Natura Impact Statement for the Port of ’s proposed Dredging and Disposal Programme

Produced by

AQUAFACT International Services Ltd

On behalf of

Port of Waterford

Issued November 2017

AQUAFACT INTERNATIONAL SERVICES Ltd., 12 KILKERRIN PARK, LIOSBAUN, TUAM RD., GALWAY. www.aquafact.ie [email protected] tel +353 (0) 91 756812 fax +353 (0) 91 756888

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1. Background ...... 1 1.2. Requirement for an Article 6 Assessment ...... 1 1.3. The Aim of this Report ...... 2

2. Appropriate Assessment Process 3

2.1. Introduction ...... 3 2.2. Stages ...... 4 2.2.1. Stage 1. Screening for Appropriate Assessment ...... 5 2.2.2. Stage 2. Appropriate Assessment ...... 5 2.2.3. Stage 3. Alternative Solutions ...... 6 2.2.4. Stage 4. Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI)/Derogation ...... 6

3. Description of the Proposed Activity 6

4. Screening for Appropriate Assessment 16

5. Natura 2000 Sites 24

5.1. Designated Sites of Relevance in the Area ...... 24 5.2. Characteristics of the Relevant Designated Sites ...... 26 5.2.1. The Lower Suir cSAC (Site Code: IE002137) ...... 26 5.2.2. and cSAC (Site Code: IE002162) ...... 26 5.2.3. cSAC (Site Code: IE000764)...... 26 5.2.4. Saltee Islands cSAC (Site Code: IE000707) ...... 27 5.3. Conservation Objectives for the Relevant Natura 2000 Sites ...... 27 5.3.1. Lower (IE002137) ...... 28 5.3.2. River Barrow and River Nore cSAC (IE002162) ...... 32 5.3.3. Hook Head cSAC (IE000764) ...... 39 5.3.4. Saltee Islands cSAC (IE000707) ...... 40

6. Description of the Receiving Environment 41

6.1. Existing Ecological Conditions of the Natura 2000 Sites...... 41

7. Assessment of the Likely Effects 48

7.1. Dredging Activity ...... 48 7.1.1. Dredging Impact on Lower River Suir cSAC (Site Code: IE002137) ...... 54 7.1.2. Dredging Impact on River Barrow & River Nore cSAC (Site Code: IE002162) ...... 55 7.1.3. Dredging Impact on Hook Head cSAC (Site Code: IE000764) ...... 57 7.1.4. Dredging Impact on Saltee Islands cSAC (Site Code: IE000707) ...... 57

7.2. Disposal Activity ...... 59 7.2.1. Disposal Impact on Lower River Suir cSAC (Site Code: IE002137) ...... 61 7.2.2. Disposal Impact on River Barrow & River Nore cSAC (Site Code: IE002162) ...... 62 7.2.3. Disposal Impact on Hook Head cSAC (Site Code: IE000764) ...... 62 7.2.4. Disposal Impact on Saltee Islands cSAC (Site Code: IE000707) ...... 62 7.3. Dredging activity in combination with disposal ...... 64

8. Cumulative Impacts 64

9. Mitigation Measures 64

10. Residual Impacts 64

11. Summary 64

12. References 65

List of Figures

Figure 3.1: Locations of the primary and secondary dredge areas and the disposal site...... 11 Figure 4.1: Location of all Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity of the proposed dredging and disposal sites ...... 17 Figure 5.1: Location of the relevant Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity of the dredging and disposal sites...... 25 Figure 6.1: Saltmarsh and Salicornia habitats within the study area...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 6.2: Annex I habitats in the vicinity of the dredge and disposal areas (NPWS, 2011a, b)...... 45 Figure 6.3: Marine communities in the vicinity of the dredge and disposal areas (NPWS, 2011d, e)...... 46 Figure 7.1: Model predictions of sand dispersion from the dump site (sedimentation is in meters)...... 61

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Stages in the AA process (Source: DEHLG, 2009)...... 5 Table 3.1: Dredging volumes and anticipated schedule. Volumes are given in tonnes. Contingency is tonnes/year. .... 12 Table 3.2: Historical quantities and timings of loads dumped at sea 2006 -2016 (tonnes)...... 14 Table 4.1: Natura 2000 sites, Qualifying Interests, Potential Impacts and Screening Assessment. * indicates Priority Habitat/Species ...... 18 Table 5.1: Natura 2000 sites of relevance with distances to the dredging / disposal sites...... 24 Table 7.1: Impacts on qualifying interest of the Natura 2000 sites from dredging activities...... 58 Table 7.2: Impacts from the disposal of spoil on the qualifying interests of the Natura 2000 sites...... 63

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

The Port of Waterford Company is seeking permission from the Department of Environment, Community & Local Government (Foreshore Unit) to carry out a dredging regime within the port for the period 2018-2026. The Port is also seeking a Dumping at Sea Permit from the Environmental Protection Agency to dispose of the dredged material in an approved disposal site located c. 2.5km west of Hook Head and c. 2.8km southeast of within the Port’s limits. The Port of Waterford’s current dredging and disposal at sea regime is licensed by Permit No. S0012-02 and covers the period 2014 to 2021. The disposal site is currently licensed for the 2014-2021 campaign and it has also been licensed and used in the past (1996, 1999-2002, 2003-2007, 2008-2012) to dispose dredge material excavated from Waterford Port. This new license is being sought within the active license period as two areas of dredging require extending for navigational safety and some minor increase in disposal tonnages are requested.

1.2. Requirement for an Article 6 Assessment

The proposed dredge sites are located within two candidate Special Areas of Conservation (cSACs), namely the River Barrow and River Nore cSAC (Site Code: IE002162) and the Lower River Suir cSAC (Site Code: IE002137). The proposed disposal site, while not located within a Natura 2000 site is within c. 800m of a third cSAC (Hook Head, Site Code: IE000764). For these reasons, it is regarded as necessary that the proposal should have due regard to Article 6 (3) of the EU Habitats Directive1 which states:

Article 6 (3): Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the [Natura 2000] site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the [Natura 2000] site in view of the [Natura 2000] site’s conservation objectives. This is transposed into national legislation by Regulation 31 of the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997.

1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

1 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

1.3. The Aim of this Report

This Natura Impact Statement (NIS) has been prepared in accordance with the current guidance (DEHLG, 2009, Revised February 2010) and provides an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) for the proposed dredging operations. The NIS provides the information required in order to establish whether or not the proposed dredging activity and the proposed disposal activity, both alone and in combination, is likely to have a significant impact on the nearby Natura 2000 sites in the context of its conservation objectives and specifically on the habitats and species for which the site has been designated.

By taking the ecological impact assessment in a step by step manner in relation to the habitats and species of the Natura sites, together with their conservation objectives, this report seeks to inform the screening process required as the first stage of the process pursuant to Article 6.3 of the EU Habitats Directive and also to provide full and detailed information as required for the second stage, that of Appropriate Assessment, should the competent authority decide that such an assessment is required.

As cetaceans are listed under Annex IV (including those in Annex II) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC, it is an offence under Section 51 of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011, S.I. No. 477 of 2011 to deliberately capture, disturb or kill a cetacean or take actions that result in deterioration or destruction of their breeding sites or resting places. Furthermore, all marine mammals are protected wild animals under the Fifth Schedule of the Wildlife Act (39 of 1976) and Amendments. Under section 23 (as amended in 2000), it is an offence to wilfully interfere with or destroy the breeding place or resting place of any protected wild animal. In light of this, a Marine Mammal Risk Assessment has been prepared to accompany this report.

The report is laid out as follows: Section 2 outlines the Appropriate Assessment procedure. Section 3 describes the proposed dredging and disposal operations, Section 4 contains the Stage 1 Screening Assessment, Section 5 details the Natura 2000 sites of relevance, Section 6 details the baseline ecological environment, Section 7 assess the likely effects, Section 8 is the mitigation measures, Section 9 the residual impacts and Section 10 is the summary.

2 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

2. Appropriate Assessment Process

2.1. Introduction

There is a requirement, under Article 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC), to carry out an Appropriate Assessment. The first step of the Appropriate Assessment process is to establish whether, in relation to a particular plan or project, Appropriate Assessment is required. Article 6(3) states:

‘Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.’

If the Appropriate Assessment determines that a plan of project may adversely affect the integrity of a Natura 2000 site, then Article 6 (4) may come into play. Article 6 (4) states that:

‘If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the [Natura 2000] site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, Member States shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted’.

This NIS has been prepared in accordance with the following guidance documents:  Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in - Guidance for Planning Authorities (DEHLG 2009, Revised February 2010)  EU Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the 'Habitats Directive' 92/43/EEC (EC, 2007);  Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites. Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (EC, 2002); and  Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC (EC,

3 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

2000).

Should a decision be reached to the effect that it cannot be said with sufficient certainty that the proposed activity will not have any significant effect on the Natura 2000 sites, then, as is stated above, it is necessary and appropriate to carry out an appropriate assessment of the implications of the activity for the sites in view of their conservation objectives. The guidance for Appropriate Assessment (DEHLG, 2009, revised February 2010) states:

“AA is an impact assessment process that fits within the decision-making framework and tests of Articles 6(3) and 6(4) and, for the purposes of this guidance, it comprises two main elements. Firstly a Natura Impact Statement – i.e. a statement of the likely and possible impacts of the plan or project on a Natura 2000 site (abbreviated in the following guidance to “NIS”) must be prepared. This comprises a comprehensive ecological impact assessment of a plan or project; it examines the direct and indirect impacts that the plan or project might have on its own or in combination with other plans and projects, on one or more Natura 2000 sites in view of the sites’ conservation objectives. Secondly, the competent authority carries out the AA, based on the NIS and any other information it may consider necessary. The AA process encompasses all of the processes covered by Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, i.e. the screening process, the NIS, the AA by the competent authority, and the record of decisions made by the competent authority at each stage of the process, up to the point at which Article 6(4) may come into play following a determination that a plan or project may adversely affect the integrity of a Natura 2000 site”.

It is the responsibility of the competent authorities, in this instance the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Environmental Protection Agency, to make a decision as to whether or not the proposed dredging and disposal activities (alone and in combination) should be permitted, taking into consideration any potential impact upon the Natura 2000 sites in question.

2.2. Stages

It is stated within the EU guidelines that “where, without any detailed assessment at the screening stage, it can be assumed (because of the size or scale of the project or the characteristics of the Natura 2000 site) that significant effects are likely, it will be sufficient to move directly to the appropriate assessment (Stage Two) rather than complete the screening assessments explained below.”

4 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

The Commission’s methodological guidance (EC, 2002) promotes a four-stage process to complete the AA, and outlines the issues and tests at each stage. An important aspect of the process is that the outcome at each successive stage determines whether a further stage in the process is required.

The four stages are summarised diagrammatically in Figure 2.1 below.

Table 2.1: Stages in the AA process (Source: DEHLG, 2009).

2.2.1. Stage 1. Screening for Appropriate Assessment

Screening is the process that addresses and records the reasoning and conclusions in relation to the first two tests of Article 6(3): i. whether a plan or project is directly connected to or necessary for the management of the site, and ii. whether a plan or project, alone or in combination with other plans and projects, is likely to have significant effects on a Natura 2000 site in view of its conservation objectives. If the effects are deemed to be significant, potentially significant, or uncertain, or if the screening process becomes overly complicated, then the process must proceed to Stage 2 (AA). Screening should be undertaken without the inclusion of mitigation, unless potential impacts clearly can be avoided through the modification or redesign of the plan or project, in which case the screening process is repeated on the altered plan. The greatest level of evidence and justification is needed in circumstances where the process ends at the screening stage on grounds of no impact.

