Stage 1 Screening Report and Stage 2 Natura Impact Statement (NIS) Report

Proposed New Slipway and Beach Access at Fethard Harbour March 2020

Prepared by DixonBrosnan dixonbrosnan.com

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 1 DixonBrosnan 2020 Dixon.Brosnan environmental consultants

Project Stage 1 Screening Report and Stage 2 Natura Impact Statement (NIS) Report for Proposed New Slipway and Beach Access at Fethard Harbour

Client T.J O Connor & Associates

Project ref Report no Client ref 2023 2023 -

DixonBrosnan 12 Steam Packet House, Railway Street, Passage West, Co. Cork Tel 086 851 1437| [email protected] | www.dixonbrosnan.com

Date Rev Status Prepared by 10/03/20 2 2nd draft .

This report and its contents are copyright of DixonBrosnan. It may not be reproduced without permission. The report is to be used only for its intended purpose. The report is confidential to the client, and is personal and non-assignable. No liability is admitted to third parties. ©DixonBrosnan 2020 v180907

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 2 DixonBrosnan 2020 1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The information in this report has been compiled by DixonBrosnan Environmental Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. It provides information on and assesses the potential for a New Slipway and Beach Access at Fethard Harbour, Fethard on Sea, County Wexford to impact on any European sites within its zone of influence.

The information in this report forms part of and should be read in conjunction with the planning application documentation being submitted to the planning authority (Wexford County Council) in connection with the proposed development. A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) have also been prepared for the proposed development. These reports provide detailed assessments of the potential impacts, mitigation measures and residual impacts associated with the proposed project.

The Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) and the Habitats Directive (92/42/EEC) put an obligation on EU Member States to establish the Natura 2000 network of sites of highest biodiversity importance for rare and threatened habitats and species across the EU. In Ireland, the Natura 2000 network of European sites comprises Special Areas of Conservation (SACs, including candidate SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs, including proposed SPAs). SACs are selected for the conservation of Annex I habitats (including priority types which are in danger of disappearance) and Annex II species (other than birds). SPAs are selected for the conservation of Annex I birds and other regularly occurring migratory birds and their habitats. The annexed habitats and species for which each site is selected correspond to the qualifying interests of the sites and from these the conservation objectives of the site are derived. The Birds and Habitats Directives set out various procedures and obligations in relation to nature conservation management in Member States in general, and of the Natura 2000 sites and their habitats and species in particular. A key protection mechanism is the requirement to consider the possible nature conservation implications of any plan or project on the Natura 2000 site network before any decision is made to allow that plan or project to proceed. Not only is every new plan or project captured by this requirement but each plan or project, when being considered for approval at any stage, must take into consideration the possible effects it may have in combination with other plans and projects when going through the process known as Appropriate Assessment (AA).

The obligation to undertake Appropriate Assessment (AA) derives from Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, and both involve a number of steps and tests that need to be applied in sequential order. Article 6(3) is concerned with the strict protection of sites, while Article 6(4) is the procedure for allowing derogation from this strict protection in certain restricted circumstances. A screening for appropriate assessment of an application for consent for the proposed development must be carried out by the competent authority to assess, in view of best scientific knowledge, if the proposed development, individually or in combination with another plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on any European site. Each step in the assessment process precedes and provides a basis for other steps. The results at each step must be documented and recorded carefully so there is full traceability and transparency of the decisions made.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 3 DixonBrosnan 2020 The proposed development facility is located within the Hook Head SAC and Bannow Spa Bay as well as being in proximity a number of other Natura 2000 sites (Figure 3). For this reason, it is necessary that the proposal be subject to the AA process. This document provides the relevant information to the planning authority to carry out Stages 1 and 2 of the Appropriate Assessment process. This Stage 1 AA Screening and Stage 2 Natura Impact Statement (NIS) Report comprises a compilation of the information relevant to the competent authority’s assessments relating to the potential significant effects of the proposed New Slipway and Beach Access on Natura 2000 sites within the surrounding area.

1.2 Aims of this report

The purpose of this report is to inform the AA process as required under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) in instances where a plan or project may give rise to significant effects on a Natura 2000 site. This report aims to inform the Appropriate Assessment process in determining whether the development, both alone and in combination with other plans or projects, is likely to have a significant effect on the Natura 2000 sites in the study area, in the context of their conservation objectives and specifically on the habitats and species for which the sites have been designated.

Documentation/guidelines of relevance to this NIS include the following:

 European Commission, 2001. Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites: Methodological guidance on the provisions of Articles 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Brussels (EC, 2001);

 European Commission, 2000a. Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (EC, 2000a);

 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 (EC, 2018);

 Managing Natura 2000 Sites: the provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC (EC, 2000)

 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; (EC, 2007);

 Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland. Guidance for Planning Authorities. Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin (DEHLG, 2010a);

 Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government Circular NPW 1/10 and PSSP 2/10 on Appropriate Assessment under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive – Guidance for Planning Authorities (DEHLG, 2010b);

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 4 DixonBrosnan 2020  Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats. Version EUR 28. European Commission (EC, 2013);

 Applications for approval for Local Authority Developments made to An Bord Pleanála under 177AE of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended (Appropriate Assessment): Guidelines for Local Authorities. An Bord Pleanála, Dublin (ABP, 2013).

 CJEU Case C 164/17 Edel Grace Peter Sweetman v An Bord Pleanála

1.3 Authors of Report for Screening and Appropriate Assessment

This report for screening and NIS was prepared by , , , and for DixonBrosnan Environmental Consultants.

is a senior ecologist who has over 20 years’ experience in ecological and water quality assessments with particular expertise in freshwater ecology. He also has experience in mammal surveys, invasive species surveys and ecological supervision of large- scale projects. Projects in recent years include the Waste to Energy Facility Ringaskiddy, Shannon LNG Project, supervision of the Fermoy Flood Relief Scheme, Skibbereen Flood Relief Scheme, Douglas Flood Relief Scheme and Great Island Gas Pipeline.

is an experienced ecological consultant who has worked on Screening/NIS’s for a range of small and large-scale projects with particular expertise in assessing impacts on birds. Projects in recent years include bird risk assessment at Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports, Indaver Waste Recovery Facility and several wind farm sites.

is an experienced ecologist with expertise in surveying for invasive species, mammal and bird surveys. He carries out ongoing water quality surveys for a range of projects including quarries and wastewater treatment plants. Likewise, he has carried out ecological surveys and prepared AA/NIS reports for a range of projects including industrial developments, pipelines, quarries and agricultural units.

has an MSc in Marine Biology from University College Cork and has carried out ecological assessments for a range of projects.

2. Regulatory Context and the Appropriate Assessment Procedure

2.1 Regulatory context

The Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora) aims to maintain or restore the favourable conservation status of habitats and species of community interest across Europe. The requirements of these directives are transposed into Irish law through the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats Regulations; S.I. No. 477 of 2011).

Under the Directive a network of sites of nature conservation importance have been identified by each Member State as containing specified habitats or species requiring to be maintained

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 5 DixonBrosnan 2020 or returned to favourable conservation status. In Ireland the network consists of SACs and SPAs, and also candidate sites, which form the Natura 2000 network.

Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (as amended) (hereafter ‘the Habitats Directive’) requires that, any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a designated 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. A competent authority (e.g. the OPW or Local Authority) can only agree to a plan or project after having determined that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned.

The possibility of a significant effect on a designated or “European” site has generated the need for an appropriate assessment to be carried out by the competent authority for the purposes of Article 6(3). A Stage Two Appropriate Assessment is required if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that the proposed development, individually or in combination with other plans or projects, will have a significant effect on a European site. The first (Screening) Stage for appropriate assessment operates merely to determine whether a (Stage Two) Appropriate Assessment must be undertaken on the implications of the plan or project for the conservation objectives of relevant European sites.

