DOCSLIB.ORG

JNCC's Advice on Scientific Questions Raised in Relation to Offshore Waters

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JNCC's Advice on Scientific Questions Raised in Relation to Offshore Waters JNCC Report No. 518 JNCC’s advice on scientific questions raised in relation to offshore waters during the 2013 Marine Scotland consultation on Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) May 2014 © JNCC, Peterborough 2014 ISSN 0963 8901 For further information please contact: Joint Nature Conservation Committee Monkstone House City Road Peterborough PE1 1JY www.jncc.defra.gov.uk This report should be cited as: JNCC. 2014. JNCC’s advice on selected responses to the 2013 Marine Scotland consultation on Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). JNCC, Peterborough. JNCC Report, No. 518 Summary Over the summer of 2013, the Scottish Government undertook a public consultation on possible Nature Conservation MPAs (pMPAs), alongside parallel consultations on the draft National Marine Plan, Priority Marine Features (PMFs) and draft sectoral plans for offshore renewable energy1. Marine Scotland sought JNCC’s advice on some broad scientific issues raised in their consultation responses, and site specific advice in response to questions on pMPAs located within Scotland’s offshore waters. Our advice only focuses on matters raised during the consultation that were of a scientific nature, and does not respond to legislative and policy interpretation issues, or questions relating to policy for MPA management. 1 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/marine-consultation 3 Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6 1.1. Consultation responses .............................................................................................. 6 1.2. Marine Scotland’s request for JNCC advice on consultation responses ...................... 6 1.3. Review of site advice for offshore pMPAs ................................................................... 7 2. General responses and JNCC’s feedback ...................................................................... 8 2.1. Replication and representation ................................................................................... 8 2.2. Contribution to an ecologically coherent network ........................................................ 9 2.3. MPA Search Features .............................................................................................. 12 2.4. Wider representivity .................................................................................................. 14 2.5. Burrowed mud in Scottish waters ............................................................................. 15 2.6. Seabirds in the network ............................................................................................ 19 2.7. Marine mammals in the network ............................................................................... 19 2.8. Evidence principles ................................................................................................... 20 2.9. Boundary setting principles ....................................................................................... 23 2.10. Conservation objectives .......................................................................................... 25 2.11. Evidence of impact of activities ............................................................................... 26 2.12. Broader ecosystem function and ecological processes in the network .................... 27 2.13. Approach to management ...................................................................................... 28 2.13.1 General approach to management .................................................................... 28 2.13.2 Fisheries Management ...................................................................................... 30 2.13.3 Management of licensed activities ..................................................................... 30 2.13.4 Military Activity .................................................................................................. 32 2.14. Survey and monitoring ............................................................................................ 32 2.15. Connectivity ............................................................................................................ 33 3. Site specific responses ................................................................................................ 35 3.1. Fladen Ground pMPAs ............................................................................................. 35 3.2. East of Gannet and Montrose Fields ......................................................................... 37 3.3. Northern North Sea pMPAs ...................................................................................... 38 3.3.1 Firth of Forth Banks Complex .............................................................................. 39 3.3.2. Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain ................................................................. 40 3.3.3. Turbot Bank ....................................................................................................... 40 3.4. Faroe Shetland Channel pMPAs .............................................................................. 42 3.5. Hatton-Rockall Basin ................................................................................................ 