SSMEI Sound of Mull Natural & Cultural Heritage Workshop

30 th October 2008

Present Colin Wishart – Highland Council Gordon Chalmers – Councillor, Argyll and Bute Council Jan Dunlop- Mull and Iona Ranger Service Jane Dodd – Scottish Natural Heritage Mark Steward – Argyll and Bute Council Susannah Calderane – Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust Sarah Cunningham – Project Officer

Apologies Dave Sexton – RSPB David Jones – Holiday Mull Philip Robertson – Historic Scotland

Activity 1 – Sector Interactions Before the meeting SC had collated comments received on the interactions matrix sent out summarising interactions between natural and cultural heritage and other sectors/interests in the Sound of Mull (SOM). The group discussed the comments made, whether the interactions identified were appropriate and relevant to the SOM and the Future Management Requirements that were suggested.

Then the group were asked to categorise the interactions in to one of 4 types:  Positive – Interest/sector has a positive effect on recreation and tourism  Neutral - Interest/sector has neither a positive or negative effect on recreation and tourism  Competitive – Interest/sector competing for the same resource (e.g. space, species) that is either managed or unmanaged  Incompatible - Interest/sector is not compatible with recreation and tourism and this is not manageable

The interactions presented in the table were replicated on large sheets of paper and pinned around the room. The group were asked to categorise each interaction into one of the 4 types by placing one relevant coloured dot against each interaction (one colour was assigned to each interaction type). A summary of the categorisation of interactions is given in Table 1. A summary of the agreed interaction matrix is provided in Table 2 incorporating the categorisations. Where the group had not all categorised the interaction into the same category, the majority was used.

Activity 2 – Opportunities, Constraints and Mechanisms Participants were asked to identify up to 3 opportunities and 3 constraints for natural and cultural heritage within the SOM, write these on post-sticks and add these to appropriately named sheets in the room. They were also asked to identify up to 3 mechanisms that would allow these opportunities to be developed or constraints overcome. These were collated and grouped into similar types and are given below:

Opportunities for Natural and Cultural Heritage in the SOM Resource/Produce promotion  Better promotion of natural and cultural heritage which encourages visitors to the area e.g. by VisitScotland  Promotion of area based on fresh, local, sustainably sourced seafood e.g. shellfish Business development  Promotion of the area for sea angling  Short wildlife/landscape photography courses and competitions  Walks, tours of cultural heritage areas  More ecotourism around marine wildlife (habitats & species) e.g. boat based wildlife tours Interpretation  Improved interpretation and education  Make information on cultural features e.g. wrecks, fish traps more accessible Other  Promotion of Seasearch activities to obtain further information (mentioned during discussion on interactions matrix)

Constraints for Natural and Cultural Heritage in the SOM Access to features and coastline  Car parking  Viewpoints  Footpaths Knowledge  Need to know more about sea angling species  Lack of knowledge on species and habitats  Lack of knowledge on how activities affect biodiversity  Central resource of information Pressure from development & users  Conflict between economic development interest and conservation  Pressure for aquaculture and infrastructure developments  Visitor pressure in certain areas

Mechanisms for Natural and Cultural Heritage in the SOM Finance  Funding for tourism projects/staff  Funding for research  Funding for facilities e.g. viewpoints, parking  Assistance for funding – community projects for access and interpretation  Investment programme Access  Improved access – identification of existing access points and new for new or improved facilities Knowledge  Creation of central information resource accessible to all Communication  Increased/improved communication and networking between sectors Strategy  Forward plan (spatial) Other  Community projects

The group was then asked their views on the following questions and these were noted on flipcharts:

Should we identify areas to be developed or in need of safeguarding in relation to Natural and Cultural Heritage in the SOM? Agreement than areas for safeguarding/development should be included  Safeguard: Habitats and cultural features in general, dive sites and wrecks, Shore diving locations, access points to/from the water e.g. slipways  Development areas:  Salen – development of car parking and view point for wildlife if planned road development taken over the top as opposed to along shore  Access points e.g. slipways at Tobermory, Craignure, Salen, Fishnish for boat launching, kayaks etc  Shore diving locations – access (parking and distance are issues). Identification of sites  Interpretation e.g. Fishnish and Garmony planning to have information on species, birds, tracks could develop this elsewhere. Problem of lack of engagement from VisitScotland and CalMac e.g. interpretation on ferries and other locations Other comments:  Natural and cultural heritage features should be presented in a positive way  Raising awareness of natural and cultural features  Recognition of wider benefits of nature conservation and its value to economy

For development areas how much detail should be provided on the specifics of location and scale?  Need to be specific where possible on location - it is a relatively small area and if we want plan to deliver something real need to be specific  Proposals need to take account of other interests  Visual distinction on maps – opportunities, constraints, factual information – different colours?