2.2 Appropriate Assessment Procedure

The assessment requirements of Article 6(3) establish a stage-by-stage approach. This assessment follows the stages outlined in the 2001 European Commission publications “Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites: methodological guidance on the provisions of Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC” (2001) and Managing Natura 2000 Sites: the provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC (Draft) Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (EC, 2015);

The stages are as follows:

Stage One: Screening — the process which identifies any appreciable impacts upon a Natura 2000 site of a project or plan, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans, and considers whether these impacts are likely to be significant;

Stage Two: Appropriate assessment — the consideration of the impact on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site of the project or plan, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans, with respect to the site’s structure and function and its conservation objectives. Additionally, where there are adverse impacts, an assessment of the potential mitigation of those impacts;

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 6 DixonBrosnan 2020 Stage Three: Assessment of alternative solutions: The process which examines alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the project or plan that avoid adverse impacts on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site. It is confirmed that no reliance is placed by the developer on Stage Three in the context of this application for development consent;

Stage Four: Assessment where no alternative solutions exist and where adverse impacts remain — an assessment of compensatory measures where, in the light of an assessment of imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI), it is deemed that the project or plan should proceed (it is important to note that this guidance does not deal with the assessment of imperative reasons of overriding public interest). Again, for the avoidance of doubt, it is confirmed that no reliance is placed by the developer on Stage Four in the context of this application for development consent.

It is the responsibility of the competent authority, in this instance Wexford County Council, to make a decision on whether or not the proposed development should be approved, taking into consideration any potential impact upon any Natura 2000 site within its zone of influence.

3. Screening of Proposed Development

3.1 Existing site

Fethard Harbour is located at the mouth of Fethard Bay in County Wexford, approximately 6km southwest of the larger Bannow Bay (Figure 1). The existing harbour is located approximately 1.2 km east-southeast of Fethard Village and is accessed via local road L8116.

The proposed development site is located at the southern tip of Bannow Bay which is a relatively large estuarine site, approximately 14 km long. Small rivers and streams to the north and south-west flow into the bay and their sub-estuaries from part of the site. The southern end of the bay supports a mosaic of sand dunes, saltmarshes, sea cliffs of clay and rock and extensive sandy beaches.

In winter Bannow Bay holds up to 20,000 wintering wildfowl including internationally important numbers of Brent Goose and Black-tailed Godwit as well as nationally important concentrations of Golden Plover, Shelduck and Curlew.

The existing Fethard Harbour consists of two linked piers which enclose a small harbour. This enclosed harbour, in which a number of boats are moored, may dry up entirely during low spring tides. The existing harbour serves the local fishing fleet, the local lifeboat services and leisure craft. Potting for lobster and crab is the main fishing activity with limited shrimp fishing also carried out. Facilities are limited by the available space within the harbour and the fact that it generally dries out at low tide. The existing slipway terminates shortly below the high- water tide. Access to the existing quay area is narrow and steeply sloping and a small hard standing/decking area exists to serve the facility.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 7 DixonBrosnan 2020

Figure 1. Proposed Development Site Location

3.2 Project Description

Wexford County Council propose to carry out works to the existing harbour facilities at Fethard Harbour, Co. Wexford. The works proposed involve the construction of a new slipway and beach access, located along the eastern side of the existing harbour in Fethard, Co. Wexford. The layout of the proposed development is included in Figure 2 and Figure 2a. The scope of works included in the project is as follows:

 Construction of a new concrete deck and slipway on fill to the east side of the existing harbour  Construction of associated reinforced concrete retaining walls  Construction of associated concrete access ramp and steps to the adjacent beach area  Excavation/dredging required for construction of above concrete works  Disposal of any surplus excavated material in accordance with the Waste Management Acts 1996-2019  All ancillary works, fittings and services required

Dredging of the sandflats will be carried out locally to facilitate the proposed slipway and beach access construction during low tidal periods. A precast reinforced concrete framed structure of the slipway will be installed during low tidal periods and the remaining slipway concrete structure to be infilled with in situ reinforced concrete. The Contractor will be required to mitigate against any inadvertent spillages of hydrocarbons, chemicals or cement during. Waste production is anticipated to be at a minimum. Waste management will incorporate the engagement of an authorised waste collection permit holder, for removal of any inert waste produced; however, recycling of inert waste is a policy of Wexford County

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 8 DixonBrosnan 2020 Council. This proposed development will be undertaken by contractors who will cooperate and adhere to the requirements of Wexford County Council.

The new slipway will be used for launching and recovering boats. The proposed development site will be accessed via an existing local road (L8116). The proposed slipway will be used mainly by leisure boats and the RNLI Boat. It is estimated an average of up to 4 boats (4 launch and 4 recovery) per day plus by lifeboat as required.

In general, the area beside the harbour is not widely used as a beach and it is not envisaged that more usage as a result of the new slipway. There are a number of beaches in close proximity to the site that are extensively used during the summer season.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 9 DixonBrosnan 2020

Figure 2. Layout of proposed new slipway and beach access

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 10 DixonBrosnan 2020

Figure 2a Aerial view of proposed development

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 11 DixonBrosnan 2020 3.3 Natura 2000 Sites

In accordance with the European Commission Methodological Guidance (EC2001), a list of Natura 2000 Sites that can be potentially affected by the proposed project has been complied. These are listed in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 3. In this instance the use of a 15km radius is a precautionary measure, as impacts at this distance from the proposed development are highly unlikely in the absence of significant aqueous emissions.

The proposed development is located within and adjacent to a number of Natura 2000 sites (Figure 3/4a/4b). The proposed development site is located within the boundaries of the Hook Head SAC and Bannow Bay SPA and 27m east of the Bannow Bay SAC. Qualifying species and habitats within these sites could therefore potentially be impacted via habitat loss and/or reductions in water quality. The Keeragh Islands SPA and Ballyteige Burrow SPA are located 5.3 km and 7.9 km respectively from the proposed development site. Bird species which are designated as Special Conservation Interests (SCI’s) for the Keeragh Islands SPA and Ballyteige Burrow SPA are likely to use the Bannow Bay SPA and therefore may be alsocould also be impacted by the proposed development. The Saltee Islands SAC is located 9.4 km southeast of the proposed development site. Grey Seal, which are a qualifying species, could utilise marine habitats in proximity to Fethard Harbour. Noise and disturbance during the construction phase could potentially impact foraging Grey Seal.

Therefore, a source-pathway-receptor link exists between the source (proposed development) and the receptors (Hook Head SAC (site code 000796), Bannow Bay SPA (site code 004033), Bannow Bay SAC (site code 000697) Ballyteige Burrow SPA (site code 004020), Keeragh Islands SPA (site code 004118) and Saltee Islands SAC (site code 000707)

Overall, these Natura 2000 sites are of considerable conservation significance for the occurrence of good examples of habitats and of populations of plant and bird species that are listed on Annexes I and II of the E.U. Habitats and Bird Directives. Further information on these sites is provided below. Full site synopses are included Appendix 1.

Given the limited scale of the proposed development, the lack of a hydrological connection and/or the distances involved no potential for significant effects on other Natura 2000 sites has been identified.

Table 1. Designated sites and their location relative to the proposed work site.

Site Code Approx. Distance at Closest Point. Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

Hook Head 000764 0 km. Works will take place within the SAC boundary and therefore a source-pathway-receptor link has been identified between the source (proposed development site) and the receptor (Hook Head SAC) via a potential pathway (habitat loss and reduction in water quality). Therefore, this site will be considered further in the below impact assessment.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 12 DixonBrosnan 2020 Site Code Approx. Distance at Closest Point. Bannow Bay 000697 27 m W of proposed development site. Therefore a source-pathway-receptor link has been identified between the source (proposed development site) and the receptor (Bannow Bay SAC) via a potential pathway (effects on water quality). Therefore, this site will be considered further in the below impact assessment.

Saltee Islands 000707 9.4 km SE. Foraging grey seal could utilise marine habitats in proximity to Fethard Harbour. Therefore a source- pathway-receptor link has been identified between the source (proposed development site) and the receptor (Saltee Islands SAC) via a potential pathway (elevated noise and disturbance). Therefore, this site will be considered further in the below impact assessment.