2.2.2. Stage 2. Appropriate Assessment

This stage considers whether the plan or project, alone or in combination with other projects or plans, will have an adverse effect on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site, and includes any mitigation measures necessary to avoid, reduce or offset negative effects. The proponent of the plan or project will be required to submit a Natura Impact Statement, i.e. the report of a targeted professional scientific examination of the plan or project and the relevant Natura 2000 sites, to identify and characterise any possible implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives, taking account of in combination effects. This should provide information to enable the competent authority to carry out the appropriate assessment. If the assessment is negative, i.e. adverse effects on the integrity of a site cannot be excluded, then the process

5 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

must proceed to Stage 4, or the plan or project should be abandoned. The AA is carried out by the competent authority, and is supported by the NIS.

2.2.3. Stage 3. Alternative Solutions

This stage examines any alternative solutions or options that could enable the plan or project to proceed without adverse effects on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site. The process must return to Stage 2 as alternatives will require appropriate assessment in order to proceed. Demonstrating that all reasonable alternatives have been considered and assessed, and that the least damaging option has been selected, is necessary to progress to Stage 4.

2.2.4. Stage 4. Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI)/Derogation

Stage 4 is the main derogation process of Article 6(4) which examines whether there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) for allowing a plan or project that will have adverse effects on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site to proceed in cases where it has been established that no less damaging alternative solution exists.

The extra protection measures for Annex I priority habitats come into effect when making the IROPI case2. Compensatory measures must be proposed and assessed. The Commission must be informed of the compensatory measures. Compensatory measures must be practical, implementable, likely to succeed, proportionate and enforceable, and they must be approved by the Minister.

3. Description of the Proposed Activity

In order to maintain chartered depths in , the Port of Waterford Company must carry out maintenance dredging at a number of sites throughout the harbour. The sand bars at and and the berths at Belview are the primary dredging areas and require dredging at least twice a year. As the purpose of the dredging is maintenance an EIA is not required - Schedule 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 – 2012: “Part 2, 2 (d) Extraction of stone, gravel, sand or clay by marine dredging (other than maintenance dredging), where the area involved would be greater than 5 hectares or, in the

2 IROPI reasons that may be raised for sites hosting priority habitats are those relating to human health, public safety or beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment. In the case of other IROPI, the opinion of the Commission is necessary and should be included in the AA 6 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

case of fluvial dredging (other than maintenance dredging), where the length of river involved would be greater than 500 metres”.

Figure 3.1 shows the locations of these primary dredge areas along with the 13 secondary dredge areas. The dredged material is disposed in a designated disposal site within the Port’s harbour limits. The disposal site can also be seen in Figure 3.1.

Due to the specific logistics of the Port of Waterford, a Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD) is the primary dredging method used to maintain the design depth of the navigational channels (6.5mBCD) and the outer accessible areas of the Port’s berths. The areas to be dredged will be identified regularly by hydrographic survey. To start the dredging operations, the TSHD will sail to the area to be dredged. Once in the vicinity of its dredging area, the TSHD will lower the drag head(s) to the bottom and dredging can commence. The centrifugal dredge pump, installed inside the dredger, takes up a mixture of water and soil through the drag head and suction pipe and pumps the mixture into its hopper. The soil will settle in the hopper and the water is discharged through an adjustable overflow system. When the draught of the vessel reaches the dredging loading mark or when circumstances do not allow for further loading, dredging will be ceased and the suction pipe hoisted on deck. The dredger will fill its hopper in each of the identified dredging areas as efficiently as possible.

Upon filling its hold, the dredger steams to the licensed disposal site and slows to approximately one to two knots. The dredger will then open bottom doors or split along its hull to allow the release of its contents over several minutes. During the disposal operation, the dredger is travelling at between one to two knots within the disposal area. Due to this, the material is placed over a substantial portion of the disposal site and ensures against accumulation of material within an isolated area (e.g. the centre of the disposal site). This process is repeated for each disposal operation with the master of the vessel referring to the previous disposal areas used within the on-board tracking system and selecting a new disposal area (within the licensed area) not previously used in that campaign. By using as much of the disposal site as possible any impacts from the disposal activity are minimised.

This process is continued until interim hydrographic surveys show that the required safe navigation depths required have been achieved and dredging can cease.

In conjunction with the TSHD, a plough dredger may also be used. Ploughing is a method of moving bottom sediments over short distances to level an irregular bed (normally left by a TSHD); to move sediment from a

7 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

location where it causes a restriction or obstruction; or to move sediment from an area that is inaccessible (such as a quay wall) to other larger dredging plants to a location where it can be accessed safely, dredged and removed. Sediment movement is achieved by towing a bottomless rectangular box shaped fabricated steel implement behind a powered vessel, usually a small workboat or tug. If used correctly, the plough is suspended at a controlled height from an A-frame mounted over the stern of the towing vessel. Height, or depth of submergence, is controlled by a deck mounted hoist winch. The cutting blade at the leading edge of the plough slices the surface sediment which is then contained within the sides and rear of the following plough until reaching an area where the bed level is lower than the suspended level of the plough, whereupon the contained sediment falls from the open bottom of the plough. The plough is then raised above the general seabed level and the towing vessel returns to the area from which sediment is to be moved and repeats the cycle. This method is commonly used in conjunction with a TSHD.

There is also the potential for utilisation of a mechanical dredger. As stated above the plough dredger is used in areas that the TSHD cannot access. However, in some instances the inaccessible material cannot be displaced by the plough dredger and an alternative item of plant is required. This is normally a mechanical dredger such as a grab or backhoe dredger. These dredgers use a bucket lowered to the seabed to excavate the targeted sediment material which is then raised to the surface. However, these dredgers do not have any means of transporting the dredged sediment so ‘hopper barges’ are required to be filled and transit to the licensed disposal site. The areas that may require the use of a mechanical dredger are limited to quay walls and berths where material has been compressed and has consolidated to a degree that it cannot be removed by the use of a plough dredger. This option is not favoured as it is significantly more expensive that the use of a TSHD/plough and it is only utilised when conditions dictate the standard processes are technically unfeasible.

The dredging programme of the Port of Waterford for the requested 8 year permit is set out below in Table 3.1. The dredge volumes include for an overdredge of approximately 0.5 metres to ensure that the advertised depth of the channel will be achieved. These quantities also take account of slopes to the sides of the channel.

Dredging will be carried out on an as required basis, with a degree of over-dredging to provide sedimentation capacity and maintain minimum depths. Quantities can vary considerably depending on the severity of weather conditions and river flow but the experience gained during the recent maintenance contracts at Duncannon and Cheekpoint has helped in predicting the quantities for the next eight years.

8 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

The contingency quantity is provided in order to allow for unpredictable future changes in weather patterns, which may cause a significant increased dredging requirement. Severe sedimentation has occurred in the past after a storm event and this contingency is included to ensure that the port can act immediately to reduce the build-up and allow trade to continue.

Table 3.2 shows the historical volumes (tonnes) disposed of at sea from 2006 to 2016. No change to these volumes or timings is envisioned for the proposed dredging plan. During each dredging programme, the dredger will work 24 hours a day with a dredging cycle lasting 4 hours, comprising of 1 hour dredging and 3 hours transit to and from the disposal site.

Sediment analysis of the dredge material based on 16 samples indicates that the dredge areas are dominated by sand (57%; of which c. 39% is very fine sand and 34% is fine sand) with c. 28% characterised as silt-clay (AQUAFACT, 2017). Chemical and radiological testing was also performed on these sediment samples and while no issues were identified, the final approval for suitability to dispose of at sea lies with the EPA (under advice from the Marine Institute).

The dredging regime will employ best-practice measures to minimise the release of suspended particulate matter within the water column by:  Maintaining a low speed during dredging;  Only utilising water jets when necessary to ensure adequate production;  Minimise the use of overflowing whenever possible;  Set a maximum density limit of 1.1t/m³ for automatic light mixture overboard and  Dredging will be undertaken as efficiently as possible so that the number of dredger movements in minimised.

The disposal regime will employ the following best practice measures:  Maintain an acceptable speed to ensure against losses during transit during inclement weather;  Division of the disposal site into sectors with each used in turn and  Ensure a low speed is maintained during disposal to disperse material over disposal area.

The above measures are standard best practice and serve to minimise any possible impacts on the environment.

9 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

The Port of Waterford operates a Port Pollution Plan which has been fully approved by the Irish Coast Guard and also all ships have their own pollution plans/insurance. Overflow from dredging is controlled by agreement with the EPA and terms of contract with the dredge company. In addition, County Council has a Coastal Pollution Response Plan and there is a South East Oil Pollution Forum working together towards emergency response. The Port of Waterford work to this.

The Port Authority is unaware of any existing or planned developments in the vicinity that would act in conjunction with the proposed dredging regime, but where required they prefer to work in conjunction with others in the area.

10 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Figure 3.1: Locations of the primary and secondary dredge areas and the disposal site.

11 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Table 3.1: Dredging volumes and anticipated schedule. Volumes are given in tonnes. Contingency is tonnes/year.

Dredge Area Name Method of Dredging 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Contingency Duncannon TSHD 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 1,800,000 75,000

Plough 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 40,000 15,000 Cheekpoint Lower TSHD 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 1,200,000 50,000

Plough 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 320,000 10,000 Belview Berths TSHD/Backhoe 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 200,000 25,000

Plough 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 80,000 10,000 Boathouse Quay Plough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,500 Cheekpoint Harbour Access Plough 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 80,000 0 Great Island Jetty TSHD/Backhoe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,000

Plough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 Cheekpoint Upper TSHD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30,000

Plough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 Belview Turning Area TSHD/Backhoe 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 80,000 25,000

Plough 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 8,000 5,000 O'Brien's Quay TSHD/Backhoe 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 40,000 10,000

Plough 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 20,000 2,500 Belview to O'Brien's Quay TSHD/Backhoe 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 40,000 15,000

Plough 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 20,000 2,500 Spit Light and Queen's Channel Plough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 Frank Cassin Wharf Plough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 North Wharf Plough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 Forde Wharf & Merchants Quay Marina Plough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000

12 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Dredge Area Name Method of Dredging 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Contingency Passage East Shoal TSHD/Backhoe 10,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 25,000

Plough 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 10,000 Creadan Bank TSHD 50,000 0 50,000 0 50,000 0 50,000 0 200,000 150,000

Plough 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 Total Disposed at offshore dumping site 480,000 425,000 470,000 420,000 470,000 420,000 470,000 420,000 430,000 Total Dumped by Plough Dredging 76,000 71,000 71,000 71,000 71,000 71,000 71,000 71,000 92,500

13 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Table 3.2: Historical quantities and timings of loads dumped at sea 2006 -2016 (tonnes).