Activity 3 – Plan format and Contents

The group were provided with relevant documents prior to the meeting and on the day that outline a draft of the plan content and potential format options. They were shown a draft layout of the contents of general sections which could be in the final plan, e.g. background to SSMEI, marine spatial planning, Sound of Mull. They were also shown two options of plan format – sectoral based and zone based. The group were asked the following questions and their responses were noted on flipcharts.

What plan option or combination of approaches would be best for the Sound of Mull/ Natural and Cultural Heritage? Are there any alternatives? Using a combination of the two – sector based and zones was felt to be the most appropriate option. A combination of both approaches would enable the document to be useful to all, e.g. provide a sector overview for those that want information on this basis and as zones as some users such as planners and developers might be interested in specific information for an area of interest The degree to which the two could be used was discussed and two options were suggested: 1. Overview of each sector on a SOM scale plus use of zones for areas where there are numerous activities/interest and/or lots of actual/potential interactions. For example if there are lots of constraints/interactions within a particular area this location could be dealt with as a zone. 2. Overview of each sector on a SOM scale plus zoning the whole SOM into discrete areas like Loch Fyne plan. Plan users could then either look at the sector or interest of concern to them and/or the particular area of coast that interests them.  If there is a good overview of natural and cultural heritage information in ‘sector’ part of the plan then could refer to this in zones to reduce length  This option might be more logical in layout although possibly lengthy Other comments:  A solely sectoral approach may seem too distinct and not appear to be integrated  Justification for using zones – if there only a few development opportunities/areas is there a need for zones?  Repetition may be preferable to cross-referencing

If zones are preferred, how should they be defined?  Size of zones needs to be considered  If zones defined on several criteria can be hard to match up with other guiding documents e.g. landscape report  Needs to be easy to understand therefore merit in using 1 criteria  Two Brooms ICZM plan – Coastal zones defined using landscape character & containment; Offshore zones defined using hydrography and seabed  Could have various types of zones based on interaction – competition, incompatible, positive, neutral  Use of natural, more fixed features over activities which can change.  Zones to middle or have a zone within middle for shipping lane

Contents of plan – do we need everything listed in documents? Should anything else be included?  Consideration of how much room, number of paragraphs for each section of the plan  Images and illustrations should be used  Mapping presentation – CD and paper  Only include temporal mapping where required Table 1. Results from categorisationINTERACTION of interactions WITH NATURAL – number AND indicates CULTURAL the HERITAGE number of dots allocated toINTERACTION each category CATEGORY by the group. Compet = Competition, Incompat = Incompatible Positive Neutral Compet Incompat Inshore fisheries Potential to damage habitats and associated species particularly from 2 3 Nephrops trawl, mobile gear, e.g trawling and dredging. This is of particular concern Scallop dredging, where the habitat/species is vulnerable to physical damage, of Creel, Diving biodiversity interest or designated e.g. maerl, eelgrass beds, horse mussel beds, file shell beds, sea pens1,3,5

Harvesting of shellfish e.g. winkles from intertidal zone has potential to 4 1 disturb habitats and birds and some potential for native oyster collection as part of this1,5

Current SAC and SPA designations do not currently interfere with fishing 5 grounds as they are terrestrial2,5 Current Protected Wreck designations (2 designated wreck sites) do not 5 interfere with fishing grounds2,5 Current wrecks provide refuge for species targeted by creelers5 5

Potential risk of entanglement over shipwreck sites leading to damage to 4 1 gear and the shipwreck. However, it is noted that it is not in the interests of vessels to fish over/in close proximity to sites due to the risks involved5 Aquaculture Landscape/seascape: potential effects on landscape character, scenic 5 Finfish, Shellfish quality and visual amenity and this can constrain development1,3,5

Benthic impacts: accumulation of solid wastes from finfish farms and 5 mussel grading debris can accumulate on the seabed, with potential impacts on benthic habitats sensitive to smothering. Mussel grading debris can attract predatory species such as starfish. However recovery of the seabed is possible.3,5