45 3.6. Hebridean slope pMPAs ........................................................................................... 46 4 3.6.1 Geikie Slide and Hebridean Slope ....................................................................... 46 3.6.2 South-west Sula Sgeir and Hebridean Slope ....................................................... 47 3.6.3 The Barra Fan and Hebrides Terrace Seamount ................................................. 47 3.7. North-west Orkney .................................................................................................... 49 3.8. Rosemary Bank Seamount ....................................................................................... 51 3.9. West Shetland Shelf ................................................................................................. 52 4. Conclusion and next steps ........................................................................................... 53 5. References .................................................................................................................. 54 5 1. Introduction The Scottish Government launched a formal public consultation on possible Nature Conservation MPAs on 25 July 2013, alongside parallel consultations on the draft National Marine Plan, Priority Marine Features (PMFs) and draft sectoral plans for offshore renewable energy2. The 16-week consultation period ended on 13 November 2013. Marine Scotland took forward a comprehensive programme of consultation events and publicity opportunities, combined under the banner of ‘Planning Scotland’s Seas’. Fifty-six public consultation events took place around Scotland between 19 August and 30 October 2013. Coordinated by Marine Scotland, the event series included a number of JNCC and/or Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) led MPA drop-in sessions, and provided the opportunity for sea users and members of the public to find out about Nature Conservation MPAs. JNCC staff attended 14 of the events. Respondents were invited to submit their opinions regarding the scientific case for designation, possible management options, the potential socio-economic impacts (based on Marine Scotland’s sustainability appraisal), and the ecological coherence of the resultant network. 1.1 Consultation responses The MPA part of the ‘Planning Scotland’s Seas’ consultation generated the most responses, with over 14,000 responses submitted. The majority of the responses came from Non- Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and community group led campaigns supporting the overall concept or specific local proposals respectively, although some called for more areas and features to be added to the network. Notwithstanding the campaign responses, Marine Scotland received 332 MPA related responses, of which 216 came from individuals and 116 from organisations. Those responses that could be made public were uploaded to the Scottish Government publications web pages3 on 23 December 2013. Responses to the consultation covered a broad range of topics, from more general comments on the MPA network and site selection process, through to more site specific comments on both inshore and offshore sites. The full spectrum of positions was voiced within the responses, from respondents calling for more MPAs for a greater number of features, through to those who did not support the need for MPAs. Several responses made general comments regarding the boundaries of offshore pMPAs, with two respondents including in their submission revised boundary proposals for a limited number of pMPAs. 1.2 Marine Scotland’s request for JNCC advice on consultation responses Marine Scotland officials undertook a preliminary review of the responses and at the end of December 2013 formally requested that JNCC consider specific scientific and evidential aspects of 40 responses. This report provides JNCC’s scientific advice to Marine Scotland on broad issues raised in these 40 consultation responses (Section 2), as well as our site specific advice in response 2 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/marine-consultation 3 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/12/5987 6 to questions on pMPAs located within Scotland’s offshore waters (Section 3). Our responses to the broader
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assessment of the Ecological Coherence of the UK's Marine
    Assessment of the ecological coherence of the UK’s marine protected area network A report prepared for the Joint Links Louise Lieberknecht, Tom Mullier, Jeff Ardron June 2014 About this report This report was prepared for the Joint Links by Louise Lieberknecht (GoBe Consultants Ltd.), Tom Mullier (Marine Mapping Ltd.), and Jeff Ardron (PacMARA) in fulfilment of a contract to assess the ecological coherence of the UK’s MPA network, identify gaps in the network, and provide pragmatic recommendations for moving towards a more ecologically coherent MPA network in the UK. The report presents the key results of a series of spatial ecological coherence tests, and is presented alongside an accompanying Excel document containing detailed outputs and a series of PowerPoint slides summarising key findings. Suggested citation: Lieberknecht, L. M., Mullier, T. W., and Ardron, J. A. (2014) Assessment of the ecological coherence of the UK’s marine protected area network. A report prepared for the Joint Links. Acknowledgements Several people and organisations helpfully supplied information and spatial data used in this analysis. Amy Ridgeway and Mark Lewis from the JNCC supplied information on the JNCC’s on-going gap analysis for the MPA network in English and offshore Welsh waters, as well as the European Seabirds at Sea database. Ian Saunders at Natural England kindly shared database extraction tools to aid with the extraction of relevant data from the Marine Recorder database. Peter Miller at Plymouth Marine Laboratory provided seasonal thermal front data. Feedback, information and advice from the Joint Links project Steering Group helped to shape the analysis and report, and are gratefully acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Herring Larvae in the Northern North Sea, Changes in Recent Years