Dates Cheekpoint Lower Belview Berths Duncannon Bar Great Island Power Station Total February 2016 13th - 27th 42,160 2,954 180,766 0 225,880 June - July 2016 23rd - 3rd 72,693 0 3,772 0 76,465 October 2016 21st - 29th 40,199 5,282 70,463 0 115,944 Total 2016 155,052 8,236 255,001 0 418,289 February 2015 2nd - 17th 40,163 0 96,134 0 136,297 June 2015 16th - 25th 67,256 0 75,007 0 142,263 October - November 2015 17th - 1st 71,501 11,457 65,511 0 148,469 Total 2015 178,920 11,457 236,652 0 427,029 February 2014 7th - 18th 38,682 0 51,485 0 90,167 March 2014 13th - 29th 0 0 140,760, 0 140,760 June - July 2014 26th - 3rd 47,875 0 0 0 47,875 September - October 2014 27th - 7th 65,258 0 0 0 65,258 Total 2014 151,815 0 192,245 0 344,060 February 2012 14th - 25th 32,317 0 52,583 5,371 90,271 August 2013 17th - 27th 41,560 0 8,782 0 50,342 Total 2013 73,877 0 61,365 5,371 140,613 February 2012 9th – 23rd 50,871 14,222 114,301 0 179,394 July 2012 30th – 8th 83,618 5,598 21,628 0 110,844 Total 2012 134,489 19,820 135,929 0 290,238 February 2011 9th – 24th 42,110 7,424 181,338 0 230,872 June 2011 22nd – 1st 20,000 0 0 0 20,000 Total 2011 62,110 7,424 181,338 0 250,872 February 2010 11th – 23rd 39,090 5,000 131,064 0 175,154 July 2010 18th – 21st 36,060 0 0 0 36,060 August 2010 14th – 17th 27,920 0 0 0 27,920 Total 2010 103,070 5,000 131,064 0 239,134 January 2009 8th – 14th 23,060 0 5,400 0 28,460 February 2009 17th – 24th 9,760 0 71,410 0 81,170 February 2009 5th – 17th 11,700 1,170 36,270 0 49,140

14 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Dates Cheekpoint Lower Belview Berths Duncannon Bar Great Island Power Station Total July 2009 2nd – 11th 16,965 1,755 10,530 1,170 30,420 August 2009 11th – 17th 12,110 0 60,059 0 72,169 Total 2009 73,595 2,925 183,669 1,170 261,359 February 2008 10th – 20th 18,880 5,200 80,430 0 104,510 July 2008 8th – 13th 29,50 1,750 11,380 0 42,630 September 2008 23rd – 29th 20,475 9,360 11,115 0 40,950 Total 2008 68,855 16,310 102,925 0 188,090 January/February 2007 28th – 4th 6,290 0 66,869 0 73,159 February 2007 21st – 27th 19,850 4,050 25,350 0 49,250 July 2007 2nd – 24th 22,232 4,680 69,032 0 95,944 November 2007 2nd – 19th 30,421 5,851 30,421 0 66,693 Total 2007 78,793 14,581 191,672 0 285,046 January 2006 5th – 12th 24,140 31,020 31,020 0 57,710 February 2006 18th – 28th 28,040 63,200 63,200 0 91,240 July 2006 10th – 16th 31,050 21,001 21,001 0 52,951 August/September 2006 31st – 2nd 17,290 0 0 0 18,840 October/November 2006 26th – 9th 45,850 74,650 74,650 0 134,921 Total 2006 146,370 189,871 189,871 0 355,662

15 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

4. Screening for Appropriate Assessment

This screening stage serves to identify only those Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity of the dredging and disposal areas that have qualifying interests which may be impacted upon by the proposed activity. Figure 4.1 shows the cSACs and SPAs in the area and Table 4.1 details the qualifying interests of each of the Natura 2000 sites, the potential impact (if any) upon them and the screening assessment for each qualifying interest. Those sites or individual qualifying interests that are screened out at this stage (primarily as a result of being non-marine/estuarine and/or being too great a distance away) are not assessed further in this Natura Impact Statement. Those sites / qualifying interests that are screened in for further Appropriate Assessment are highlighted in the Table 4.1.

16 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Figure 4.1: Location of all Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity of the proposed dredging and disposal sites

17 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Table 4.1: Natura 2000 sites, Qualifying Interests, Potential Impacts and Screening Assessment. * indicates Priority Habitat/Species

Natura 2000 Site Site Code Qualifying Interests Potential Impacts Screening Assessment Lower River Suir IE002137 1029 Freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out cSAC 1092 White‐clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out 1095 Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus Potential Interaction Screened In for AA 1096 Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out 1099 River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis Potential Interaction Screened In for AA 1103 Twaite shad Alosa fallax Potential Interaction Screened In for AA 1106 Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) (only in fresh water) Potential Interaction Screened In for AA 1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco‐Puccinellietalia maritimae) None -above High Water mark Screened Out for AA 1355 Otter Lutra lutra Potential Interaction Screened In for AA 1410 Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) None -above High Water mark Screened Out for AA 3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out Ranunculion fluitans and Callitricho‐Batrachion vegetation 6430 Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out the montane to alpine levels 91A0 Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out Isles 91E0 * Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out (Alno‐Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) *[91J0] Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out River Barrow & IE002162 1016 Desmoulin's whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out River Nore cSAC 1029 Freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out 1092 White‐clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out 1095 Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus Potential Interaction Screened In for AA 1096 Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out 1099 River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis Potential Interaction Screened In for AA

1103 Twaite shad Alosa fallax Potential Interaction Screened In for AA

18 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Natura 2000 Site Site Code Qualifying Interests Potential Impacts Screening Assessment River Barrow & IE002162 1106 Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) (only in fresh water) Potential Interaction Screened In for AA River Nore cSAC 1130 Estuaries Potential Interaction Screened In for AA 1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide Potential Interaction Screened In for AA 1170 Reefs Potential Interaction Screened In for AA 1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand None -above High Water mark Screened Out for AA 1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco‐Puccinellietalia maritimae) None -above High Water mark Screened Out for AA 1355 Otter Lutra lutra Potential Interaction Screened In for AA 1410 Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) None -above High Water mark Screened Out for AA 1421 Killarney fern Trichomanes speciosum None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out 1990 Nore freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera durrovensis None - non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out 3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho‐Batrachion vegetation 4030 European dry heaths None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out 6430 Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out the montane to alpine levels 7220 * Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion) None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out 91A0 Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out Isles 91E0 * Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out (Alno‐Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) Hook Head cSAC IE000764 1160 Large shallow inlets and bays Potential Interaction Screened In for AA 1170 Reefs Potential Interaction Screened In for AA 1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out Tramore Back IE004027 A046 Light‐bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out Strand SPA A140 European Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A141 Black-bellied plover Pluvialis squatarola wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A142 Northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A149 Dunlin Calidris alpina [wintering] None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A156 Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out

A157 Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out 19 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Natura 2000 Site Site Code Qualifying Interests Potential Impacts Screening Assessment Tramore Back IE004027 A160 Eurasian curlew Numenius arquata wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out Strand SPA A999 Wetlands None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out Tramore Dunes and IE000671 1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide None – distance is too great (c. 8km to Screened Out Backstrand cSAC the northwest) and sheltered behind Brownstown Head 1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines None – as above Screened Out 1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks None – as above Screened Out 1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand None – as above Screened Out 1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco‐Puccinellietalia maritimae) None – as above Screened Out 1410 Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) None – as above Screened Out 2110 Embryonic shifting dunes None – as above Screened Out 2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria None – as above Screened Out ("white dunes") 2130 * Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey None – as above Screened Out dunes") Bannow Bay SPA IE004033 A046 Light‐bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A048 Shelduck Tadorna tadorna wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A054 Pintail Anas acuta wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A130 Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A140 Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A141 Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out

A142 Lapwing Vanellus vanellus wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out

A143 Knot Calidris canutus wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out

A149 Dunlin Calidris alpina wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A156 Black‐tailed Godwit Limosa limosa wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A157 Bar‐tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A160 Curlew Numenius arquata wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A162 Redshank Tringa totanus wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out 20 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Natura 2000 Site Site Code Qualifying Interests Potential Impacts Screening Assessment Bannow Bay SPA IE004033 A999 Wetlands None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out Bannow Bay cSAC IE000697 1130 Estuaries None – distance is too great (c. Screened Out 12.5km northeast) and sheltered behind Hook Head and Baginbun Head 1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide None – as above Screened Out 1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines None – as above Screened Out 1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks None – as above Screened Out 1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand None – as above Screened Out 1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco‐Puccinellietalia maritimae) None – as above Screened Out 1410 Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) None – as above Screened Out 1420 Mediterranean and thermo‐Atlantic halophilous scrubs None – as above Screened Out (Sarcocornetea fruticosi) 2110 Embryonic shifting dunes None – as above Screened Out 2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria None – as above Screened Out ('white dunes') 2130 *Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ('grey None – as above Screened Out dunes') Mid-Waterford IE004193 A017 Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo breeding None – distance is too great Screened Out Coast SPA A103 Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus [breeding ] None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A184 European Herring Gull Larus argentatus breeding None – distance is too great Screened Out A346 Red billed cough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax breeding None – distance is too great Screened Out Keeragh Islands SPA IE004118 A017 Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo breeding None – distance is too great Screened Out Saltee Islands cSAC IE000707 1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide None – distance is too great (c. 19km Screened Out to the east) 1160 Large shallow inlets and bays None – as above Screened Out 1170 Reefs None – as above Screened Out 1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out 1364 Grey Seal Halichoerus grypus Potential Interaction Screened In for AA 8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves None – distance is too great (c. 19km Screened Out to the east)

21 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Natura 2000 Site Site Code Qualifying Interests Potential Impacts Screening Assessment Ballyteigue Burrow IE004020 A046 Light‐bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out SPA A048 Shelduck Tadorna tadorna wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A140 Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A141 Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A142 Lapwing Vanellus vanellus wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A156 Black‐tailed Godwit Limosa limosa wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A157 Bar‐tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica wintering None – non estuarine/marine species Screened Out A999 Wetlands None – non estuarine/marine habitat Screened Out Ballyteigue Burrow IE000696 1130 Estuaries None – distance is too great (c. 19km Screened Out cSAC to the northeast) and sheltered behind Hook Head 1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide None – as above Screened Out 1150 * Coastal lagoons None – as above Screened Out 1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines None – as above Screened Out 1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks None – as above Screened Out 1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand None – as above Screened Out 1320 Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae) None – as above Screened Out 1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco‐Puccinellietalia maritimae) None – as above Screened Out 1410 Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) None – as above Screened Out 1420 Mediterranean and thermo‐Atlantic halophilous scrubs None – as above Screened Out (Sarcocornetea fruticosi) 2110 Embryonic shifting dunes None – as above Screened Out 2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria None – as above Screened Out ("white dunes") 2130 * Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey None – as above Screened Out dunes") 2150] * Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno‐Ulicetea) None – as above Screened Out Saltee Islands SPA IE004002 A009 Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis breeding None – distance is too great Screened Out A016 Gannet Morus bassanus breeding None – distance is too great Screened Out A018 Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis breeding None – distance is too great Screened Out 22 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Natura 2000 Site Site Code Qualifying Interests Potential Impacts Screening Assessment IE004002 A188 Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla breeding None – distance is too great Screened Out Saltee Islands SPA A199 Guillemot Uria aalge breeding None – distance is too great Screened Out A200 Razorbill Alca torda breeding None – distance is too great Screened Out A204 Puffin Fratercula arctica breeding None – distance is too great Screened Out

23 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

5. Natura 2000 Sites

5.1. Designated Sites of Relevance in the Area

Following the Screening Stage, the designated Natura 2000 sites of relevance to the proposed dredging activities are the River Barrow and River Nore cSAC (Site Code: 002162) and the Lower River Suir cSAC (Site Code: IE002137). The designated Natura 2000 sites of relevance to the proposed disposal activities are Hook Head cSAC (Site Code: IE000764) and Saltee Islands cSAC (Site Code: IE000707).