SECTOR INTERACTION WITH NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE INTERACTION CATEGORY Positive Neutral Compet Incompat Aquaculture Farmed salmon can affect wild salmonids and vice versa through the 1 4 Finfish, Shellfish transfer of disease and parasites, and effects from escapes via interbreeding and competition3,5 Marine wildlife: 4 1 Finfish farm site operation can involve the use of ADDs to deter seals which have potential to disturb marine mammals5. Shellfish sites can also interact with predators, e.g. eider ducks3,5 Introduction non-native species and pathogens through the importation 4 1 Table 2. Subgroup agreed interaction matrix with changes and Future Management Recommendations incorporated. Interaction categories are indicated by a coloured square: Positive Neutral Competition Incompatible . Where the group had not all categorised the interaction into the same category, the majority was used and where a majority decision was not evident (there were equal votes for two categories) both categorises are indicated. NO INTERACTION WITH NATURAL & CULTURAL CURRENT MANAGEMENT FUTURE MANAGEMENT HERITAGE RECOMMENDATIONS Inshore fisheries Potential to damage habitats and None, unless habitat/species/location  Plan could present location of Nephrops trawl, Scallop associated species particularly from protected by designation under current sensitive species/habitats and areas dredging, Creel, Diving mobile gear, e.g trawling and dredging. legislation e.g. Habitats Directive, where these overlap with fishing This is of particular concern where the Wildlife & Countryside Act, UK activity to identify any areas habitat/species is vulnerable to physical Biodiversity Action Plan, SFPA vulnerable to damage. damage, of biodiversity interest or enforcement  Current information on broad scale designated e.g. maerl, eelgrass beds, mapping of habitats and species horse mussel beds, file shell beds, sea agreed to be adequate for this pens1,3,5

Harvesting of shellfish e.g. winkles from None, unless habitat/species/location  Not felt to be an issue in SOM, current intertidal zone has potential to disturb protected by designation under current measures sufficient habitats and birds and some potential for legislation e.g. Habitats Directive,  Few locals but mostly travellers native oyster collection as part of this1,5 Wildlife & Countryside Act, UK collecting and harvesting for personal Biodiversity Action Plan SFPA consumption is unlikely to cause enforcement, Registration of buyers damage Current SAC and SPA designations do not Consultation with fishing sector and Mull  Not felt to be an issue in SOM, current currently interfere with fishing grounds as & Small Isles IFG when established measures sufficient they are terrestrial2,5 Current Protected Wreck designations (2  No measures felt to be required designated wreck sites) do not interfere with fishing grounds2,5 Current wrecks provide refuge for species  No measures felt to be required targeted by creelers5

SECTOR INTERACTION WITH NATURAL & CULTURAL CURRENT MANAGEMENT FUTURE MANAGEMENT HERITAGE RECOMMENDATIONS Inshore fisheries Potential risk of entanglement over Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 certain  Update Admiralty Charts to include all Nephrops trawl, Scallop shipwreck sites leading to damage to gear activities within protected area require shipwrecks dredging, Creel, Diving and the shipwreck. However, it is noted licence from Historic Scotland, some  Make mapping data available through that it is not in the interests of vessels to wrecks in SoM marked on charts, local plan showing extent of known wrecks fish over/in close proximity to sites due to fishermen have good knowledge of and height in the SOM so that the risks involved5 wreck locations. fishermen can more accurately target their activities to avoid these sites – useful for boats from outwith area.  Potential for no-mobile fishing buffer zones around economically important wreck sites for fishing similar to SECTOR INTERACTION WITH NATURAL & CULTURAL CURRENT MANAGEMENT FUTURE MANAGEMENT HERITAGE RECOMMENDATIONS Shipping Potential impacts from ship pollution, Oil Spill contingency plans  Whilst the risk of a spill is low, it Cargo,Tankers,Ferries especially fuel and oil, litter, ship harbours/shoreline, Vessel pollution would be useful if vessels that can grounding, introduction of pathogens and plans, Company Ocean Plans e.g. avoid using the area do so since alien species via ballast water1,5 Glensanda Vessels, Practice of emptying increased number of vessels increases ballast in open sea, MARPOL, Merchant the risk of a spillage. Shipping Regulations, Convention on the  An improvement of preventive / control of harmful anti-fouling systems on legislative measures to reduce litter / ships, MCA, AIS tracking for ships over pollution at source. 300GT  Survey to identify the different waste streams of marine litter to focus on reduction at source. Potential impacts from ship pollution, Oil Spill contingency plans  An improvement of preventive / especially fuel and oil, litter, and ship harbours/shoreline, Vessel pollution legislative measures to reduce litter / grounding on marine and coastal plans, Company Ocean Plans e.g. pollution at source. archaeology1 Glensanda Vessels, Practice of emptying  Survey to identify the different waste ballast in open sea, MARPOL, Merchant streams of marine litter to focus on Shipping Regulations, Convention on the reduction at source. control of harmful anti-fouling systems on ships, MCA, AIS tracking for ships over 300GT Infrastructure & Potential for disturbance of sensitive Coast Protection Act Section 34 allows  Identify sensitive locations in the SOM Anchorages seabed habitats and cultural heritage sites public and statutory consultation for in the plan using habitat map & survey Marinas/harbours, from anchoring and scouring action of moorings data Piers/jetties/pontoons mooring chains1,3,5  Encourage applications for Coast Slipways, Moorings Protection Act consent to take account of sensitive locations  Encourage mooring designs that limit scour, i.e. don’t use chain or use float to minimise chain dragging on seabed SECTOR INTERACTION WITH NATURAL & CULTURAL CURRENT MANAGEMENT FUTURE MANAGEMENT HERITAGE RECOMMENDATIONS Infrastructure & Potential impact on coastal and marine Planning consent, consultation with SNH,  Current measures sufficient Anchorages habitats and species and cultural heritage FEPA licence Marinas/harbours, sites from dredging and new Piers/jetties/pontoons developments e.g. marinas, piers, Slipways, Moorings slipways1,5 Cables & Pipelines Disturbance of sensitive seabed habitats Strategic Environmental Assessment/  Current measures sufficient Electricity & Telecoms and cultural heritage sites during laying of Environmental Impact Assessment, FEPA new cables and piplelines4 licence (advertised and SNH consultee) Natural environment Mink populations impact ground nesting Mink trapping by Clive Craik (SAMS) and  More funding assistance required to Intertidal, Sea bed birds including SPA species5 Mull & Iona Ranger Service & volunteers, encourage continued participation Bird areas, Mobile species Sunart Sunart Oakwoods Initiative (SOI) (e.g. bounty) and to purchase lure and Coastal habitats, 2008-2009 mainly around Loch Sunart guns. Landscape/seascape and Loch Sheil