River Barrow & River Nore 002162 5.4 km W. No pathway exists. Ballyteige Burrow 000696 7.3 km ENE. No pathway exists. Special Protection Area (SPA) Bannow Bay 004033 0 km. Works will take place within the SAC boundary and therefore a source-pathway-receptor link has been identified between the source (proposed development site) and the receptor (Bannow Bay SPA) via a potential pathway (habitat loss or disturbance to qualifying species). Therefore, this site will be considered further in the below impact assessment.

Ballyteige Burrow 004020 7.9 km ENE. SCI species are likely to forage within the Bannow Bay SPA. Although unlikely, there is a potential source- pathway-receptor link between the source (proposed development site) and the receptor (Ballyteige Burrow SPA) via a potential pathway (disturbance to qualifying species). Therefore, this site will be considered further in the below impact assessment.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 13 DixonBrosnan 2020 Site Code Approx. Distance at Closest Point. Keeragh Islands 004118 5.3 km E. SCI species are likely to forage within the Bannow Bay SPA. Although unlikely, there is a potential source- pathway-receptor link between the source (proposed development site) and the receptor (Keeragh Islands SPA) via a potential pathway (disturbance to qualifying species). Therefore, this site will be considered further in the below impact assessment.

Figure 3. Natura 2000 Sites within 15km radius of proposed development site

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 14 DixonBrosnan 2020

Figure 4a & 4b. Location of Proposed Development Site within and adjacent to Natura 2000 sites.

3.4 Natura 2000 Site – Site Synopses, qualifying interests and conservation objectives

As noted above the the Hook Head SAC (site code 000796), Bannow Bay SPA (Site code 004033), Bannow Bay SAC (site code 000697), Ballyteige Burrow (site code 004020),

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 15 DixonBrosnan 2020 Keeragh Islands (site code 004118) and Saltee Islands SAC (site code 000707) are considered directly relevant to this project. Site synopses for these Natura 2000 sites are included in Appendix 1.

3.4.1 Hook Head SAC

The Hook peninsula is a long, narrow, low-lying headland which protrudes into the sea in a south-south-west direction on the eastern side of Waterford Harbour. The site includes approximately 15 km of coastline, most of which has cliffs above a bedrock or boulder beach shoreline. The cliffs are mostly low, usually not more than 10-20 m in height, though they reach up to 30 m at Baginbun. The geology of the area is of high interest, being an excellent example of the junction between Devonian Old Red Sandstone and overlying Carboniferous Limestone. Fossils are a feature of the limestone rock formations. A large area of the surrounding sea is included in the site. Under the surface of the water, the reef has a north-east/south-west orientation and is typically strewn with boulders, cobbles and patches of sand and gravel. It is exposed to prevailing wind and swells from the west. Tidal streams tend to be moderate but are strong in some areas.

The site has an important example of low-lying south-eastern cliffs of both clay and rock. Quality good. It is of high geological importance and a noted fossil site. It is of particular importance for marine habitats. Infralittoral bedrock communities are species rich (81 and 84 species in the upper infralittoral and 81 and 82 species in the lower infralittoral). Rare to scarce species include the sponge Stryphnus ponderosus; the hydroids Aglaophenia kirchenpaueri and Gymnangium montagui; the anemone Isozoanthus sulcatus; the nudibranch Crimora papillata; the ascidians Distomus variolosus and Stolonica socialis; and the red alga, Schizymenia dubyi. Of particular interest is Schizymenia dubyi since Irish populations of this species appear to be concentrated in the south-east of the country. Circalittoral reef communities have good examples of Axinellid sponge communities. Notable species present are: Axinella dissimilis, Aglaophenia kirchenpaueri, Gymnangium montagui, Alcyonium glomeratum, Eunicella verrucosa and Crimora papillata. Sublittoral sediments populated by the burrowing sea cucumber Neopendactyla mixta are noteworthy because this type of community was only recorded seven times by the BioMar survey and the Amphiura securigera was only recorded at the Kenmare River in Co. Kerry and at Hook Head and the Saltee Islands in Co. Wexford. The site has breeding Falco peregrinus and Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax, and a small seabird colony (mostly Uria aalge).

3.4.2 Bannow Bay SPA

Bannow Bay is a large, very sheltered, estuarine system with a narrow outlet to the sea. Extensive areas of intertidal mud and sand flats are exposed at low tide, with an average width of about 2 km. A number of small to medium sized rivers flow into the site, the principal being the Owenduff and the Corock which enter at the top end of the estuary. The sediments have a rich macroinvertebrate fauna, with such species as Scrobicularia plana, Hediste diversicolor and Arenicola marina being frequent. Salt marshes are well developed in the sheltered areas of the site. The main land use within the site is shellfish farming. The site is surrounded by agricultural land of moderate to high intensity.

Bannow Bay supports an excellent diversity of wintering waterfowl and is one of the most important sites in the south-east. Of particular note is an internationally important population

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 16 DixonBrosnan 2020 of Branta bernicla hrota. It also supports nationally important numbers of a further 12 species, which includes 3.4% of the national total for Tadorna tadorna, 3.0% of the total for Limosa limosa, 2.6% of the total for Limosa lapponica and 2.6% of the total for Anas acuta. The intertidal sand and mud flats provide excellent feeding for waterfowl species, while suitable roosts are provided by the salt marshes and other shoreline habitats. Habitats are generally of good quality. Part of site is a Wildfowl Sanctuary. The site has been well monitored since the 1970s.

3.4.3 Bannow Bay SAC

Bannow Bay SAC is a relatively large estuarine site on south-east coast of Ireland. This typical coastal estuary has large areas of mud and sand and restricted access to the sea. Small rivers and streams to the north and south-west flow into the bay. The southern end of the site supports a mosaic of sand dune types, sea cliffs of clay, and rock and extensive sandy beaches. The northern end supports freshwater habitats of marsh, wet woodland and non- tidal reedbed. The geology of the site is mainly Ordovician slate rocks with some Cambrian slate at the south-east.

The site is important for presence of eleven habitats listed on Annex I of Habitats Directive. Halophilous scrub at the site is one of only two examples in the country. The legally protected Arthrocnemum perenne is also found here. The site includes an important SPA. Internationally important numbers of Branta bernicla hrota are found and nationally important numbers of Tadorna tadorna, Anas acuta, Calidris, Vanellus vanellus, Calidris alpina, Limosa limosa islandica, L. lapponica, Tringa totanus, Plurialis apricaria Egretta garzetta, Alcedo atthis and Sterna albifrons are found and possibly breed in the site. A substantial heronry is located at south-west of site.

3.4.4 Ballyteige Burrow SPA

Ballyteige Burrow SPA is located on the south coast of Co. Wexford between the towns of Kilmore Quay and Cullenstown. The site is dominated by a long sand and shingle barrier (spit) which supports an impressive dune complex known as the Burrow. The site is important for wintering waterbirds and provides excellent feeding grounds plus sheltered and secure high- tide roosts. The site supports non-breeding (wintering) Light-bellied Brent Goose and Black- tailed Godwit in numbers of international importance plus a further five waterbird species in numbers of all-Ireland importance.

3.4.5 Keeragh Islands SPA

The Keeragh Islands are two low-lying islets located just over 1 km offshore from the south Wexford coastline. This site is a Special Protection Area (SPA) under the E.U. Birds Directive, of special conservation interest for the following species: Cormorant. The islands have a nationally important breeding colony of Cormorant (200 pairs recorded in 2000), which is considered to be one of the largest in the country. The colony has been well-monitored since it was first recorded in 1968 and there has been a long-term ringing programme. Terns, mainly Arctic Tern, have bred in the past but not since the 1970s. Herring Gull, Great Black-backed Gull and Lesser Black-backed Gull have also bred but no population estimates for recent years are available. A small number of Shag (c.10 pairs) were present in 1970.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 17 DixonBrosnan 2020 3.4.6 Saltee Islands SAC

This site comprises the Saltees 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 between 4 and 5 km 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.