Table 5.1 lists these Natura 2000 sites and their distances from the dredging / disposal sites and Figure 5.1 shows their locations in relation to the dredging and disposal areas.

Table 5.1: Natura 2000 sites of relevance with distances to the dredging / disposal sites.

Site Name Site Code Minimum Distance to Minimum Distance to Dredge Sites Disposal Site River Barrow and River Nore cSAC 002162 Dredging Sites within cSAC 6.2km North Lower River Suir cSAC 002137 Dredging Sites within cSAC 16.4km North Hook Head cSAC 000764 4km South 800m East Saltee Islands cSAC 000707 22km Southeast 23km East

24 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Figure 5.1: Location of the relevant Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity of the dredging and disposal sites.

25 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

5.2. Characteristics of the Relevant Designated Sites

Only the qualifying interests that were screened in during the Screening Stage are discussed here.

5.2.1. The Lower River Suir cSAC (Site Code: IE002137)

The Lower River Suir cSAC comprises the freshwater stretches of the River Suir immediately south of Thurles, Co. Tipperary to the tidal stretches as far as the confluence with the Barrow/Nore immediately east of Cheekpoint in Co. Waterford and many tributaries along the way.

The site is a cSAC selected for the presence of the priority habitats on Annex I of the E.U. Habitats Directive - alluvial wet woodlands and Yew Wood. The site is also selected as a candidate SAC for floating river vegetation, Atlantic salt meadows, Mediterranean salt meadows, old oak woodlands and eutrophic tall herbs, all habitats listed on Annex I of the E.U. Habitats Directive. The site is also selected for the following species listed on Annex II of the same directive - Sea Lamprey, River Lamprey, Brook Lamprey, Freshwater Pearl Mussel, Crayfish, Twaite Shad, Atlantic Salmon and Otter. Further details on habitats and species can be found in Section 6 Description of the Receiving Environment.

5.2.2. River Barrow and River Nore cSAC (Site Code: IE002162)

The River Barrow and River Nore cSAC consists of the freshwater stretches of the Barrow/Nore River catchments as far upstream as the Slieve Bloom Mountains and it also includes the tidal elements and estuary as far downstream as Creadan Head in Waterford.

The site is a candidate SAC selected for alluvial wet woodlands and petrifying springs, priority habitats on Annex I of the E.U. Habitats Directive. The site is also selected as a candidate SAC for old oak woodlands, floating river vegetation, estuary, tidal mudflats, reef, Salicornia mudflats, Atlantic salt meadows, Mediterranean salt meadows, dry heath and eutrophic tall herbs, all habitats listed on Annex I of the E.U. Habitats Directive. The site is also selected for the following species listed on Annex II of the same directive – Sea Lamprey, River Lamprey, Brook Lamprey, Freshwater Pearl Mussel, Nore Freshwater Pearl Mussel, Crayfish, Twaite Shad, Atlantic Salmon, Otter, Desmoulin’s Whorl Snail Vertigo moulinsiana and the Killarney Fern Trichomanes speciosum. Further details on habitats and species can be found in Section 6 Description of the Receiving Environment.

5.2.3. Hook Head cSAC (Site Code: IE000764)

The site of conservation interest at Hook Head comprises an area of marine subtidal reefs to the south and

26 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

east of the Hook Head Peninsula and includes the sea cliffs from Hook Head to Baginbun and Ingard Point. The peninsula forms the eastern side of Waterford Harbour, while to the east it adjoins the estuary mouth of Bannow Bay. The site contains three habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive, i.e. large shallow inlets and bays, reefs and sea cliffs. Further details on habitats and species can be found in Section 6 Description of the Receiving Environment.

5.2.4. Saltee Islands cSAC (Site Code: IE000707)

This site comprises the Saltee Islands and a large area of the surrounding seas. There are two islands (Great Saltee and Little Saltee) and a constellation of islets and rocks. The islands are situated ca 4 to 5km off the south Wexford coast. As a group, they constitute a broken reef that protrudes from a seabed of sand and shell. The reef has a north-east/south-west orientation and is typically strewn with boulders, cobbles and patches of sand and gravel. Bedrock is metamorphic schist and gneiss. The site is of high conservation importance for marine habitats, with reefs, sea caves, large shallow bays, and intertidal sediments well represented.

This site is of high conservation importance for the occurrence of several habitats which are listed on Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive, of which reefs are of exceptional quality and diversity. The site is of international importance for breeding seabirds and also has two species which are listed on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive. In addition, the site has a breeding population of Grey Seal, an Annex II species on the EU Habitats Directive. Further details on habitats and species can be found in Section 6 Description of the Receiving Environment.

5.3. Conservation Objectives for the Relevant Natura 2000 Sites

The overall aim of the Habitats Directive is to maintain or restore the favourable conservation status of habitats and species of community interest. These habitats and species are listed in the Habitats and Birds Directives and Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas are designated to afford protection to the most vulnerable of them. These two designations are collectively known as the Natura 2000 network.

European and national legislation places a collective obligation on Ireland and its citizens to maintain habitats and species in the Natura 2000 network at favourable conservation condition. The Government and its agencies are responsible for the implementation and enforcement of regulations that will ensure the ecological integrity of these sites.

27 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

The maintenance of habitats and species within Natura 2000 sites at favourable conservation condition will contribute to the overall maintenance of favourable conservation status of those habitats and species at a national level.

Favourable conservation status of a habitat is achieved when:  its natural range, and area it covers within that range, is stable or increasing, and  the specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long‐term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and  the conservation status of its typical species is favourable.

The favourable conservation status of a species is achieved when:  population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long- term basis as a viable component of its natural habitat, and  the natural range of the species is neither being reduced or likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and  there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long‐term basis. The conservation objectives for the relevant qualifying objectives are set out in the sections below.

5.3.1. Lower River Suir (IE002137)

The conservation objectives of the Lower River Suir cSAC IE002137 can be seen below (NPWS, 2017):

28 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

29 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

30 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

31 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

5.3.2. River Barrow and River Nore cSAC (IE002162)

The conservation objectives of the River Barrow and River Nore cSAC IE002162 can be seen below (NPWS, 2011a):

32 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

33 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

34 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

35 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

36 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

No conservation objective is available for 1170 Reefs in NPWS (2011a). It is assumed that the following apply: Habitat area is stable or increasing, the community distribution and extent should be maintained.

37 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

38 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

5.3.3. Hook Head cSAC (IE000764)

The conservation objectives of the Hook Head cSAC IE000764 are outlined below (NPWS, 2011b).

39 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

5.3.4. Saltee Islands cSAC (IE000707)

The conservation objectives of the Saltee Islands cSAC IE000707 are outlined below (NPWS, 2011c):

40 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

6. Description of the Receiving Environment

6.1. Existing Ecological Conditions of the Natura 2000 Sites

The benthic estuarine community within the Lower River Suir cSAC were generally characterised by low numbers of species and individuals (Kennedy, 2008). Community types in the inner estuary (inside Cheek

41 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Point) consisted of fluid mobile mud communities, firm mud or clay communities dominated by the polychaete Polydora ciliata and the amphipod Corophium volutator, oligochaete dominated communities and communities dominated by the polychaete Nephtys hombergii and the bivalve Macoma balthica. AQUAFACT (2013) reported a species-impoverished site in the inner estuary at Waterford port (opposite Ferrybank). The species present were Nematoda, the amphipod crustacean Corophium volutator and the isopod crustacean Cyathura carinata. The area off Belview Point was characterised by the oligochaete Tubificoides benedii. The area between the Belview Point and Snowhill Point was characterised by the polychaete Capitella sp. complex and the oligochaetes Tubificoides pseudogaster agg. and T. benedii.

Within the River Barrow and River Nore cSAC, extensive areas of Annex I mud and sandflats (1140), comprised of substrates ranging from fine, silty mud to coarse sand with pebbles/stones are present (NPWS, 2006b). Good quality intertidal sand and mudflats have developed on a linear shelf on the western side of Waterford Harbour, extending for over 6km from north to south between Passage East and Creadaun Head and in places are over 1km wide. Figure 6.1 shows the extent of the mud and sandflats in Waterford Harbour. The intertidal flats consist of two community types; muddy estuarine community complex and sand to muddy fine sand community complex (NPWS, 2011d, see Figure 6.2). The muddy estuarine community complex dominates the shoreline from north to the River Barrow on the eastern shore and from Passage East north to the River Barrow including Cheek Point on the western shore. There is a small area present in the southern part of Passage Strand on the west coast and the entire shoreline of the River Barrow, north to contains the muddy estuarine community complex. The substrate of this community complex is predominantly of fine material, with the fine sand fraction ranging from 0.1-77%, very fine sand from 0-59% and silt-clay from 1-75%. The distinguishing species for this group are the bivalves Scrobicularia plana and Macoma balthica, the amphipod Corophium volutator, the polychaete Streblospio shrubsolii and the oligochaetes Tubificoides pseudogaster and Tubificoides benedii. These species are indicative of a variable salinity community. The sand to muddy fine sand community complex is present along the western shore from Passage East south to Creadan Head and on the eastern shore just south of Duncannon and further south in Dollar Bay. This community complex occurs from the upper intertidal to the subtidal and represents a gradient from medium sand (0.2-78%) to muddy fine sand (fine sand 3-80%, very fine sand 0.5-68% and silt-clay 1-80%). In those sediments which have a small proportion of muds the bivalve Cerastoderma edule and the polychaete Scolelepis squamata are commonly present. As the fines proportion increases, the bivalve Macoma balthica and the polychaete Pygospio elegans are more commonly present. Kennedy (2008) classified the area south of Cheek Point as Nephtys hombergii and Macoma baltica in infralittoral muddy sand. The southern area of the harbour was mostly classified as Fabulina fabula and Magelona mirabilis with venerid bivalves and amphipods in infralittoral compacted fine muddy sand.

42 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

AQUAFACT (2013) reported that the benthic communities between Cheek Point Bar and Passage East were characterised by the oligochaetes Tubificoides pseudogaster agg. and T. benedii (29.3%), the polychaete Nephtys hombergii and the bivalve mollusc Macoma balthica. The intertidal area, further south (in Strand) was dominated by the amphipod crustacean Bathyporeia elegans, the polychaete Nephtys sp., the cumacean crustacean Vaunthompsonia cristata and the polychaete Owenia fusiformis.

The Annex I Reef (1170) habitat is present intertidally on the eastern shoreline in Duncannon Bay. This habitat consists of an extensive area of honey-comb worm biogenic reef (NPWS, 2016). It is formed by the polychaete worm Sabellaria alveolata. This intertidal Sabellaria alveolata reef is formed as a sheet of interlocking tubes over a considerable area of exposed bedrock. This polychaete species constructs tubes, composed of aggregated sand grains, in tightly packed masses with a distinctive honeycomb-like appearance. These can be up to 25cm proud of the substrate and form hummocks, sheets or more massive formations. A range of species are reported from these reefs including: Enteromorpha sp., Ulva sp., Fucus vesiculosus;, Fucus serratus, Polysiphonia sp., Chondrus crispus, Palmaria palmata, Corallina officialis, Nemertea sp.;, Actinia equina, Patella vulgata, Littorina littorea, Littorina obtusata and Mytilus edulis. The location of this habitat can be seen in Figures 6.1 and 6.2.