Potential disturbance to coastal habitats Mull & Iona Ranger Service  Discussion with SNH/Historic Scotland and species at historic sites from visitor if impacts noted so informal pressure1 management (e.g. signage, paths) can be considered  Improved parking areas, viewpoints, interpretation Potential impact on biodiversity interests if Pre-application consultation on  Current measures sufficient development relocated on other natural developments, SNH consultation - heritage grounds, e.g. relocation of new consider all natural heritage features and aquaculture development based on net benefit of natural heritage considered landscape/seascape results in increased risk of predator interaction e.g. aquaculture relocation programme 1 Cultural Heritage Current wreck sites act as artificial reefs Some biodiversity survey work of wreck  Promotion of visiting divers Coastal monuments & and can increase species diversity in an sites undertaken through the SeaSearch monitoring the conditions of wreck archaeology, Marine area by providing an alternative structure1 project in association with the Sound of sites and associated communities Mull Archaeological Project (SOMAP) archaeology through SOMAP and SeaSearch SECTOR INTERACTION WITH NATURAL & CULTURAL CURRENT MANAGEMENT FUTURE MANAGEMENT HERITAGE RECOMMENDATIONS Cultural Heritage Some risk of pollution from industrial- The condition of protected wreck sites  Promotion of visiting divers Coastal monuments & period wrecks as their condition and scheduled monuments on the coast monitoring the conditions of wreck 5 archaeology, Marine deteriorates edge is monitored by Historic Scotland; sites through SOMAP and SeaSearch Any pollution risk from large metal archaeology wrecks in the SOM likely to be identified by recreational divers