Great Saltee has a breeding population of Grey Seal, one of the very few in eastern Ireland. The breeding population was estimated at 571-744 individuals in 2005. A one-off moult count in 2007 gave a figure of 246 individuals.

3.4.7 Natura 2000 sites – Features of interests and conservation objectives. The EU Habitats Directive contains a list of habitats (Annex I) and species (Annex II) for which SACs must be established by Member States. Similarly, the EU Birds Directive contains lists of important bird species (Annex I) and other migratory bird species for which SPAs must be established. Those that are known to occur at a site are referred to as ‘qualifying interests’ and are listed in the Natura 2000 forms which are lodged with the EU Commission by each Member State. A ‘qualifying interest’ is one of the factors (such as the species or habitat that is present) for which the site merits designation. The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) are responsible for the designation of SACs and SPAs in Ireland.

The conservation objectives for the sites are detailed in the following publications:

NPWS (2012) Conservation Objectives: Bannow Bay SAC 000697. Version 1.0. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht

NPWS (2011) Conservation Objectives: Hook Head SAC 000764. Version 1.0. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht

NPWS (2012) Conservation Objectives: Bannow Bay SPA 004033. Version 1.0. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

NPWS (2014) Conservation Objectives: Ballyteige Burrow SPA 004020. Version 1. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

NPWS (2018) Conservation objectives for Keeragh Islands SPA [004118]. Generic Version 6.0. Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

NPWS (2011) 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.

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 at favourable conservation status sites designated as Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 18 DixonBrosnan 2020 Areas. The Government and its agencies are responsible for the implementation and enforcement of regulations that will ensure the ecological integrity of these sites.

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 ecological factors that 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 data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself, 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 species and/or habitats listed as qualifying interests for Bannow Bay SAC, Hook Head SAC and Bannow Bay SPA and specific conservation objectives are included in Table 2 - 7.

Table 2. Qualifying interests (QIs) for the Hook Head SAC

Habitat Habitat Conservation Code objective 1160 Large shallow inlets and bays Maintain 1170 Reefs Maintain 1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts Maintain Restore = Restore favourable conservation condition, Maintain = Restore favourable conservation condition Table 3: Special Conservation Interests (SCIs) for the Bannow Bay SPA Species Species Scientific name Conservation code objective A046 Light-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota Maintain A048 Shelduck Tadorna tadorna Maintain A054 Pintail Anas acuta Maintain A130 Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus Maintain A140 Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria Maintain A141 Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola Maintain A142 Lapwing Vanellus vanellus Maintain A143 Knot Calidris canutus Maintain A149 Dunlin Calidris alpina Maintain A156 Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa Maintain A157 Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica Maintain A160 Curlew Numenius arquata Maintain A162 Redshank Tringa totanus Maintain A999 Wetlands Maintain Restore = Restore favourable conservation condition, Maintain = Restore favourable conservation condition Table 4. Qualifying interests (QIs) for the Bannow Bay SAC

Habitat Habitat Conservation Code objective 1130 Estuaries Maintain

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 19 DixonBrosnan 2020 1420 Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous Restore scrubs (Sarcocornetea fruticosi) 1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at Maintain low tide 1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines Maintain 1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and Restore sand 1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia Restore maritimae) 1410 Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) Restore 2110 Embryonic shifting dunes Restore 2130 *Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation Restore (grey dunes) 1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks Maintain 2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila Restore arenaria (white dunes) Restore = Restore favourable conservation condition, Maintain = Restore favourable conservation condition, * Priority habitat under the Habitats Directive

Table 5. Special Conservation Interests (SCIs) for the Ballyteige Burrow SPA Species Species Scientific name Conservation code objective A046 Light-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota Maintain A048 Shelduck Tadorna tadorna Maintain A140 Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria Maintain A141 Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola Maintain A142 Lapwing Vanellus vanellus Maintain A156 Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa Maintain A157 Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica Maintain A999 Wetlands Maintain Restore = Restore favourable conservation condition, Maintain = Restore favourable conservation condition Table 6. Special Conservation Interests (SCIs) for the Keeragh Islands SPA Species Species Scientific name Conservation code objective A017 Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo Maintain/Restore

Table 7. Qualifying interests (QIs) for the Saltee Islands SAC

Habitat Habitat Conservation Code objective 1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low Maintain tide 1160 Large shallow inlets and bays Maintain 1170 Reefs Maintain 1230 Vegetated sea cliffs Maintain 8330 Sea caves Maintain 1364 Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) Maintain Restore = Restore favourable conservation condition, Maintain = Restore favourable conservation condition

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 20 DixonBrosnan 2020 To acknowledge the importance of Ireland's wetlands to wintering waterbirds, “Wetland and Waterbirds” may be included as a SCI for some SPAs that have been designated for wintering waterbirds and that contain a wetland site of significant importance to one or more of the species of Special Conservation Interest. Thus, a further objective is to maintain or restore the favourable conservation condition of the wetland habitat within the Bannow Bay SPA and Ballyteige Burrow SPA as a resource for the regularly-occurring migratory waterbirds that utilise these habitats. The ecological baseline for proposed development site was based on a desktop review and direct surveys of the relevant works area and areas proximate to same. This focused on habitats and species that are listed as Qualifying Interests (QI) (in the case of SACs) and Special Conservation Interests (SCI) (in the case of SPAs) in the designations for the European sites. Surveys for habitats, intertidal flora, birds and invasive species were undertaken within the study area.

3.5 Potential Impacts of the Proposed Development on the Hook Head SAC, Bannow Bay SPA, Saltee Islands SAC, Bannow Bay SAC, Ballyteige Burrow SPA and Keeragh Islands SPA

3.5.1 Loss of habitat

The footprint of the proposed development is located within the Hook Head SAC and Bannow Bay SPA. As part of the proposed development there will be a direct loss of marine habitat within the Hook Head SAC and Bannow Bay SPA.

The conservation objectives of these Natura sites may be impacted by the proposed development. Therefore further investigation is required to determine if the proposed development has the potential to impact on QI’s/SCI’s within the Hook Head SAC and Bannow Bay SPA.

3.5.2 Impacts from noise and disturbance

Potentially increased noise and disturbance associated with the site works could cause disturbance/displacement of fauna. If of sufficient severity, there could be impacts on reproductive success. It is noted that the proposed development is located within the Bannow Bay SPA. Although located a considerable distance from the proposed development site, SCI/QI species for the Saltee Islands SAC, Keeragh Islands SPA and Ballyteige Burrow SPA may forage within the Bannow Bay SPA and/or the proposed development site. Therefore, the conservation objectives of these Natura sites may be impacted by the proposed development.

Further investigation is required to determine if the proposed development has the potential to impact on QIs/SCI’s within the Saltee Islands SAC, Bannow Bay SPA, Ballyteige Burrow SPA and Keeragh Islands SPA.

3.5.3 Impacts on Water Quality

Surface water runoff during the construction phase could potentially be contaminated with silt, hydrocarbons or other chemicals. Further investigation is required to examine the potential impact on this on QI’s and SCI’s within Hook Head SAC, Bannow Bay SPA and Bannow Bay SAC.

3.5.4 Impacts on Local Hydrodynamic Conditions

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 21 DixonBrosnan 2020 During the construction phase, benthic communities in the vicinity of the proposed works may be significantly impacted by the release and deposition of sediment. During the operational phase there could be localised changes in hydrodynamic regime due to the installed structures altering local sediment depositional or erosional processes and thereby affecting nearby benthic community types. This could impact on depositional QI habitats such as Estuaries (1130) and Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide (1140). Furthermore this may impact on the intertidal invertebrate communities and subsequently the wintering waterbirds which forage here.

The proposed development site, which has a small physical footprint (695m2), is located in a relatively confined shallow low energy environment. Given the combination of shallow confined water and small physical footprint, it is highly unlikely that the proposed works will significantly alter tide dynamics and/ or alter coastal or depositional or erosional processes and the structure of nearby sedimentary habitats. Therefore, no impact from changes in hydrodynamic conditions is predicted to occur.