The Annex I habitat Estuaries (1130) covers the entire cSAC area. In addition to the three community types discussed above which characterise the mud and sandflat habitat and reef habitats, one other community type characterises the estuary habitat: fine sand with Fabulina fabula community. This subtidal community is confined to the southern margin of this site at the mouth of Waterford Harbour (see Figures 6.1 and 6.2). The sediment is that of fine sand ranging from 43-59% to very fine sand ranging from 24-45%. The biological community is distinguished by the co-occurrence of moderately large numbers of the bivalve Fabulina fabula and the polychaete Nephtys hombergii. Also frequently present are the polychaetes Owenia fusiformis and Magelona filiformis and the bivalve Mactra stulorum.

The reefs around Hook Head have excellent examples of tide swept communities and species richness is high in both the shallow and deep-water communities (NPWS, 2001). The location of this Annex I habitat can be seen in Figure 6.1 and the community types characteristic of it can be seen in Figure 6.2. The reef habitat consists of three community types. The exposed to moderately exposed intertidal reef community complex extends largely uninterrupted from Doonoge Point to the west of Hook Head to Ingard Point to the east (NPWS, 2011e). It also occurs on the northern margin of the site at Clammers Point (Figures 6.2). The substrate is that of bedrock in a series of gullies to the west of Hook Head to vertical rock faces and bedrock and large boulders on the eastern side of this peninsula and at Clammers Point. The exposure regime is

43 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

largely exposed to moderately exposed. The fauna is typically that of a high energy site consisting mainly of barnacle and mussel communities. The echinoderm- and sponge-dominated community complex occurs from Hook Head to south east of Baginbun Head and extends to the boundaries of the site (NPWS, 2011e). It occurs in depths of 13m to 40m (Figure 6.2). The substrate varies from cobble and boulder fields to a mosaic of cobble/boulder field with bedrock. The exposure regime of this community is recorded as exposed. The most abundant and conspicuous fauna found on this reef type are echinoderms, including the urchin Echinus sp., the ophiuroids Ophiocomina nigra and Ophiothrix sp., and the starfish Asterias rubens, Marthasterias gracilis, and Luidia sp. Encrusting sponges are also evident on this substrate namely Alcyonium sp. and Cliona sp.; Tethys sp. and Polymastia sp. have also been recorded here. Hydroids (including Nemertesia sp.), bryozoans (including Pentapora foliacea), anemones (Sagartia sp., Urticina sp. and Anemonia viridis) as well as the serpulid polychaete Spirobranchus sp. are common. The crabs Cancer pagurus, Maja squinado and the squat lobster Munidia sp. are also present here as are the fish Gobiosculus and Scyliorhinus canicula. In the shallower areas, the flora is represented by a variety of algal species including the green species Desmarestia sp., the brown species Dictyota dichotoma and Saccharina latissima, red algae Dilsea carnosa, Phyllophora sp., Cryptopleura sp. and Delesseria sanguinea and also unidentified encrusting calcareous species.

The last of the reef communities in the Hook Head cSAC is the Laminaria-dominated community. This is an exposed reef community located from the northern part of Doornoge Bay west of Hook Head to Baginbun Head due east of this headland (Figure 6.2). This community is physically composed of bedrock and boulders and occurs in water of less than 15m depth. This reef community has a diverse association of algae, invertebrates and fish species. The kelp species Laminaria digitata and L. hyperborea along with the red algae Dilsea carnosa are the more common algal species found here. Other algal species recorded here include Saccharina latissima and Saccorhiza polyschides, Cryptopleura sp., Palmaria palmata, Membranoptera sp. and Phycodrys rubens and Desmarestia sp. Unidentified calcareous algae were also recorded. The faunal species of hydroids (including Obelia sp.) and the serpulid polychaete Spirobranchus sp. are common here. Other faunal species which are conspicuous here include bryozoans (including Membranipora sp.), encrusting sponges, Alcyonium sp. and Cliona sp., the echinoderms Echinus esculentus and Leptasterias sp., the anemone Anemonia viridis as well as cirripedes. The fish species Gobiosculus sp. was also recorded.

44 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Figure 6.1: Annex I habitats in the vicinity of the dredge and disposal areas (NPWS, 2011a, b).

45 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Figure 6.2: Marine communities in the vicinity of the dredge and disposal areas (NPWS, 2011d, e).

Naturally occurring tidally-generated suspended solid concentrations were modelled by Delft Hydraulics (Eysink et al., 2000) and vary between 50 and 500mg/l at both Belview Point in the River Suir and at

46 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Garraunbaun Rock near Ferry Point in the White Horse Reach of the River Barrow. In contrast, at Cheekpoint, the confluence of the River Barrow and the River Suir, the tidally generated suspended solids concentrations were typically less than 150mg/l. Downstream in the River Suir, between Passage East and Buttermilk Point, naturally occurring, tidally generated suspended solids exceeded 1,000mg/l. Tidally-generated suspended solids at Duncannon Bar within the Suir Estuary were above 100mg/l at bed and mid-water on spring tides. Background suspended sediment concentrations (of the fraction <63m) in the Cheek Point area vary dynamically during the tidal cycle, with maximum concentrations at 0 to 2 hours after maximum ebb and flood currents and minimum concentrations at 0 to 2 hours following slack water (Rijn, 1990).

The Otter Lutra lutra is a resident of Waterford Habour with Otter habitat present along the shores of the harbour. Otters tend to forage within 80m of the shoreline (high water mark) (NPWS, 2007; Kruuk, 2006). Waterford Harbour is also host to a number of migratory fish species: Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus, River Lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis, Twaite Shad Alosa fallax, Allis Shad Alosa alosa and Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar.

The River Lamprey is a migratory species, which grows to maturity in estuaries and then moves into fresh water to spawn in clean and streams (Maitland, 2003). Spawning starts when the water temperature reaches 10–11°C, usually in March and April (Morris & Maitland, 1987). The larvae spend several years in silt beds before metamorphosing (July – September) and migrating downstream, at three to five years of age, during darkness to estuaries (Maitland, 2003). The sea lamprey is anadromous (born in freshwater, spends most of its life at sea and then migrates back to freshwater to spawn and die). The spawning migration usually takes place in April and May when the adults start to migrate back into fresh water (Hardisty, 1969). Spawning usually occurs in late May or June when the water temperature reaches at least 15°C (Maitland, 2003).

Spawning populations of twaite shad occur in the rivers Suir, Nore and Barrow (Maitland & Hatton-Ellis, 2003). At maturity, adult twaite shad stop feeding and gather in the estuaries of suitable rivers in early summer (April and May), moving upstream to spawn from mid-May to mid-July. Spawning takes place in flowing water over stones and gravel, among which the eggs sink. The eggs take about four to six days to hatch. The young fish then drop quickly downstream in the current to the quieter waters of the upper estuary where they start to feed and grow. The males start to mature after three years and the females after ca 5 years.

Allis shad occur mainly in shallow coastal waters and estuaries, but during the spawning migration adults

47 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

penetrate well upstream in some of the larger European rivers. Mature fish that have spent most of their lives in the sea stop feeding and move into the estuaries of large rivers, migrating into fresh water during late spring (April to June), thus giving the shad the name of 'May Fish' in some areas. While Allis shad are known to occur in Waterford Harbour there have been no recent records verifying the existence of any spawning populations (Whilde, 1993). Atlantic salmon migrate through Waterford Harbour eastern route to their upstream spawning grounds. Salmonids enter the freshwater system between April and July and the smolts travel back down in late April/May.

The largest grey seal population on the south coast occurs on Great Saltee Island. As grey seals tend to generally select more remote haul-out sites on rocky skerries, uninhabited islands, isolated mainland beaches and in sea-caves (Lockley, 1966; Summers, 1980, 1983; Kiely, 1998; Kiely et al., 2000) their presence in Waterford Estuary is considered minimal. They may however forage in the area of the disposal site.

7. Assessment of the Likely Effects

7.1. Dredging Activity

ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd. (ABPmer) modelled the impact of plough dredging at Cheek Point Lower (ABPmer, 2017). The modelling showed that the dispersed sediment would move throughout the estuary, with the vast majority moving up-estuary, but would generally be confined to the area between Buttermilk Point and Little Island. The greatest effects were seen throughout the estuary at the end of the plough disturbance scenario (8 days with ploughing ceasing on Day 4). These effects decay to background levels within about four days following cessation of ploughing on falling spring tides. Most material would be moved (transported and eroded) on the flood tide and during spring tides whereas neap tides would predominantly be accretional.

The modelling identified locations of temporary sediment storage (later eroded) as well as sediment ‘sinks’, where accretion would be more permanent, notably the southern edge of the Cheekpoint section, adjacent to the maintained channel. Maximum SSC (suspended sediment concentrations) (above background) at the point of disturbance were around 2,500 mg/l near-bed at the time of peak flows and 1,500 mg/l during slack flows. One day following completion of plough disturbance, peak SSC would reduce by over an order of magnitude at the disturbance site.

Maximum concentrations away from the disturbance location, for the most part, would occur on peak flood

48 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

flows as ‘pulses’ that rarely last for longer than 30 minutes per tide. Individual spikes can reach 1,000 mg/l at some locations. Elevated SSC that last for several hours are generally in the range 150-250 mg/l, depending on location, on spring flood tides, and lower on ebb tides. Average elevated concentrations are rarely above 50 mg/l. These values compare against the measured background SSC level, which were recorded between 350 and 600 mg/l between Carters Patch and the River Barrow, on a typical spring tide, increasing to up to 1,000 mg/l during an observed storm event. Sedimentation as a result of the plough disturbance is for the most part temporary, accumulating during periods of slack water, or in areas of eddy circulation. With the exception of identified ‘sink’ areas, accumulations are small, a few millimetres to 1 to 2 centimetres. Most accumulations are re-eroded on the following peak flows (predominantly on the flood). In the areas around Carters Patch, sedimentation of up to 1.5 cm was present for a maximum period of 6 hours before being re- eroded and in all cases, sedimentation rates and SSC levels increase after c. 2 days of ploughing. This indicates that this is the timescale for disturbed material (probably the coarser fraction) to move up- and down-estuary, before returning through the Cheekpoint area.

Figures 7.1 and 7.2 shows the difference in SSC immediately at the end of ploughing (Plough +0 days) and 4 days following cessation of ploughing (Plough +4 days) at ebb and flood tide respectively. Figures 7.3 and 7.4 show the difference in sedimentation immediately at the end of ploughing and 4 days following cessation of ploughing at high water and low water respectively.