    THE DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF HERRING LARVAE IN THE NORTHERN NORTH SEA, CHANGES IN RECENT YEARS By A. S a v il l e Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen, Scotland ln 1951 the Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen, began a water column through which the sampler fished. For regular programme to investigate the distribution and the earlier material, taken with a 1 metre silk net, the abundance of autumn spawned herring larvae in the sample numbers were also converted to this basis using north-western North Sea. It was decided to sample the the conversion factors from 1 metre to Gulf III calcu­ area from 56°00' N to 59°45' N and from the Scottish lated from the large number of paired hauls made coast to the prime meridian as this would cover all of with the two gears in 1957. the known major spawning areas within Scottish The numbers of larvae in the sampled area on each waters (W o od 1930, C la rk 1933). This programme cruise were calculated by contouring at levels of 1, 5, has been carried out every year from 1951 to 1967 10, 50, 250 and 1 000 larvae per square metre, meas­ with the exception of 1956. Due to interruptions by uring the area in square metres within each contour, bad weather and by ships defects the intensity of raising these areas by the appropriate contour level and sampling and the proportion of the total area sampled summing the values so obtained. has varied somewhat from year to year. Part of the In the area under consideration hatching of herring material has already been presented in a paper to the larvae begins about the middle of August and continues Pelagic Fish (Northern) Committee of ICES.
    [Show full text]
  • General Orkney Fisheries Association Represents 51 Vessel Owners and 2
    General Orkney Fisheries Association represents 51 vessel owners and 2 Shellfish processors . The Association is tasked with protecting the interests of its members and the wider industry as it impacts on our members. OFA welcome the opportunity to respond to the Consultation on prospective Marine Protected Areas. OFA have been involved in the series of workshops instigated by Marine Scotland in the gestation of the pMPA process. OFA must reflect the view of its members that the p MPA designations are not viewed with simple acceptance by fishermen as a development that will benefit them, but have been willing throughout the process to adopt the view that if pMPAs do not restrict current fishing then it would not be reasonable to oppose them per se. OFA find the position complex as in some respects and through pursuit of their own interests, it may mean that designation might limit their direct competitors, however it may also open up unwanted potential for future unwanted restrictions on themselves. Notwithstanding the above OFA members are deeply sceptical given the history of land designations for SPAs and SSSIs which have resulted in the unscientific development of management measures often via the single interest objectives of NGOs which have resulted in the misalignment of species to the detriment of other species and limited the economic viability of legitimate human economic activity. We cite the increase in the Skua population in Hoy Orkney as an instance of management that has caused the predatory depletion of smaller birds as well as restrictions on animal grazing which has similarly caused unforeseen consequences in the available food sources to other species.
    [Show full text]
  • Variability of UK Marine Resources
    Variability of UK marine resources An assessment of the variability characteristics of the UK’s wave and tidal current power resources and their implications for large scale development scenarios Commissioned by The Carbon Trust Produced by the Environmental Change Institute July 2005 This report has been prepared by the Environmental Change Institute solely for use by the Carbon Trust by whom it was commissioned. It is not addressed to and may not be relied upon by any person or entity other than the Carbon Trust without the prior written permission of both the Carbon Trust and the Environmental Change Institute. In producing this report, the Environmental Change Institute has relied upon information provided by third parties. Neither the Carbon Trust nor the Environmental Change Institute nor their respective directors, employees or affiliated companies give any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness or fairness of the contents of the report, nor accept any responsibility or liability for any loss, whether direct, indirect or consequential, arising from reliance on it. Any use of this report by any third party for whatever purpose is solely the responsibility of that party who should use such due diligence to verify the report's contents and consult its own advisers as may be appropriate. The Carbon Trust does not give investment advice and nothing in this report constitutes, or should be taken as, a recommendation to enter into, or the giving of any advice in relation to, any investment. This report may be copied and distributed only with the consent of the Carbon Trust.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Statement for the Bacchus Development