3.5.5 Impacts from Spread of Invasive Species

There is potential during the construction phase and operational phase of the proposed works for invasive species to be spread outside the site boundary. Disturbance of invasive species within the proposed development site during the construction of the proposed development could lead to the dispersal of scheduled invasive species either via machinery, materials, clothing or wild animals. No invasive species were recorded within the proposed development site and no impact from the spread of invasive species is expected to occur.

3.5.6 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts refer to a series of individual impacts that may, in combination, produce a significant impact. The underlying intention of this in combination provision is to take account of cumulative impacts from existing or proposed plans and projects and these will often only occur over time.

High negative threats, pressures and activities identified for the Hook Head SAC, Bannow Bay SAC, Saltee Islands SAC, Bannow Bay SPA, Ballyteige Burrow SPA and Keeragh Islands SPA include discharges, disposal of household / recreational facility waste, intensive fish farming, fishing and harvesting aquatic resources, off-road motorized driving, other outdoor sports and leisure activities, dumping, depositing of dredged deposits and erosion.

The area surrounding the proposed development is heavily agriculturalized. Intensive agriculture in particular can have significant impacts on aquatic ecology by increasing nutrients and sediment loads. Wastewater is also discharged from settlements such as Fethard. Surface water runoff during the construction phase could potentially be contaminated with silt, hydrocarbons or other chemicals. This could potentially lead to cumulative impacts within the Hook Head SAC and Bannow Bay SAC. Further investigation is also required to determine if increased noise and disturbance will have a cumulative impact on the Saltee Islands SAC, Bannow Bay SPA, Ballyteige Burrow SPA and Keeragh Islands SPA.

Therefore, further investigation is required to examine potential cumulative impacts on qualifying habitats and species within the Saltee Islands SAC, Hook Head SAC, Bannow Bay SAC, Bannow Bay SPA, Ballyteige Burrow SPA and Keeragh Islands SPA.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 22 DixonBrosnan 2020 3.6 Receiving environment and site surveys Site surveys were carried out in December 2007, February 2008, December 2010, March 2018 and December 2019 to identify the habitats, flora and fauna present at the site. Surveys consisted of walking systematically through the site and recording habitats and plant species, in addition to relative abundance, condition and degree of disturbance. The terrestrial and aquatic habitats within or adjacent to the proposed development site were classified using the classification scheme outlined in the Heritage council publication A Guide to Habitats in Ireland (Fossitt, 2000) and cross referenced with Annex I Habitats where required. No rare species were noted within the study area.

Photograph 1. Existing Fethard Pier

3.6.2 Habitat surveys

Habitat and intertidal surveys were conducted at the proposed development site on the 18th December 2007, 10th November 2010, 29th of March 2018 and 15th of December 2019. The following habitats were recorded within the proposed development site:

 CC1 Sea walls, piers and jetties  CS3 Sedimentary sea cliffs  LR3 Sheltered rocky shores  LS3 Muddy sand shores

The pier structure (CC1) which runs in a north-east to south-western direction, forms the western boundary of the proposed development site dominates the site (Photograph 1). The pier is subject to sea spray and partial inundation by sea water during high tide cycles. The

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 23 DixonBrosnan 2020 south of the site is bounded by sedimentary sea cliff (CS3) (Photograph 3). The proposed development site, to the east of the existing pier, is dominated by Muddy Sand Shores (LS3). The middle and upper shores consist of sandy sands which are very uniform in nature with no obvious anoxic layer with some Lugworm (Arenicola marina) recorded. Sand Hopper (Talitrus saltator) were recorded within the upper shore. The lower shores of the proposed development site contains rocky outcrops (LR3) supporting a variety of algal species (Serrated Wrack Fucus serratus and Caragheen Moss Mastocarpus stellatus) and typical rocky shore species such as Common Limpet (Patella vulgata) and Periwinkle (Littorina littorea).

Photograph 2. Muddy sand shores (LS3) and Sheltered rocky shores (LR3) within proposed works area (looking north)

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 24 DixonBrosnan 2020 Photograph 3: Sedimentary Sea Cliffs (CS3) along the upper shoreline (southern boundary) of proposed development site (looking west)

3.6.1 Intertidal/Marine surveys

Intertidal surveys were carried out at the proposed on the 18th December 2007, 10th November 2010 and 15th of December 2019. Full details of these surveys are included in Appendix 3. Samples were taken from sedimentary and rocky habitats in the littoral and the edge of the sub-littoral zones along two transects. The samples taken from the site are considered representative of habitats in this area which consist of a mixture of mud/sand and rocky shore habitats. No significant changes in habitat distribution or species composition were observed during the three surveys. Two samples were taken from the marine habitats potentially affected by site work at low tide on November 30th 2010 to develop sediment profiles. Samples were taken from sedimentary and rocky habitats in the littoral and the edge of the sub-littoral zones along five transects.

Transect surveys covered the area which will be affected by site works. Samples were taken at a low tide. A 0.25m² quadrat was used to randomly select the location of the detailed sampling areas. The samples taken from the site were considered representative of habitats in this area which consist of a mixture of mud/sand and rocky shore habitats.

The location of transect 1, within the proposed development site, is shown in Photograph 2. The rocky outcrops on the lower shore supported a variety of algal species (Serrated wrack Fucus serratus, Carrageen Moss Mastocarpus stellatus and Rodophyta sp.) and typical rocky shore species such as Limpet (Patella vulgata), Common Shore Crab (Carcinus maenas) and Periwinkle (Littorina littorea). Small areas of sheltered rock habitat were recorded on the lower shore. The middle and upper shores consisted of sandy sediment with some Lugworm (Arenicola marina) casts recorded and Dog Whelk (Nucella lapillus). Sand Hoppers (Talitrus saltator) were recorded within the upper shore. Patches of Sea Lettuce (Ulva lactuca) were recorded in the middle shore and Carrageen Moss (Mastocarpus stellatus) along the upper shore. No rare or uncommon species were recorded and similarly no rare or uncommon communities were recorded. The species detected within the site works area were typical of sheltered rocky shore/sediment habitats. The sediment was classified as muddy sand (Ms) (Folk 1954).

Transect 2 was located within the lower shore approximately 40m east of the existing pier (Photograph 3). The habitat is dominated by rocky outcrops with a mixture of fucoid, green and red algae. Faunal species are typical rocky shores and include Common Barnacle (Semibalanus balanoides), Limpet (Patella vulgate) and Beadlet Anaemome (Actinia equine). In the mid shore the habitat gives way to relatively uniform sediments of fine sand/mud with smaller rock outcrops. Algae is largely absent with the exception of a small section of Serrated Wrack (Fucus serratus). Lugworm (Arenicola marina) was the only faunal species detected. Habitat classifications Muddy sand shores (LS3) and Sheltered rocky shores (LR3). The sediment was classified as muddy sand (Ms) (Folk 1954).

3.7 Distribution of qualifying habitats within the study area.

3.7.1 Hook Head SAC

3.1.1.1 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts (1230)

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 25 DixonBrosnan 2020 The distribution map included in the NPWS document Conservation Objectives Series Hook Head SAC 000764 (NPWS 2011) shows that the qualifying habitat Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts [1230] occurs along this section of coastline. The low cliffs, which from the southern boundary of the proposed development site fall under this classification (Photograph 3).

The NPWS publication Hook Head SAC (site code: 0764) Conservation objectives supporting document coastal habitats (2011) notes the following in relation to this habitat:

‘Sea cliffs can be of geo-morphological interest as well as ecological interest and erosion can also expose geological features of interest. Coastal protection works can disrupt the natural integrity of a sea cliff. The health and ongoing development of vegetated sea cliffs relies on natural processes such as erosion continuing without any impingement. This is generally a bigger issue for soft cliffs that require a degree of slumping and erosion to expose bare soil for pioneer species to colonise; otherwise, the vegetation is replaced by hardy grasses, and scrub of little conservation value can develop. In addition, cliff erosion provides an important sediment source to sites further along the coast (e.g. sand dunes). Preventing erosion at a cliff site can lead to beach starvation at another site. The target is to maintain, or where necessary restore, the natural geomorphological processes without any physical obstructions and the local hydrological regime, including groundwater quality. Ecological variation in this habitat type depends on a number of physical and biological factors, in particular climate, degree of exposure to sea-spray, geology and soil type, as well as the level of grazing and sea bird activity.’