Delft Hydraulics modelled the impacts of trailer-suction hopper dredging activities at the Duncannon Bar on the spreading of suspended sediment in the estuary of the River Suir (Eysink et al., 2000). Environmental Tracing Systems (ETS) undertook a fluorescent particle tracing study in order to determine the fate of dredged material from Cheek Point Harbour (ETS, 1998). The turbidity generated by the dredging activity must be weighed against the turbidity which results from natural processes (e.g. storm surges) and the background turbidity (e.g. navigation) that occurs in the dredging areas before, during and after the dredging activity. The majority of suspended sediment generated due to dredging activities is at depth (i.e. close to the seafloor). In their initial deliberations Delft Hydraulics (Eysink et al., 2000) considered that the additional turbidity above background levels 50m around the dredging Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge would be of the order of c. 250-300mg/l of suspended solids. However, the modelling concluded that the increase in suspended sediment concentrations above background would be of the order of 100mg/l within 50m of the dredger. Assuming suspended solids in the channel are at the upper end of this observed range i.e. 100mg/l, the suspended solids concentrations local to the dredger are likely to increase to the order of 250mg/l at Cheekpoint and 200mg/l at Duncannon Bar. Table 7.1 summaries the impacts discussed below.

49 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Figure 7.1: SSC at ebb and flood tide immediately at the end of ploughing.

50 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Figure 7.2: SSC at ebb and flood tide 4 days following cessation of ploughing.

51 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Figure 7.3: Sedimentation at high and low water immediately at the end of ploughing.

52 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Figure 7.4: Sedimentation at high and low water 4 days following cessation of ploughing.

53 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

7.1.1. Dredging Impact on Lower River Suir cSAC (Site Code: IE002137)

The Cheek Point dredge area is located where the River Suir and Barrow estuaries meet and there is a significant tidal range in this area. The dredge area is naturally very dynamic with strong flooding and ebbing currents and it is evident that large quantities of sediment are deposited and resuspended during the tidal cycle. Modelling does suggest peak SSC of between 1,500mg/l (at slack flow) and 2,500mg/l (at peak flows) above background for periods of 30 minutes during the plough dredging at the point of disturbance (ABPmer, 2017). These levels reduce by an order of magnitude one day following cessation of dredging. Maximum concentrations away from the disturbance location, for the most part, would occur on peak flood flows as ‘pulses’ that rarely last for longer than 30 minutes per tide. Individual spikes can reach 1,000 mg/l at some locations. Elevated SSC that last for several hours are generally in the range 150-250 mg/l, depending on location, on spring flood tides, and lower on ebb tides. Average elevated concentrations are rarely above 50 mg/l. These values compare against the measured background SSC level, which were recorded between 350 and 600 mg/l between Carters Patch and the River Barrow, on a typical spring tide, increasing to up to 1,000 mg/l during an observed storm event. Peaks of 100mg/l above background level are expected within 50m of the TSH dredger (Eysink et al., 2000). These elevated levels are very localised and very short-lived.

Turbidity monitoring was carried out during a trailer suction hopper dredging period in February 2012 and February 2013 (IDS Monitoring Ltd., 2013), two plough dredging campaigns in January and February 2017 and a trailer suction hopper dredging March 2017 (IDS Monitoring Ltd., 2017). The data collected showed that there was no significant change in the turbidity levels at the upstream and downstream monitoring stations during any of the dredging campaigns at Cheekpoint. Turbidity variance between the two plough dredging campaigns undertaken was not discernible. Turbidity variance between plough dredging campaigns and TSHD dredging was not discernible. A review of the data regarding ambient suspended sediments during the non-dredging periods strongly suggests that there are large plumes of sediment mobilised naturally in the harbour and that these migrate past the monitoring stations. If the dredging significantly added to the suspended sediment load, it is likely that this would have been detected at some point on either station. The pattern of suspended sediments is similar to that before dredging and the range of turbidity is also similar. Any differences observed during dredging were not greater than differences observed from periods without dredging and are accounted for as natural temporal variation and are caused by the strong tidal and fluvial flows.

The presence of the dredger and the temporary increases in suspended sediments generated within the dredge areas will not impede the movement of migrating fish as salmon, shad and lampreys have evolved for

54 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

and are adapted to migrating through turbid estuarine waters with high levels of suspended sediments. Otter are adapted to turbid estuarine environments and are limited to within 80m of the shore; therefore, no impacts are predicted for this qualifying interest. There will be no impact on the conservation objectives (see Section 5.3.1) of these five species.

7.1.2. Dredging Impact on River Barrow & River Nore cSAC (Site Code: IE002162)

The dredging operations will result in an increase in SSC and associated increases in sedimentation. These have the potential to impact on mud and sandflat, reef and estuarine habitats; however, it must be noted that estuaries are naturally turbid environments and are their habitats and species are adapted to periodic and temporary increases in suspended solids.

ABPmer (2017) showed that sedimentation levels in the mud/sandflat habitat located approximately 300m south of the Cheek Point Lower dredge area range from 0.05 to 0.4cm (Figures 7.1 and 7.2). This area is primarily an area of siltation from natural flows. This level of net sedimentation will not negatively impact on the mud and sandflat communities in the area. Sedimentation levels up to 6cm can accumulate in the mud/sandflat habitat located on the eastern shoreline between Buttermilk Point and north in to the River Barrow (between 400m and 2km from the Cheek Point Lower dredge area) (Figures 7.1 and 7.2). Sedimentation in these areas is temporary and will be resuspended on the following peak flows (predominantly on the flood). Impacts from sedimentation on mud and sandflats habitats will be short-term and temporary.

Relatively small amounts of material will be transported south of Buttermilk Point following plough dredging at Cheek Point. Impacts from SSC and sedimentation will be negligible on the reef habitat some 8.7km south of the plough dredge area.

The increase in SSC from trailer suction hopper dredging has a local and temporary peak of 100 mg/l at a distance of 50m around the dredger (Eysink et al., 2000) with concentrations reducing to between 3 and 10mg/l within 500m of the dredge area. The increase in concentration of fine material is very limited compared to the natural background concentrations. Natural concentrations that occur at the Duncannon Bar location reach some tens to 100mg/l (Eysink et al., 2000). Therefore, a noticeable additional siltation of net sedimentation areas on tidal flats or reefs due to dredging is not anticipated (Eysink et al., 2000).

The vast majority of sediments mobilised during plough dredging at Cheek Point will move in an “up-estuary” direction, within the areas predominantly between Cheek Point and Little Island (i.e. away from the

55 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Duncannon area) (ABPmer, 2017). The down-estuary extent of the main effects is predominantly carried to an area up-estuary of Buttermilk Point and within the deep off Cheek Point itself. Relatively small amounts of material are transported upstream or downstream of these limits.

The Cheek Point dredge area is located where the River Suir and Barrow estuaries meet and there is a significant tidal range in this area. The dredge area is naturally very dynamic with strong flooding and ebbing currents and it is evident that large quantities of sediment are deposited and resuspended during the tidal cycle. Modelling does suggest peak SSC of between 1,500mg/l (at slack flow) and 2,500mg/l (at peak flows) above background for periods of 30 minutes during the plough dredging at the point of disturbance (ABPmer, 2017). These levels reduce by an order of magnitude one day following cessation of dredging. Maximum concentrations away from the disturbance location, for the most part, would occur on peak flood flows as ‘pulses’ that rarely last for longer than 30 minutes per tide. Individual spikes can reach 1,000 mg/l at some locations. Elevated SSC that last for several hours are generally in the range 150-250 mg/l, depending on location, on spring flood tides, and lower on ebb tides. Average elevated concentrations are rarely above 50 mg/l. These values compare against the measured background SSC level, which were recorded between 350 and 600 mg/l between Carters Patch and the River Barrow, on a typical spring tide, increasing to up to 1,000 mg/l during an observed storm event. Peaks of 100mg/l above background level are expected within 50m of the TSH dredger (Eysink et al., 2000). These elevated levels are very localised and very short-lived.

Turbidity monitoring was carried out during a trailer suction hopper dredging period in February 2012 and February 2013 (IDS Monitoring Ltd., 2013), two plough dredging campaigns in January and February 2017 and a trailer suction hopper dredging March 2017 (IDS Monitoring Ltd., 2017). The data collected showed that there was no significant change in the turbidity levels at the upstream and downstream monitoring stations during any of the dredging campaigns at Cheekpoint. Turbidity variance between the two plough dredging campaigns undertaken was not discernible. Turbidity variance between plough dredging campaigns and TSHD dredging was not discernible. A review of the data regarding ambient suspended sediments during the non-dredging periods strongly suggests that there are large plumes of sediment mobilised naturally in the harbour and that these migrate past the monitoring stations. If the dredging significantly added to the suspended sediment load, it is likely that this would have been detected at some point on either station. The pattern of suspended sediments is similar to that before dredging and the range of turbidity is also similar. Any differences observed during dredging were not greater than differences observed from periods without dredging and are accounted for as natural temporal variation and are caused by the strong tidal and fluvial flows.

56 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Given the above, there will be no significant negative impacts on the 3 Annex I habitats in the River Barrow and River Nore cSAC (mud and sandflats, reefs and estuary) and there will be no impact on the conservation objectives (see Section 5.3.2) of these three habitats.

In addition, the presence of the dredger and the suspended sediments generated within the dredge areas will not impede the movement of migrating fish as salmon, shad and lampreys have evolved for and are adapted to migrate through turbid estuarine waters with high levels of suspended sediments. Otter are adapted to turbid estuarine environments and are limited to within 80m of the shore therefore no impacts are predicted for this qualifying interest. There will be no impact on the conservation objectives (see Section 5.3.2) of these five species.

7.1.3. Dredging Impact on Hook Head cSAC (Site Code: IE000764)

The dredging plumes do not extend beyond Dunmore East and therefore will have no interaction with the Hook Head cSAC.

7.1.4. Dredging Impact on Saltee Islands cSAC (Site Code: IE000707)

As grey seal occurrences in Waterford Harbour are considered minimal, no impact is predicted on this species.

57 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Table 7.1: Impacts on qualifying interest of the Natura 2000 sites from dredging activities.

Natura 2000 Site Code Qualifying Interests Impacts Justification Site Lower River IE002137 1095 Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus No impact Adapted to migrating through estuaries and turbidity Suir cSAC 1099 River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis No impact during the dredge period is not significantly different to the normal background levels 1103 Twaite shad Alosa fallax No impact 1106 Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) (only in fresh water) No impact 1355 Otter Lutra lutra No impact Adapted to turbid estuarine environments and only forage 80m from shoreline. River Barrow & IE002162 1095 Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus No impact Adapted to migrating through estuaries and turbidity River Nore 1099 River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis No impact during the dredge period is not significantly different to cSAC 1103 Twaite shad Alosa fallax No impact the normal background levels 1106 Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) (only in fresh water) No impact 1130 Estuaries No impact Naturally turbid environments. Increases in SSC and 1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at No impact sedimentation are very localised, occur over very small low tide spatial distances are temporary and comparable to 1170 Reefs No impact background levels and will not significantly impact this habitat 1355 Otter Lutra lutra No impact Adapted to turbid estuarine environments and only forage 80m from shoreline. Hook Head IE000764 1160 Large shallow inlets and bays No impact Dredging plume does not extend this far cSAC 1170 Reefs No impact Dredging plume does not extend this far Saltee Islands IE000707 1364 Grey Seal Halichoerus grypus No Impact Minimal interaction cSAC

58 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

7.2. Disposal Activity

A sand dispersion study was carried out by Delft Hydraulics to determine the long-term spreading at the disposal site using a Delft 3D model system (Eysink et al., 2001). A period of 15 years was simulated with 5 more spoil dumping of 300,000m3 at an annual interval after the initial dumping of 335,000 - 425,000m3 to determine the total ecological impact in case the disposal site was used for a longer period. The model also predicts the levels of suspended solids in the water column and turbidity generated by the disposal operation.