    APACHE NORTH SEA LIMITED Bacchus Production Increase Environmental Statement BEIS Project Reference: D/4256/2020 July 2020 Environmental Statement Apache North Sea Limited Bacchus Production Increase July 2020 This page is intentionally blank Environmental Statement Apache North Sea Limited Bacchus Production Increase July 2020 STANDARD INFORMATION SHEET Project name Bacchus Production Increase Project reference D/4256/2020 number Type of project Production increase Undertaker name Apache North Sea Limited Undertaker address Caledonia House Prime Four Business Park Kingswells Causeway, Aberdeen AB15 8PU Short description The assessment of the environmental impacts from an increase in production from the Bacchus Field in excess of 500 tonnes of oil per day over the current consent threshold, and the drilling of a new infill well. Dates Anticipated Q4 2020 commencement of works Date and reference D/4066/2009; December 2009 number of any earlier Statement related to this project Significant None environmental impacts identified Statement prepared Apache North Sea Limited by Hartley Anderson Limited Environmental Statement Apache North Sea Limited Bacchus Production Increase July 2020 This page is intentionally blank Environmental Statement Apache North Sea Limited Bacchus Production Increase July 2020 CONTENTS Glossary and Abbreviations ........................................................................................ i Non-Technical Summary ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Protected Areas and Large-Scale Features. Position Paper
    Marine Protected Areas and Large-Scale Features. Position paper Summary This document considers the role of large-scale features in developing the Marine Protected Area (MPA) network in Scotland’s seas. It describes each of the large-scale features, outlines the approach to their inclusion in the process, and considers the possible MPAs and MPA search locations which contain these features in relation to the evidence available. Five large-scale features are included on the list of MPA search features: seamounts; continental slope; shelf deeps; shelf banks and mounds; and fronts. These features have been included to represent areas of potential wider significance to the overall health and biodiversity of Scotland’s seas in the development of the MPA network. Specific examples of large-scale features have only been included in possible MPAs and MPA search locations where evidence is available to suggest that they contribute to ecosystem function, for instance in terms of playing a key supporting role within the site or more widely; or providing functional links within the site; or in supporting linkages within the network and wider seas. It is anticipated that MPAs may be able to provide direct protection for large-scale features through management of pressures that have implications for their extent, structure and distribution within the site and thereby their wider function. Draft conservation objectives are to ‘conserve’ the function of large scale features included as protected features. In total 13 areas (10 possible MPAs and 3 MPA search locations) have been identified for large-scale features, where evidence is available to suggest they play a role in supporting ecological function.
    [Show full text]
  • Offshore Seabed Survey of Turbot Bank Possible MPA
    JNCC/Cefas Partnership Report Series Report No. 20 Offshore seabed survey of Turbot Bank possible MPA Eggleton, J., Diesing, M. & Schinaia, S. July 2019 © JNCC, Cefas 2019 ISSN 2051-6711 Offshore seabed survey of Turbot Bank possible MPA Eggleton, J., Diesing, M. & Schinaia, S. Report completed 2013 and published July 2019 © JNCC, Cefas, 2019 ISSN 2051-6711 For further information, please contact: Joint Nature Conservation Committee Monkstone House City Road Peterborough PE1 1JY http://jncc.defra.gov.uk This report is compliant with the JNCC Evidence Quality Assurance Policy http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=6675 and has been reviewed by Cefas and JNCC prior to publication. This report should be cited as: Eggleton, J., Diesing, M. & Schinaia, S. 2019. Offshore seabed survey of Turbot Bank possible MPA. JNCC/Cefas Partnership Report No. 20. JNCC, Peterborough, ISSN 2051- 6711. Summary This report presents the findings from analyses of the acoustic data and groundtruth samples gathered during the seabed survey of the Turbot Bank possible Marine Protected Area (pMPA). Turbot Bank lies within a coarse sandy sediment plain to the east of Scotland, approximately 65km east of Peterhead on the Aberdeenshire coast, south of the Fladen Ground, and comprises a shelf bank and mound feature. The report describes the presence, location and extent of broadscale habitats, biotopes and Scottish Marine Protected Area (SMPA) Priority Marine Features within the Turbot Bank pMPA. Full coverage multibeam echosounder data (bathymetry and backscatter) collected under the Civil Hydrography Programme were available for the western half of Turbot Bank pMPA. During a dedicated survey in December 2012, new acoustic data were collected in the eastern part of the bank.