Water quality & Waste Management of water quality is beneficial SEPA CAR consent, Water Environment  Current measures sufficient Biological/bacterial/ for the natural environment - discharges of and Water Services Scotland Act 2003 & chemical quality, Trade effluent can involve eutrophication and Environment and Water Services Scotland effluent, Sewage toxins that could affect habitats and Act 2003, Scottish Water, River Basin effluent, Litter species1 Planning – deals with non-statutory too e.g. agriculture, forestry, non-consented run off Litter causes problems through Keep Scotland Beautiful & Marine  More active involvement from local entanglement and ingestion by marine and Conservation Society Campaigns, The communities and businesses in the coastal species, deteriorates the aesthesis GRAB Trust Beaches & Marine Litter GRAB Trust Beaches and Litter Project of coastal archaeological sites5 Project, National Aquatic Litter Group, – could help coordinate beach cleans and surveys of litter hotspots e.g. KIMO, HWDT log marine litter Ardmore Point, assist schools currently doing beach cleans in recording what they are collecting  An improvement of preventive / legislative measures to reduce litter / pollution at source.  Survey to identify the different waste streams of marine litter to focus on reduction at source – although hard to know source because of currents SECTOR INTERACTION WITH NATURAL & CULTURAL CURRENT MANAGEMENT FUTURE MANAGEMENT HERITAGE RECOMMENDATIONS Recreation Management of areas for habitats and Consultation on new designations  Not felt to be an issue in SOM – all Sailing, power boats, jet species beneficial to recreation as long as designated sites terrestrial and skiis, kayaking, sailing, unnecessary restrictions are not placed on therefore not really beneficial to sea angling, diving navigation or access1 marine recreation  Current measures sufficient Potential for disturbance to marine and Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code,  Current measures sufficient combined coastal wildlife from behaviour of those British Sub-aqua Club Dive Code of with vigilance of locals 1,3,5 undertaking recreational activities Conduct, Scottish Canoe Association code  Encouraging commercial operators to of conduct, MCA codes of practice, follow and promote codes of conduct  Potential to develop leaflet on best Scottish Outdoor Access Code, Mull & places and times of year to see Iona Ranger Service, Mull Eagle Watch, wildlife including sensitivities and The Green Blue guidance on how to behave Potential for disturbance and damage to Site maintenance by estate/Historic  If site deterioration discuss coastal and marine archaeological sites Scotland, Protected Wrecks visitor management with SNH/Historic from certain recreation activities e.g. licence, Listed buildings, Mull & Iona Scotland e.g. paths/ signage diving1,5 Ranger Service, British Sub-aqua Club  More interpretative areas with parking Dive Code of Conduct, Respect our  Installation of mooring blocks on Wrecks Code of Practice, Scottish popular wreck sites to reduce impact Outdoor Access Code of shot lines and ease wreck access.  Encouraging commercial operators to follow and promote existing codes of conduct  Scottish Outdoor Access Code – the impact of core paths on cultural features should be considered Introduction of non-native species and  Promote cleaning of equipment and pathogens through anglers, awareness through relevant canoeists/kayakers, divers not cleaning kit associations properly when moving between locations5 SECTOR INTERACTION WITH NATURAL & CULTURAL CURRENT MANAGEMENT FUTURE MANAGEMENT HERITAGE RECOMMENDATIONS Tourism Potential for disturbance to marine and Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code,  Not felt to be an issue in SOM apart Wildlife/Scenic Tours coastal wildlife from individual visitors and Wild Scotland Best Practice Guidelines, from instances such as otter road kills. tours, e.g. Salen – otter road kills 1,5 Scottish Outdoor Access Code, Mull &  Current measures sufficient combined Iona Ranger Service, Mull Eagle Watch with local vigilance and local operators who are responsible and follow current guidance  Potential to develop leaflet on best places and times of year to see wildlife including sensitivities and guidance on how to behave  Install ‘Wildlife – SLOW’ road sign at Salen with layby if possible  Encouraging commercial operators to follow and promote codes of conduct  More interpretative areas with parking  Scottish Outdoor Access Code – should consider the impact of core paths on natural features Potential for disturbance and damage to Site maintenance by estate/Historic  If site deterioration discuss coastal and marine archaeological sites Scotland, Protected Wrecks visitor licence, management with SNH/Historic from individual visitors and tours e.g. Listed buildings, Mull & Iona Ranger Scotland e.g. paths/ signage erosion, removal of artefacts, litter1,5 Service, Scottish Outdoor Access Code  More interpretative areas with parking  Scottish Outdoor Access Code – should consider the impact of core paths on cultural features

SECTOR INTERACTION WITH NATURAL & CULTURAL CURRENT MANAGEMENT FUTURE MANAGEMENT HERITAGE RECOMMENDATIONS MOD Use of sonar by naval vessels may affect  National/International research into Diving, Submarine cetaceans1,5 sonar effects required to inform exercise areas management Marine Renewable Potential during construction/ operation/ Strategic Environmental Assessment/  Current measures sufficient Energy decommissioning to affect Environmental Impact Assessment species/habitats via change in sediment Pre-application scoping load, loss of substratum, change in 1 Source: SSMEI Clyde Pilot Sectoral Interactions in the Firth of Clyde 2 Source: GIS maps for Sound of Mull 3 Source: ICZM Loch Fyne Plan-Draft 4 Source: Project officer 5 Source: Discussions with local stakeholders, subgroups and working group