The amount of dredge material in the initial dump was estimated at 335,000 – 425,000m3 partly consisted of silt. Based on the dimensions of the disposal site, the resulting sand heap at this location would have a height of c. 0.8 – 1.0m ignoring the part of the fine spoil which would be washed out during dumping. For the assessment of the dispersion of sand the maximum value of 1.0m was applied to take the maximum dispersion into account in the model simulations. This means that the depth initially reduces from c. 21m to c. 20m.The subsequent annual dumping of 300,000m3 will cause an incremental rising of the bottom depth at the disposal site by c. 0.7m after each dump.

For the model simulations, the following sediment characteristics were applied:

D50: 100m

D90: 300m Fall velocity: 0.008m/s.

The dispersion model predicts that following the initial disposal, the sand from the heap is deposited in the direct vicinity of the disposal site at the north-western and at the south-eastern side. Due to this process the height of the sand heap is reduced while it is spread out over a larger area. The model simulations following continual annual dumping show initially a general tendency of sand dispersion from the disposal area towards the east and particularly towards the northwest. After 5 years the dispersion towards the northwest is somewhat stronger than after the initial dump whereas dispersion towards the southeast starts to develop. This is caused by the higher spoil heap due to repetitive spoil dumping. This dispersion continues in the following 10 years; at the northwest side the sand dispersion gradually turns north towards the estuary mouth and at the southeast side it further extends along the 20m contour.

The dispersion along the eastern side of the disposal site is limited to a distance of c. 300m from the site in

59 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

the first 5 years. At the northwestern side, the sedimentation continues progressively during the first 6 years after the first spoil dumping. In the first 2 years, most of the sand remains with a distance of 400m from the disposal site. This distance gradually increases to 600m in the next 3 years and to c. 2km 15 years after the first spoil dumping. The sedimentation rate close to the disposal site increases for the first 6 years and then gradually reduces again after the last spoil dumping. The annual maximum sedimentation rate at a distance of 200m amounts to 20cm and reduces to 11cm at a distance of 400m. Beyond a distance of 600m, it becomes very low (<7cm/year). It may be concluded that the material does not disperse rapidly or over a very large area of the estuary with time (Malone O’Regan, 2002). Figure 7.1 below shows the model outputs for the 15 year simulation.

The concentrations of Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) will increase in the area of the disposal site following each dump; however, the increase will be limited in magnitude and size (Malone O’Regan, 2002). The fine silt particles will mix and settle relatively fast in the deep water. The additional concentration peak in a radius of 50m from the disposal site is estimated to be 20 – 40 mg/l. Table 7.2 summarises the impacts discussed below.

60 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

1 Year after Initial (before 2 Year after Initial (before 4 Year after Initial (before

2nd dump) 3rd dump) 5th dump)

6 Year after Initial 9 Year after Initial 12 Year after Initial

Figure 7.5: Model predictions of sand dispersion from the dump site

15 Year after Initial (sedimentation is in meters).

7.2.1. Disposal Impact on Lower River Suir cSAC (Site Code: IE002137)

The spoil does not disperse sufficient distance to impact on the habitats of the Lower River Suir cSAC. In addition, otter do not forage out as far as the disposal site and therefore will not be impacted. During the release of sediment at the disposal site, the concentration of suspended solids within the water column at the site will reach levels 20 – 40mg/l within a 50m radius. This is higher than the existing levels at the site. This may disorientate migrating fish species swimming through the area at that precise time. However, these

61 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

fish species are likely to encounter much higher levels of turbidity (over 200mg/l measured near Cheek Point [Eysink et al., 2000]) within the upper reaches of the estuary. Given the suspended solid concentration is over a relatively small area and the fact that the disposal site is located at the outer mouth of the Estuary and the release of dredged material is at a measured rate at a specific time, it is predicted that the impacts on migrating fish species will be negligible.

7.2.2. Disposal Impact on River Barrow & River Nore cSAC (Site Code: IE002162)

The spoil does not disperse sufficient distance to impact on the habitats of the River Barrow and River Nore cSAC. In addition, otter do not forage out as far as the disposal site and therefore will not be impacted. As mentioned above, while an increase of 20 – 40mg/l of suspended solids is expected with 50m of the disposal site, the impacts on migrating fish species is likely to be negligible.

7.2.3. Disposal Impact on Hook Head cSAC (Site Code: IE000764)

The spoil does not disperse sufficient distance to impact on the ‘shallow water inlet and bay’ habitat of the Hook Head cSAC. The ‘reefs’ habitat is located c. 800m to the southeast of the disposal site. The dispersed spoil will not reach this habitat until at least 6 years after the initial dump and then only in concentrations of <0.25m.

The plume will not extend towards the reef habitat until c. 6 years after the initial disposal operation and deposition levels will be <0.25cm. The area south of the reefs is sandy and the reefs are adapted to sand being carried in their direction by strong water movements in the area. No negative impacts on reefs are expected from the disposal operations.

7.2.4. Disposal Impact on Saltee Islands cSAC (Site Code: IE000707)

The grey seal may forage from Great Saltee Island to the disposal site area, however it is a mobile species and if it is foraging in the area when the disposal operations are been carried out it will vacate the area temporarily if it is disturbed. Therefore, the impact on this qualifying interest is negligible.

62 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Table 7.2: Impacts from the disposal of spoil on the qualifying interests of the Natura 2000 sites.

Natura 2000 Site Site Code Qualifying Interests Potential Impacts Explanation Lower River Suir IE002137 1095 Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus No impact Adapted to migrating through estuaries and turbidity cSAC 1099 River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis No impact during the dredge period is not significantly different to the normal background levels 1103 Twaite shad Alosa fallax No impact 1102 Allis shad Alosa alosa No impact 1106 Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) (only in fresh water) No impact 1355 Otter Lutra lutra No impact River Barrow & IE002162 1095 Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus No impact Adapted to migrating through estuaries and turbidity River Nore cSAC 1099 River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis No impact during the dredge period is not significantly different 1103 Twaite shad Alosa fallax No impact to the normal background levels 1106 Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) (only in fresh water) No impact 1355 Otter Lutra lutra No impact 1130 Estuaries No impact Spoil does not disperse sufficient distance to interact

1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater No impact with these habitats at low tide 1170 Reefs No impact Hook Head cSAC IE000764 1160 Large shallow inlets and bays No impact Spoil does not disperse sufficient distance to interact with this habitat 1170 Reefs Negligible impact Dispersal into the reef area occurs c. 6yrs post initial dump and levels are low Saltee Islands IE000707 1364 Grey Seal Halichoerus grypus Negligible impact Species can vacate the area if present and if cSAC disturbed by the dumping operation

63 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

7.3. Dredging activity in combination with disposal

As there is sufficient spatial distance between the dredging sites and the disposal sites and given the lack of impacts from both operations, there are no in-combination effects of the dredging and disposal activities on the Natura 2000 sites.

8. Cumulative Impacts

There is a proposal to construct a pedestrian bridge across the River Suir in Waterford City. Sediment will be released into the water column during the construction phase however given the distance involved, the quantity of sediment and the short-term nature of the activities it is not envisaged that this development, in- combination with the dredging operations, will have a significant negative impact on the Natura 2000 habitats in the area.

9. Mitigation Measures

As all dredging and disposal procedures follow industry best practice (Section 3) which results in minimal impact on the environment, no additional mitigation measures are required to reduce the impacts from dredging and disposal.

As discussed in the Marine Mammal Risk Assessment, the risk to marine mammals in insignificant give the infrequent use of the dredging areas by marine mammals. However, it may be pertinent to incorporate the use of clear ‘soft-start’ or ‘ramp-up’ procedures, whereby sound energy input to the marine environment is gradually or incrementally increased from levels unlikely to cause significant behavioural impact on marine mammals to the full output necessary for completion of the activity.

10. Residual Impacts

There will be no residual impacts on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites, their qualifying interests or marine mammals.

11. Summary

The proposed dredging and disposal operations will not negatively impact on the integrity of the Natura 2000

64 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

sites, their qualifying interests or marine mammals.

12. References

ABPmer. 2017. Waterford Estuary, Plough Assessment, ABPmer Report No. R.2899TN. A report produced by ABPmer for Port of Waterford, November 2017. Aecom & Metoc (2010). Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Offshore Renewable Energy Development Plan (OREDP) in the . Prepared on behalf of SEAI. AQUAFACT. 2011. Subtidal Investigations in Hook Head cSAC (000764), Co. Wexford. Unpublished Report to NPWS AQUAFACT. 2011. Reef Investigations in Hook Head cSAC (000764), Co. Wexford. Unpublished Report to NPWS AQUAFACT. 2013. Marine Benthic Studies Waterford Harbour Dredging and Disposal Operations. Prepared on behalf of Port of Waterford Company. ARMS. 2008. Benthic Biotope classification of subtidal sedimentary habitats in the Lower River Suir candidate Special Area of Conservation and the River Nore and River Barrow candidate Special Area of Conservation. Unpublished Report to NPWS ASU. 2008. A survey of mudflats and sandflats in Ireland. An intertidal soft sediment survey of Waterford Estuary. Unpublished Report to NPWS Bailey, M. & J. Rochford. 2006. Otter Survey of Ireland 2004/2005. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 23 Berrow, S.D., Whooley, P., O’Connell, M. & D. Wall. 2010. Irish Cetacean Review (2000–2009). Irish Whale and Dolphin Group, 60pp. Berrow, S.D., Whooley. P. & S. Ferris. 2002. Irish Whale and Dolphin Group Cetacean Sighting Review (1991- 2001). Irish Whale and Dolphin Group. ISBN 0-9540552-1-7. 34 pp. Bryant, P.J., Lafferty, C.M., & S.K. Lafferty. 1984. Reoccupation of Laguna Guerrero Negro, Baja California, Mexico by gray whales. In: Jones, M.L., Swartz, S.L., and Leatherwood, S. (ed), the gray whale Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp: 375-387. CFB & Compass Informatics. 2008. Assessment of the Risk of Barriers to Fish Migration in the Nore Catchment, Southern Regional Fisheries Board. Unpublished Report to CFB Chapman, P.J. & L.L. Chapman. 1982. Otter survey of Ireland. Unpublished Report to Vincent Wildlife Trust Charif, R.A. & C.W. Clark. 2000. Acoustic monitoring of large whales to the west of Britain and Ireland using bottom mounted hydrophone arrays, October 1996-September 1998. JNCC report, no. 313. Charif, R.A. & C.W. Clark. 2009. Acoustic monitoring of large whales in deep waters north and west of the

65 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

British Isles: 1996-2005. Preliminary Report. Cornell University Lab of Ornithology Bioacoustics Research Program, Technical Report 08-07 for UK Department of Energy and Climate Change’s offshore energy Strategic Environmental Assessment programme. 40pp. Cronin, M.; Duck, C.; Ó Cadhla, O.; Nairn, R.; Strong, D. & C. O'Keeffe. 2004. Harbour seal population assessment in the Republic of Ireland: August 2003. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 11 DAHG. 2012. Guidance to manage the risk to marine mammals from man-made sound sources in Irish Waters. Draft March 2012. pp.47. Defra/Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2003. Preliminary investigation of the sensitivity of fish to sound generated by aggregate dredging and marine construction. Project AE0914 Final Report. DEHLG. 2009. Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland - Guidance for Planning Authorities (Revised February 2010). ETS. 1998. Fisheries impact assessment of plough dredge bed-levelling, Waterford Estuary, Ireland. Eysink, W.D. et al. 2000. Dredging of Duncannon Bar. Environmental impact of dredging and spoil dumping. Report H3544. Report prepared by Delft Hydraulics for the Port of Waterford Company and New Ross Port Company. Eysink, W.D., de Graaff, R.F. & K.J. Bos. 2001. Dredging of Suir and Barrow Rivers. Environmental impact of annual spoil dumping at sea off Hook Head. Report prepared by Delft Hydraulics for the Port of Waterford Company and New Ross Port Company. European Commission. 2000. Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. European Commission. 2002. Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites. Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. European Commission. 2007. EU Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the 'Habitats Directive' 92/43/EEC. Clarification of the concepts of: alternative solutions, imperative reasons of overriding public interest, compensatory measures, overall coherence, opinion of the Commission. Evans, P.G.H. 1990. European cetaceans and seabirds in an oceanographic context. Lutra 33 (2): 95-125. Hardisty, M.W. 1969. Information on the growth of the ammocoete larvae of the anadromous sea lamprey, Petromyzon marinus, in British rivers. Journal of Zoology 159, 139–144. Harvey, J. & Cowx, I. 2003. Monitoring the river, sea and brook lamprey, Lampetra fluviatilis, L. planeri and Petromyzon marinus. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No. 5, English Nature, Peterborough Heitmeyer, R. M., S. C. Wales and L. A. Pflug. 2004. Shipping noise predictions: capabilities and limitations.