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts (1230) form the southern boundary of the proposed development. No cliff habitat will be removed as part of the proposed development.

3.7.1.2 Reefs (1170)

Extensive areas of Reef [1170] occur within this SAC (10,534 ha). Intertidally they generally occur as vertical rock faces or inclined bedrock with large boulders whilst to the west of Hook Head at Doonoge Point the reef forms a series of gullies. Sub-tidally, the reefs are aligned in a north-east/south-west orientation. They are largely cobbles and boulders on bedrock with some smaller areas of cobble/boulder fields recorded towards the north-east of the site.

The NPWS publication Conservation Objectives Series Hook Head SAC 000764 (2011), shows this habitat as occurring in the general area occupied by the proposed development. Three community types/complexes can be distinguished for this habitat: Exposed to moderately exposed intertidal reef community complex; Echinoderm and sponge dominated community complex and Laminaria dominated community. The NPWS has adopted a prioritized approach to conservation of structure and function in marine Annex I habitats. Prioritised communities are those communities that are key contributors to overall biodiversity at a site by virtue of their structure and/or function (keystone communities) and should be afforded the highest degree of protection and any significant anthropogenic disturbance should be avoided.

DixonBrosnan surveys found the most common sub-habitat occurring in this general area is Laminaria dominated community. Neither this habitat nor Echinoderm and sponge dominated community complex were recorded within the proposed development area. Exposed to moderately-exposed intertidal reef community complex is not well represented as this site is

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 26 DixonBrosnan 2020 relatively sheltered and thus this Barnacle/Mussel dominated reef habitat will not be affected. Thus, the prioritised communities within the reef classification will not be significantly affected.

Based on a review of aerial photography and site surveys/observations the following habitats will be affected; Intertidal reef habitat 95m2 and Subtidal reef habitat 4m2.

The affected reef habitat does not support prioritised communities as described above. Therefore, given the total area of reef habitat within the SAC is 10,534 ha, the maximum reef habitat to be affected by the proposed development (99 m2) would be 0.00000094%.

3.7.1.3 Large shallow inlets and bays (1160)

Large shallow bays and inlets (1160) are indentations of the coastline that have no freshwater input or only a low level, i.e., small streams and/or local rainfall runoff. They experience coastal salinities (+30S) continuously. Average water depth is c. 30 metres with at least half of the inlet/bay shallower than 30 metres. Their linear lengths exceed 2km and the length to width ratio is generally greater than 2:1. The levels of exposure to wave action vary from sheltered through semi-exposed to exposed. This is reflected in the sediment type with mud or sandy mud occurring in the sheltered sites to mixed sediments on semi-exposed sites to coarser sediments in exposed sites. The inner parts of some large inlets may be estuarine where the innermost area is strongly influenced by freshwater and are considered as the Annex I habitat Estuary, but the rest of the area is not. The variation in sediment types is reflected in the organic carbon content and numbers of species with maximum biological diversity in softer sediments and lowest diversity occurring in coarse material. Large shallow inlets and bays are a physiographic unit that hosts a great variety of habitats including, the Annex I habitats of the Directive, reefs and mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at all times. The sediment habitats and their communities within large shallow inlets are very varied reflecting the broad sediment types. Large shallow inlets and bays are located on all parts of the coastline. The hydrographic conditions are reflected in the substrate which is generally coarse and dominated by hard ground. Sand with Chaetozone christiei and Tellina sp. community and Coarse sediment with Pisidia longicornis and epibenthic fauna community complex are recorded within this habitat. Sand with Chaetozone christiei and Tellina sp. community has a substrate of fine to fine to medium sand but occurs at depths of between 3 m and 9 m. Coarse sediment with Pisidia longicornis and epibenthic fauna community complex occurs coarse sediment composed of cobbles and stones and occurs in depths of between 20 to 30 m. None of these habitats will be affected by the proposed development.

The area of Large shallow inlets and bays habitat (1160) within the Hook Head SAC is 5,243 ha. Approximately 160 m2 of this habitat will be affected by the proposed development. This represents 0.0000031% of the total of this habitat within the SAC.

3.8 Birds 3.8.1 Proposed development site surveys During the site surveys all birds seen or heard within the development site or within the surrounding coastal waters were recorded. The majority of birds utilising the site were common in the local landscape. Certain bird species are listed by BirdWatch Ireland as Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland (BOCCI). These are bird species suffering declines in

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 27 DixonBrosnan 2020 population size. BirdWatch Ireland and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have identified and classified these species by the rate of decline into Red and Amber lists. Red List bird species are of high conservation concern and the Amber List species are of medium conservation. Green listed species are regularly occurring bird species whose conservation status is currently considered favourable. Birds species listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) are considered a conservation priority. Species recorded within and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development site are shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Bird Species recorded at the proposed development site.

Species Numbers Birds Directive BOCCI recorded Annex Red Amber I II III List List Great black- 7 Larus marinus X backed Gull Larus argentatus Herring Gull 25 X Larus canus Common gull 1 X Phalacrocorax carbo Cormorant 1 X Gavia stellate Red-throated 1 X X Diver Motacilla alba yarrellii Pied Wagtail 1 Symbol Description Annex 1: species and sub-species are particularly threatened. Member I States must designate Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for their survival and all migratory bird species. Annex 2: bird species can be hunted. However, the hunting periods are limited and hunting is forbidden when birds are at their most vulnerable: II during their return migration to nesting areas, reproduction and the raising of their chicks. Annex 3: overall, activities that directly threaten birds, such as their deliberate killing, capture or trade, or the destruction of their nests, are III banned. With certain restrictions, Member States can allow some of these activities for species listed here.

Several gull species including Great Black-backed Gull, Herring Gull and Common Gull were recorded roosting around the existing pier wall and lighting. Cormorant, a QI for the Keeragh Islands SPA and Red-throated Diver were recorded foraging in the marine waters adjacent to the existing pier and proposed development site. No birds were recorded on the shoreline habitat within the proposed development site.

3.8.2 Winter Bird Surveys

Extensive winter bird surveys were undertaken at Fethard Bay during December 2007, February 2008 (Figure 5). Further observations were carried out in December 2010. However, weather conditions encountered during the 2010 survey were severe and no significant bird usage of the development area was recorded. A bird survey was also carried out in December 2019 (Appendix 2).

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 28 DixonBrosnan 2020 Winter bird surveys 2007/2008

These site visits for the 2007/2008 surveys took place during two low tide and one high tide event during which wildfowl, waders and gulls were counted from a number of vantage points around the site (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Map of bird survey vantage points

During the surveys 20 species of wildfowl, waders and gulls were record within study area. The highest bird densities were near Fethard Bridge (Area A), located 1.2 km to the southwest of the proposed development site. Over the low tide period, a number of bird species were found on the exposed mudflats to the southwest of the proposed development site (Areas B & C approximately 0.7 km west of proposed development site). The highest numbers of birds during high and low tide counts were found in the brackish area around Fethard Bridge, approximately 2 km southwest of the proposed development site. A small number of Cormorant and Shags were observed feeding in the offshore waters adjacent to the proposed development site at high and low tides. However, no birds were recorded foraging on intertidal habitats within the proposed development site. Thus, the highest densities of birds appear to be located between 1-2 km from the proposed development site. Few bird species used the development site (Area D), however the walls and lights at the site were used as roosting sites by relatively small number of gulls and cormorants. No internationally or nationally important numbers of birds were recorded during winter surveys.