    [Show full text]
  • Association of Salmon Fishery Boards Comments on the Consultation on Possible Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas November 2013
    Association of Salmon Fishery Boards Comments on the Consultation on Possible Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas November 2013 Introduction The Association of Salmon Fishery Boards is the representative body for Scotland's 41 District Salmon Fishery Boards (DSFBs) including the River Tweed Commission (RTC), which have a statutory responsibility to protect and improve salmon and sea trout fisheries. The Association and Boards work to create the environment in which sustainable fisheries for salmon and sea trout can be enjoyed. Conservation of fish stocks, and the habitats on which they depend, is essential and many DSFB’s operate riparian habitat enhancement schemes and have voluntarily adopted ‘catch and release’ practices, which in some cases are made mandatory by the introduction of Salmon Conservation Regulations. ASFB creates policies that seek where possible to protect wider biodiversity and our environment as well as enhancing the economic benefits for our rural economy that result from angling. An analysis completed in 2004 demonstrated that freshwater angling in Scotland results in the Scottish economy producing over £100 million worth of annual output, which supports around 2,800 jobs and generates nearly £50million in wages and self-employment into Scottish households, most of which are in rural areas. General comments We welcome the opportunity to comment on this consultation. ASFB believe that an ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas with an aim of protecting and enhancing Scotland’s marine environment is extremely important. Whilst we recognise that none of the proposed MPAs will be specifically designated for Atlantic salmon or sea trout, we believe that there will be additional benefits to these species during the marine phase of their life cycle.
    [Show full text]
  • Connectivity Among Marine Protected Areas, Particularly Valuable and Vulnerable Areas in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas Regions 2
    Connectivity among marine protected areas, particularly valuable and vulnerable areas in the greater North Sea and Celtic Seas regions 2 Introduction to the connectivity study The NorthSEE project is focusing on transnational coordination between plans and planning processes in the North Sea Region on three main topics: Energy, Shipping and Environment. For the environmental strand the partners have been researching the designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and other marine conservation measures, as well as the application of the Ecosystem Based Approach (EBA) in the planning processes. This report is part of WP3 environment and deals with the connectivity of MPAs in the North Sea. The reasons for this is that the North Sea ecosystem is interlinked and does not respect land borders. In MSP, it is important to understand the way in which a marine conservation site is relevant to areas elsewhere, and what significance different sites may have for the ecosystem as a whole. Another incentive for analyzing the ecological coherence, is that the OSPAR Recommendation 2003/31, amended by OSPAR Recommendation 2010/2, on a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) sets out the goal of OSPAR Contracting Parties (CPs) to continue the establishment of the OSPAR Network of MPAs in the North-East Atlantic. In the status report of 2016, OSPAR identified the need to using case-studies of connectivity to illustrate how the use of life-history traits information in combination with oceanographic modelling products can improve confidence in MPA network connectivity assessments. This study meets the need described by OSPAR. In order to have a better understanding of ecological relationships and conditions, the connectivity between all marine protected areas (MPAs) and particularly valuable and vulnerable areas (as part of the Norwegian Management Plans), have been analyzed.