66 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Marine Technology Society Journal 37, 54-65. Hydrographic Surveys Ltd. 2000a. Waterford Port Company. Turbidity and Salinity Measurements. January 2000. Hydrographic Surveys Ltd. 2000b. Waterford Port Company. Turbidity and Salinity Measurements. September 2000. Hydrographic Surveys Ltd. 2001a. Report of survey turbidity measurements, Suir Estuary June 2001. Hydrographic Surveys Ltd. 2001b. Report of survey turbidity measurements, Suir Estuary December 2001. IDS Monitoring Ltd. 2013. A Review of Water Quality Monitoring Data around Cheek Point Dredge Site, Waterford Port with focus on dredging periods in 2012 and 2013. June 2013. IDS Monitoring Ltd. 2017. A review of dredge related monitoring data at Cheek Point, Waterford for a period covering three campaigns between January and March 2017 IDS Data Report IDS-DR17-04 . April 2nd 2017. IWDG. 2010. Species Profile: Harbour Porpoise. http://www.iwdg.ie/species_profiles.asp?speciesID=2241 Kennedy, R. 2008. Benthic biotope classification of subtidal sedimentary habitats in the Lower River Suir candidate Special Area of Conservation and the River Nore and River Barrow candidate Special Area of Conservation (July 2008). Atlantic Resources Management Solutions. pp.30. Kiely, O.R.M. 1998. Population biology of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus Fabricius 1791) in western Ireland. PhD. thesis for the National University of Ireland, University College Cork. Ireland. Kiely, O., Lidgard, D.C., McKibben, M., Baines, M.E. & Connolly, N. 2000. Grey Seals: Status & Monitoring in the Irish & Celtic Seas. Maritime Ireland/Wales INTERREG report No. 3. Marine Institute, 80 Harcourt St., Dublin. King, J.J. 2006. The distribution of Lamprey in the River Barrow SAC. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 21 Kingston, S.; O'Connell, M. & J.S. Fairley. 1999. Diet of Otters Lutra lutra on Inishmore, Aran Islands, west coast of Ireland. Biol & Environ Proc R Ir Acad B 99B: 173–182 Kipple, B. M. and C. M. Gabriele. 2004. Glacier Bay watercraft noise – noise characterization for tour, charter, private, and government vessels: Report to Glacier Bay National Park by the Naval Surface Warfare Cent-Detachment Bremerton. Technical Report NSWCCD-71-TR- 2004/545. Kipple, B. M. and C. M. Gabriele. 2003a. Glacier Bay watercraft noise: Report to Glacier Bay National Park by the Naval Surface Warfare Cent-Detachment Bremerton. Technical Report NSWCCD-71-TR-2003/522. Kruuk, H. 2006. Otters ‐ ecology, behaviour and conservation. Oxford University Press Kruuk, H. & A. Moorhouse. 1991. The spatial organization of otters (Lutra lutra) in Shetland. J. Zool 224: 41‐57 Lidgard, D.C.; Kiely, O.; Rogan, E. & N. Connolly. 2001. The status of breeding grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) on the east and south‐east coast of Ireland. Mammalia 65 (3): 283‐294.

67 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Lockley, R.M. 1966. The distribution of grey and common seals on the coasts of Ireland. Ir. Nat. J. 15: 136-14. Lyons, D.O. 2004. Summary of National Parks & Wildlife Service surveys for common (harbour) seals (Phoca vitulina) and grey seals (Halichoerus grypus), 1978 to 2003. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 13 Maas, J.; Stevens, M. & J. Breine. 2008. Poor water quality constrains the distribution and movements of Twaite shad Alosa fallax fallax (Lacepede, 1803) in the watershed of river Scheldt. Hydrobiologia 602: 129 ‐ 143 Maitland, P.S. 2003. Ecology of the River, Brook and Sea Lamprey. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 5. English Nature, Peterborough. Maitland, P.S. & T.W. Hatton‐Ellis. 2003. Ecology of the Allis and Twaite shad. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 3. English Nature, Peterborough Malone O’Regan. 2002. Port of Waterford Company. Environmental Impact Hypothesis on the Disposal of Dredged Material at a Marine Location. McCorry, M. & T. Ryle. 2009. Saltmarsh Monitoring Report 2007‐2008. Unpublished Report to NPWS Morris KH & PS Maitland. 1987. A trap for catching adult lampreys (Petromyzonidae) in running water. Journal of Fish Biology 31, 513–516. NPWS. 2001. Site Synopsis: Hook Head cSAC IE000764. NPWS. 2006a. Site Synopsis: Lower River Suir cSAC IE002137. NPWS. 2006b. Site Synopsis: River Barrow and River Nore cSAC IE002162. NPWS. 2007. Supporting documentation for the Habitats Directive Conservation Status Assessment ‐ backing documents, Article 17 forms and supporting maps. Unpublished Report to NPWS NPWS. 2008. The status of EU protected habitats and species in Ireland. Conservation status in Ireland habitats and species listed in the European Council Directive on the Conservation of Habitats, Flora and Fauna 92/43/EEC. National Parks and Wildlife Service. NPWS. 2011a. Conservation Objectives: River Barrow and River Nore SAC 002162. Version 1.0. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. NPWS. 2011b. Conservation Objectives: Hook Head SAC 000764. Version 1.0. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. NPWS. 2011c. Conservation Objectives: Saltee Islands SAC 000707 and Saltee Islands SPA 004002. Version 1.0. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. NPWS. 2011d. River Barrow and River Nore SAC (site code: 2162) Conservation objectives supporting document -marine habitats. Version 1. April 2011. NPWS. 2011e. Hook Head SAC (site code: 0764) Conservation objectives supporting document - marine habitats Version 1 July 2011. NPWS. 2016.Site Synopsis. Site Name: River Barrow and River Nore SAC Site Code: 002162

68 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

NPWS. 2017. Conservation Objectives: Lower River Suir SAC 002137. Version 1. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Ó’ Cadhla, O., Mackey, M., Aguilar de Soto, N., Rogan, E. & N. Connolly. 2004. Cetaceans and seabirds of Atlantic Margin. Volume II – Cetacean distribution and abundance. Report on research carried out under the Irish Infrastructure Programme (PIP): Rockall Studies Group (RSG) projects 98/6 and 00/13, Porcupine Studies Group project P00/15 and Offshore Support Group (OSG) project 99/38. 82 pp. Ó Cadhla, O.; Strong, D.; O'Keeffe, C.; Coleman, M.; Cronin, M.; Duck, C.; Murray, T.; Dower, P.; Nairn, R.; Murphy, P.; Smiddy, P.; Saich, C.; Lyons, D. & L. Hiby. 2007. An assessment of the breeding population of grey seals in the Republic of Ireland, 2005. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 34 Ó Cadhla, O. & D. Strong. 2007. Grey seal moult population survey in the Republic of Ireland, 2007. Unpublished Report to NPWS & CMRC O'Connor, W. 2007. A Survey of Juvenile Lamprey Populations in the Corrib and Suir Catchments. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 26 OSPAR Commission. 2009a.Overview of the impacts of anthropogenic underwater sound in the marine environment. OSPAR Commission Biodiversity Series. pp. 134. OSPAR Commission. 2009b. Assessment of the environmental impact of underwater noise. London: OSPAR Commission Biodiversity Servies. Publication No. 436/2009. 43pp. Picton, B.E. & M.J. Costello. 1997. The BioMar biotope viewer: a guide to marine habitats, fauna and flora in Britain and Ireland. Trinity College Dublin Pollock, C., Reid, J.B., Webb, A. & M.L. Tasker. 1997. The distribution of seabirds and cetaceans in the waters around Ireland. JNCC Report, No. 267. Reid, J., Evans, P.G.H. & S. Northridge (Eds). 2003. An atlas of cetacean distribution on the northwest European continental shelf. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Richardson, W. J., C. G. Greene Jr., C. I. Malme, & D. H. Thompson. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego. Richardson, W.J., Wuersig, B, & C.R. Green, Jr. 1990. Reactions of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, to drilling and dredging noise in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Marine Environmental Research, 29: 135-160. Rijn, L.C. van. 1990. Hydraulic studies Cheekpoint Upper ans Lower Bay, Waterford Ireland. Delft Hydraulics Report H1118, Annex 2: Field Survey December 1990. Robinson, S.P., Theobald, P.D., Hayman, G., Wang, L.S., Lepper, P.A., Humphrey, V. & S. Mumford. 2011. Measurement of noise arising from marine aggregate dredging operations, MALSF (MEPF Ref no. 09/P108), Published February 2011. Southall, B.L., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T. Finneran, J.J., Gentry, R.L., Greene Jr., C.R., Kastak, D., Ketten, D.R.,

69 JN1437

Natura Impact Statement for the Port of Waterford’s Proposed Dredging Port of Waterford Company and Disposal Programme November 2017

Miller, J.H., Nachtigall, P.E., Richardson, W.J., Thomas, J.A. & P. L. Tyack. 2007. Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations MALSF MEPF 09/P108, Aquatic Mammals, 33 (4): 411-509 SSC. 2010. Report of the standing scientific committee to the DCENR. The status of Irish salmon stocks in 2010 and precautionary catch advice for 2011. Unpublished Report to DCENR Sullivan, A. 2007. Assessment of fish passage and the ecological impact of migration barriers on the River Nore catchment. Nore Suir Rivers Trust & OPW. Summers, C.F. 1980. The grey seal, Halichoerus grypus, in NW Ireland. Report to the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Wildlife. 13pp. Summers, C.F. 1983. The grey seal, Halichoerus grypus, in Ireland. Report to the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Wildlife. 13pp. Whooley, P., Berrow S. & Barnes C. (2011). Photo-identification of fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus L.) off the south coast of Ireland. Marine Biodiversity Records 4: e8. 7pp. 2011.

70 JN1437