISCA Potential Impacts: Suggest “nutrient- and chemical-rich effluent” Management Action: Outwith again….. 4.5.2 Sewage Effluent WHISCA Responsibilities: MCA - outwith 4.5.3 Marine Littering and Dumping Scottish Executive FRS would not use FEPA to control the disposal of litter or garbage from vessels as such as this is more of a Merchant Shipping issue. But they do control the sea disposal of dredged material. 4.6 Management of Shipping/Boating Related Activities 4.6.1 Oil Tankers, Cargo Vessels, Ferries, Fishing Vessels and Cruise Ships WHISCA Suggest the vessel’s name Lysfoss should be italicised. Potential Impacts: Inter-tidal is one word elsewhere. Separate “break” and “down”. Scottish Executive FRS has a pivotal role to play in responding to marine incidents and provides 24 hour seven day a week emergency cover to respond to oil and chemical spills and shipping incidents. FRS would, with SNH, also look to chair any environmental group set up to respond. 4.6.2 Boat Maintenance and Antifoulant Use WHISCA The plural of marina is marinas. Scottish Executive FRS does not licence the use of antifoulants 4.7 Management of LandUse and Coastal Development Activities 8 4.7.1 Coastal Construction SEETLLD Add to responsibilities: administering Harbour Orders under the Harbours Act 1964 for marine construction 4.7.2 Agriculture 4.7.3 Forestry WHISCA 2nd sentence: FC Scotland manages its own forests for multiple-benefits. (Private ones may differ.) 4.8 Management of Scientific Research Scottish Natural Heritage SNH are the licensing authority for European Protected Species research that required disturbance / capture e.g. tagging cetaceans. Scottish Executive It would be more accurate to say “FRS is responsible for licensing deposits in the sea below MHWS”. SEETLLD SEETLLD responsible to issue Section 34 Consents under Coast Protection Act 1949 for scientific research that may cause a hazard to navigation 5.0 MONITORING Scottish Natural Heritage Perhaps there should be some reference made to the WFD and what this is going to mean - a task for SEPA to do? 5.1 Site Condition Monitoring Sealife Adventures We welcome the requirement for site condition monitoring, and hope that the resources will be made available to the relevant authorities for this to be effective. Methodology has to be appropriate to the impacts occurring. The SNH definition of the precautionary principle states that a lack of scientific evidence should not be taken as a reason to delay taking action on negative impacts. SNH also states that one of the circumstances under which the precautionary principle must apply is within a SAC. It follows that the need for monitoring must not be used as an excuse for not taking action to prevent further damage to the Firth Of Lorne SAC 5.2 Compliance Monitoring 5.3 Review of Existing Consents Sealife Adventures We have evidence of damage to fauna on the Lunga fish farm site, during the period the farm was in operation, including a huge decline in the population of the UK-BAP species, the Sea-fan Anemone. We would welcome the opportunity to present this evidence to the relevant authorities, when the Lunga fish farm consent is reviewed. We believe that the site is not in keeping with the requirements of the Habitats Directive, and consent should be withdrawn. 6.0 IMPLEMENTATION & REVIEW 6.1 Implementation of the Argyll Marine SAC Management Plans 6.2 Management Action Implementation Timetable It is important that the reviews of consents are independent and open to public scrutiny It is a requirement of the habitats directive for the industry to prove that it is not causing damage. COMMENTS WHAM Association Correct name of organisation to Anchorages 9 WHISCA SCUBA Diving: delete “has been developed for distribution” Sewage Effluent: delete reference to Loch Creran. Boat Maintenance & a/foul Use: Marinas 7.0 References 8.0 Glossary MCDU Office note Add MRC/FCS catchment management plan ACBA Code of conduct Scottish Natural Heritage Scottish Natural Heritage. There is still some confusion over references to the status of the site as it is of course still a candidate site. Generally speaking it is referred to as a SAC but there are exceptions e.g. in the glossary the definition for a European marine site is a "candidate SAC..." Actually they are not, as strictly speaking the name European only applies at the moment to sites adopted by Europe or SACs.Glossary Regulations. There is no need for a reference here to the Northern Ireland version and it is suggested that it is deleted. Also, if that is deleted, then the final part needs to be amended to say "domestic legislation" WHISCA Add: Benthic, Demersal 9.0 APPENDICES Appendix I – Management Forum Structure and Members List Appendix II – Appropriate Assessment Procedure Appendix III – Competent and Relevant Authority Responsibilities Relating to Marine SAC Activities COMMENTS WHISCA Include West Highlands and Islands Sailing Clubs Association Scottish Natural Heritage Scottish Natural Heritage. Recommend that it is amended as follows "The Regulations require that, where an authority concludes that a development proposal unconnected with the nature conservation management of a Natura 2000 site is likely to have a significant effect on that site, it must undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications for the conservation interests for which the area has been designated." SEETLLD Under SEETLLD, aquaculture, marine recreation, effluent discharges and marine dumping section Remove “out with harbour order area” because Section 34 Consent under Coast Protection Act 1949 may be required if the harbour order does not confer on the harbour authority the necessary power to carry out works etc. Add “responsibility for preventing navigation. Issue navigation consent under Section 34 of Coast Protection Act 1949.” Appendix IV – Scottish Natural Heritage Conservation Advice Appendix V - Diving Code of Conduct Scottish Natural Heritage Appendix V Is this meant to apply to all Argyll sites as it mentions Creran and FoL? 10