    [Show full text]
  • For Peer Review
    Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Early and Middle Pleistocene environments, landforms and sediments in Scotland Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Journal: Edinburgh Manuscript ID TRE-2017-0031.R1 Manuscript Type: The Quaternary of Scotland Date Submitted by the Author: n/a Complete List of Authors: Hall, Adrian; Stockholms Universitet, Department of Physical Geography Merritt, Jon; British Geological Survey - Edinburgh Office, Lyell Centre ForConnell, Peer Rodger; University Review of Hull, Geography, Environment and Earth Science Scotland, erosion, stratigraphy, Early Pleistocene, Middle Pleistocene, Keywords: weathering, landform Cambridge University Press Page 1 of 83 Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Early and Middle Pleistocene environments, landforms and sediments in Scotland Adrian M. Hall1, Jon W. Merritt2 and E. Rodger Connell3 1 Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden. 2The Lyell Centre, British Geological Survey, Research Avenue South, Edinburgh EH14 4AP, UK. 3Geology, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK. Running head abbreviation: Early Middle Pleistocene Scotland For Peer Review 1 Cambridge University Press Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Page 2 of 83 ABSTRACT: This paper reviews the changing environments, developing landforms and terrestrial stratigraphy during the Early and Middle Pleistocene stages in Scotland. Cold stages after 2.7 Ma brought mountain ice caps and lowland permafrost, but larger ice sheets were short-lived. The late Early and Middle Pleistocene sedimentary record found offshore indicates more than 10 advances of ice sheets from Scotland into the North Sea but only 4-5 advances have been identified from the terrestrial stratigraphy.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastlines Are Reproduced Using GEBCO Digital Atlas, Centenary Edition 2003
    Subsea Cables UK is an industry organisation with the aim of promoting marine safety, safeguarding submarine cables and encouraging excellent practice within the industry. Subsea Cables UK does not broadly differentiate between the Communications, Power and Renewable industry cables as their impact on other seabed stakeholders is so similar. Subsea Cables UK is interested in any cables which land or pass through UK waters including the Exclusive Economic Zone. SOUTH WEST APPROACHES Kingfisher Awareness Chart Kilmore! New Quay! 13°W 30' 12°W 30' 11°W 30' 10°W 30' IRELAN9D°! W 30' 8°W 30' 7°W 30' 6°W 30' 5°W 30' 4°W 30' 3°W C U ! E K L - T I ! I R 52°N C 52°N E Fishguard ( L O A Cork O N REPUBLIC OF IRELAND ! S D ) Saltees Ground + C ! 4 R St. David's 4 O ( 0 S ) S ¥ 8 WALES 4 I ! 5 N 7 G 5 5 2 5 9 + 9 4 Kinsale 9 4 Milford! Haven ! ( 0 ) 2 0 8 Swansea 5 ! Ballycotton Ground 1 Dursey Island ! 0 Turbot Bank 3 1 Our aim is to optimise coexistence and minimise any hazards 1 Oxwich 9 ! P NYMPHE 0 T 520 + A 7 674 30' 4 T 0)20 ! 30' 4 +44( ( IR S Cardiff 0 OLA ) I S 2 S Marine Safety 0 H 7 B Kinsale Head Grounds 6 R S 7 W 4 A BANK 5 N AN 2 C S 0 H E 0 00 The Smalls Ground A/ 452 BR 7 67 EA (0)20 N +4 +44 4(0 ) 0 g 2 207 67452 0 H Se 5200 RT 674 U + O 7 K I N )20 AL (0 G 4 - N 44 U I I + T 4 R M AT OR E T P ( E E P - S K 0 G U L ! E ) P A A O 2 N Lundy Island UR 98 T .E 2 0 6 D W 6 8 A 2 1 T 9 TA 8 C 00 + 5 54 08 R 1 06 0 4 caused by the installation or presence of submarine cables to other sea bed users.
    [Show full text]
  • Environment Baseline Report Scottish Sustainable Marine Environment Initiative
    State of the Clyde Environment Baseline Report Scottish Sustainable Marine Environment Initiative SSMEI Clyde Pilot State of the Clyde Environment Baseline Report March 2009 D Ross K Thompson J E Donnelly Contents 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1 2 THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT..............................................................................3 2.1 GEOLOGY....................................................................................................................3 2.2 THE SEALOCHS ...........................................................................................................6 2.3 THE ESTUARIES ..........................................................................................................9 2.4 THE INNER FIRTH......................................................................................................12 2.5 THE OUTER FIRTH ....................................................................................................14 2.6 COASTAL FLOODING .................................................................................................18 3 CLEAN AND SAFE SEAS............................................................................................19 3.1 THE CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................19 3.1.1 Dissolved Oxygen.............................................................................................19 3.1.2 Nutrients...........................................................................................................22
    [Show full text]