A number of qualifying interests for the Bannow Bay SPA were recorded during these winter bird surveys including Light-Belied Brent Goose, Dunlin, Oystercatcher, Curlew and Redshank. Cormorant, a QI for the Keeragh Islands SPA, was also recorded. With the

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 29 DixonBrosnan 2020 exception of Oystercatcher and Cormorant, none of these QI species were recorded in the vicinity of the proposed development site. The mix of habitats within the proposed development site i.e. large shallow bays, sea cliffs and reefs and rocky shore/mixed sediment shoreline, are of limited value for wading bird species. Brent Goose feeds on Zostera found on mudflats and exposed estuarine habitat and later in the season they may forage on terrestrial grassland habitat. There is no suitable foraging habitat for Light-bellied Brent Goose within the proposed development site. Cormorants and other piscivorous species are likely to forage within the marine waters around the site. It should be noted that these birds are already habituated to the boat traffic from the existing pier. Overall the proposed development is a low value habitat for bird species.

2019 Winter Bird Surveys

Bird surveys were carried out at the same vantage points (Figure 5) in December 2019. Results were broadly similar to those obtained in 2007/2008. The closest vantage point count location (Area D) does not support high value mudflats and the birds recorded are typical of rocky shore/ mixed sediment shorelines. A single Cormorant was recorded foraging in the marine waters adjacent to the site. Oystercatcher was recorded in Area A and Area B. No other QI species were recorded during the 2019 winter bird survey.

3.8.3 NPWS Surveys

In 2009/2010, the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) carried out a number of surveys within the Bannow Bay SPA in order to examine the distribution of birds, particularly species of special conservation interest, within the SPA (NPWS 2012a). A number of sub-sites within the SPA were surveyed, including the Fethard Bay area, which encompassed both the proposed development site and study area currently under discussion. The Fethard Bay sub- site covers a large area of 366.5 ha and extends across Fethard Bay from Ingard Point to Clammers Point and inland to the Big Burrow. It also includes the mudflats to the southwest of the proposed development site. Further details is provided in Appendix 4.

A summary of these results is included in Table 9. These results indicate that the Fethard Bay area is particularly important for Brent Goose and Oystercatcher during low tide, mainly for intertidal foraging. Sub-tidal foraging of during low-tide Brent Goose was also recorded within Fethard Bay with a maximum of 24 individuals recorded during December 2009. Subtidal waters deeper than 0.5m are beyond the feeding range for Light-bellied Brent Geese and would not be used by geese for foraging. Light-bellied Brent Goose had a wide distribution within Fethard Bay during low-tide counts. These surveys indicate that Brent Goose may roost near the proposed development site, although no foraging birds were recorded. Oystercatcher was recorded foraging and roosting mainly within terrestrial and shoreline habitats. Results indicated that Oystercatcher and likely to forage and roost on or near the proposed development site. Other QI species were absent from the Fethard Bay sub-site or recorded in low numbers during site surveys. There were no other QI species recorded within or near the proposed development site.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 30 DixonBrosnan 2020 Table 9. The ranked importance of the Fethard Bay sub-site for the Special Conservation Interest Species within the SPA. (1=High importance; 8=Low importance; Blank=not important)

Species High Tide Numbers Low Tide Numbers Brent goose 4 1 Dunlin Black-tailed Godwit Bar-tailed Godwit 7 Shelduck Oystercatcher 42 Golden Plover Grey Plover Lapwing Knot Curlew 6 8 Redshank 5 8 Source: NPWS (2012a) Bannow Bay SPA Conservation objectives supporting documents. Table 5.6 (a & d)

The NPWS also examined the relative levels of disturbance within the SPA. The Fethard Bay area was found to have the highest number of activities that have the potential to cause disturbance compared to other SPA sub-sites. These were related to human recreation (e.g. walking, horse riding, sailing), as well as coastal activities such as bait-digging and hand- gathering of molluscs. It was noted that seasonality is an important factor here because many of the activities identified will be more frequent during summer months and outside of the main period of waterbird presence at the site.

3.9 Invasive species

No high-risk invasive species classified under Regulations 49 and 50 of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 were recorded within the proposed development site during any site visit (European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 [SI. 477]).

3.10 Mammals

3.10.1 Grey Seal

Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) is listed as a qualifying interest for the Saltee Islands SAC which is located 9.4 km southeast of the proposed works area. Grey Seals are widely distributed around the Irish coast, although breeding is thought to take place predominantly on offshore islands and remote mainland sites between the months of September and November (Kiely et al., 1998). Grey Seal pups are more vulnerable than those of Harbour Seals as they remain ashore for 2-4 weeks whereas harbour seals readily enter the water after birth.

The assessment of the breading population of Grey Seal in the republic of Ireland, 2005, (Ó Cadhla et al. 2007) found that Grey Seal population distribution was concentrated along the Atlantic coats, and in counties Dublin and Wexford. This report also pointed out that the Saltee islands are one of seven key breeding grounds in the country. The total pup count for the Saltee islands in 2005 was 115 pups, with 111 recorded on Great Saltee island and 4 recorded on Little Saltee island. This indicates that there is a significant seal population within 16 km of

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 31 DixonBrosnan 2020 the proposed development site. The Saltee islands are one of seven key breeding grounds in the country for Grey Seal however they are located a considerable distance from the proposed works. As there are no important sites in proximity to proposed works and there is a considerable degree of disturbance at the existing facility, no significant impacts on harbour seals is envisaged. The harbour is small in size and any increase in boat traffic will be low and thus no significant additional impact on seals is envisaged.

3.10.2 Otter

Otters, along with their breeding and resting places are protected under the provisions of the Wildlife Act 1976, as amended by the Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000. Otters have additional protection because of their inclusion in Annex II and Annex IV of the Habitats Directive which is transposed into Irish law in the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations (S.I. 94 of 1997), as amended. Otters are also listed as requiring strict protection in Appendix II of the Berne Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats and are included in the Convention on International Trade of Endangered species (CITES). No evidence of the presence of holts was detected at the site of the proposed development or within the general study area. No evidence of Otter was recorded within the immediate area to be affected although it is probable that they occur in this area at least sporadically. Otter spraints were noted to the west of the study site within a freshwater/brackish pool near a small bridge. However this is located a considerable distance from the site of the proposed development and no evidence of otter was recorded within 150m of the proposed development site. There are no Natura 2000 sites with Otter listed as qualifying interests in proximity to the proposed development. Given the limited nature of works and the limited increase in boat traffic no significant impact on Otter is expected to occur.

3.10.3 Harbour Seal

Moulting sites are important for this species as Harbour Seal are ashore for extended periods at this time and therefore are vulnerable to disturbance such as increased noise etc. Other vulnerable times for Harbour Seal occur at pupping in June/July. If haul-outs occur near development, disturbance due to boat activity and onshore activity may increase the time animals spend in the water; if they scare from haul-outs, then this in the short term, can influence pup survival due to decreased time of suckling and nursing. In the long term this could lead to abandonment of traditional haul-outs. The Harbour Seal population assessment for the Republic of Ireland 2003 reported that there was a notable gap in the Harbour Seal population in both Waterford and Wexford. Only 18 seals were recorded at three haul out sites between the two counties (Table 10). There are no Natura 2000 sites for which Harbour Seal is listed as qualifying interests in proximity to the proposed development. Given the limited nature of works and the limited increase in boat traffic no significant impact on Harbour Seal is expected to occur.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 32 DixonBrosnan 2020 Table 10. Recorded Harbour seal haul out sites in counties Waterford and Wexford

Location Haul out sites Count per haul out site

Helvic head, Dungarvan waterford 1 1

Carnsore, Wexford harbour 1 14

Carnsore, Wexford harbour 1 3

Source: http://www.npws.ie/en/media/Media,4584,en.pdf

As there are no important sites in proximity to proposed works and there is a considerable degree of disturbance at the existing facility no significant impacts on harbour seals is envisaged. The harbour is limited in size and any increase in boat traffic will be low and thus no significant additional impact on Harbour Seal is envisaged.

3.10.4 Cetaceans and basking shark

A number of cetacean species are known to visit the south coast of Ireland including Fin Whale, Common Dolphin, Rissos Dolphin, Killer Whale and Humpback Whale. Harbour Porpoise and Bottlenose Dolphin have been recorded within Fethard Harbour (Irish Whale and Dolphin Group www.iwdg.ie.). Basking Shark also occur off the south coast of Ireland. Results indicate that a range of cetaceans have been recorded in the wider marine area; however recordings within Fethard Bay are sporadic. There are no Natura 2000 sites with cetacean species listed as qualifying interests in proximity to the proposed development. Given the limited nature of works and the limited increase in boat traffic no significant impact on cetaceans is expected to occur.

3.11 Stage One Appropriate Assessment Conclusions

3.11.1 Screening of Relevant Natura 2000 Sites and Qualifying Interests/Special Conservation Interests

Adopting a precautionary principle, Natura 2000 sites potentially affected by the proposed development were included in this assessment (Table 11). Of these, the Natura 2000 sites deemed relevant and screened in for Appropriate Assessment are those which have Conservations Objectives or Qualifying Interests (QIs)/Special Conservation Interests (SCIs) which may be impacted by the proposed development. The potential impacts are discussed in detail in Section 5 of this report. Those sites or individual qualifying interests that are screened out for Appropriate Assessment are not assessed further. Sites/QIs/SCIs that are screened in for further assessment are highlighted in bold.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 33 DixonBrosnan 2020 Table 11. Identification of relevant Natura 2000 sites. All those screened in for AA are highlighted (in bold).

Natura 2000 site Qualifying Interest/Special Conservation Interest* Potential Impacts Screened In/Out

(*Screened in QI’s/SCI’s In Bold)

Bannow Bay SAC 1130 Estuaries Due to the dilution and the naturally fluctuating levels of silt Screened in within the marine environment, impacts are only likely to arise 1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by from extremely severe levels of siltation. The risk of significant seawater at low tide silt levels being generated is very low given the limited scope of the proposed development. 1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand Inadvertent spillages of hydrocarbons, chemicals or cement during construction could introduce toxic components into the 1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco- aquatic environment via surface water run-off and have a Puccinellietalia maritimae) direct toxicological impact on habitats and fauna.

1410 Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia Therefore, significant levels of silt and maritimi) hydrocarbons/chemicals/cement inadvertently entering these waterbodies could potentially alter the ecology of these

habitats. The primary risk to water quality is from hydrocarbon/chemical/cement spillage

1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines The proposed development site is not located within the Screened out Bannow Bay SAC and therefore will not impact directly on 1420 Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous these terrestrial habitats. There is no threat to these habitats scrubs (Sarcocornetea fruticosi) from increased siltation or hydrocarbons. Therefore, no potential impacts on these habitats have been identified. 2110 Embryonic shifting dunes

2130 *Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes)

1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks

2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes)

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 34 DixonBrosnan 2020 Natura 2000 site Qualifying Interest/Special Conservation Interest* Potential Impacts Screened In/Out

(*Screened in QI’s/SCI’s In Bold)

Hook Head SAC 1160 Large shallow inlets and bays The proposed development site is located within the Hook Screened in Head SAC. Therefore further investigation in required to 1170 Reefs determine is the proposed development will result in significant habitat loss or habitat degradation within the SAC. 1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts Inadvertent spillages of hydrocarbons, chemicals or cement during construction could introduce toxic components into the aquatic environment via surface water run-off and have a direct toxicological impact on habitats and fauna.

Therefore, significant levels of silt and hydrocarbons/chemicals/cement inadvertently entering these waterbodies could potentially alter the ecology of these habitats. The primary risk to water quality is from hydrocarbon/chemical/cement spillage

Saltee Islands SAC 1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by Given the dilution capacity within Ballyteige Bay and Fethard Screened Out seawater at low tide Bay and the distance of these habitats from the proposed development (9.4km) no pathway for impact has been 1160 Large shallow inlets and bays identified and no impact is predicted to occur.

1170 Reefs The proposed development site is not located within the Saltee Screened Out Island SAC and therefore no impacts on these habitats is 1230 Vegetated sea cliffs predicted to occur.

8330 Sea caves

1364 Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) Grey Seal from Saltee Islands SAC could potentially forage Screened In within the marine waters around the proposed development site. Construction works associated with the proposed

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 35 DixonBrosnan 2020 Natura 2000 site Qualifying Interest/Special Conservation Interest* Potential Impacts Screened In/Out

(*Screened in QI’s/SCI’s In Bold)

development have the potential to result in disturbance/displacement of Grey Seal.

Therefore, further investigation is required to determine if the proposed development has the potential to impact on this QI species.

Bannow Bay SPA A046 Light-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla The proposed development site is located within the Bannow Screened in hrota Bay SPA. Habitat within the SPA will be removed and further investigation is required to determine if this will have an impact A048 Shelduck Tadorna tadorna on SCI’s.

A054 Pintail Anas acuta Construction works associated with the proposed development have the potential to result in disturbance/displacement of A130 Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus wintering waterbirds.

A140 Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria Inadvertent spillages of hydrocarbons, chemicals or cement during construction could introduce toxic components into the A141 Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola aquatic environment via surface water run-off and have a direct toxicological impact on SCI species or indirect impacts A142 Lapwing Vanellus vanellus on their prey species. A143 Knot Calidris canutus Therefore, further investigation is required to determine if the A149 Dunlin Calidris alpina proposed development has the potential to impact on SCI’s within the Bannow Bay SPA. A156 Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa

A157 Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica

A160 Curlew Numenius arquata

A162 Redshank Tringa totanus

A999 Wetlands

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 36 DixonBrosnan 2020 Natura 2000 site Qualifying Interest/Special Conservation Interest* Potential Impacts Screened In/Out

(*Screened in QI’s/SCI’s In Bold)

Keeragh Island SPA A017 Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) Construction works associated with the proposed development Screened in have the potential to result in disturbance/displacement of wintering waterbirds.

Birds within the Keeragh Islands SPA are likely to forage at several sites along the coast. Therefore, further investigation is required to determine if the proposed development has the potential to impact on SCI’s within the Keeragh Island SPA.

Ballyteige Burrow A046 Light-bellied Brent Goose (Branta bernicla Construction works associated with the proposed development Screened in SPA hrota) have the potential to result in disturbance/displacement of wintering waterbirds. A048 Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) Birds within the Ballyteige Burrow SPA are likely to forage at A140 Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria) several sites along the coast.

A141 Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) Therefore further investigation is required to determine if the proposed development has the potential to impact on SCI’s A142 Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) within the Ballyteige Burrow SPA.

A156 Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa)

A157 Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica)

A999 Wetland and Waterbirds

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 37 DixonBrosnan 2020 3.11.2 Screening conclusions

The proposed project is not directly connected with or necessary for the management of any Natura 2000 site. It is, accordingly, necessary for the competent authority to assess whether the proposed development, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, would be likely to have significant effects on any Natura 2000 site. As set out in detail in this Stage One Screening Report, the likely significant impacts on Natura 2000 have been considered. The use of a 15km radius was adopted as a precautionary measure as no significant potential impacts at or beyond this distance were identified.

The proposed development site is located within two Natura 2000 sites, Hook Head SAC and Bannow Bay SPA. A pathway has also been identified for potential impacts to the Bannow Bay SAC, Saltee Islands SAC, Keeragh Island SPA and Ballyteige Burrow SPA.

A precautionary approach has also been adopted in relation to the appraisal of whether the proposed development is likely to have significant impacts on these sites. Any significant potential impacts were identified and, unless such impacts could be discounted with certainty, it has been determined that a Stage 2 appropriate assessment should be carried out.

The conclusions in respect of each site are as follows.

Hook Head SAC

The proposed development site is located within the Hook Head SAC. Therefore the likelihood of significant potential impacts on the Hook Head SAC with respect to the following, cannot be discounted without further analysis.

1. Potential habitat loss 2. Potential impacts from water quality impacts during construction 3. Potential cumulative impacts

Therefore a number of QI’s for the Hook Head SAC which may be impacted by these have been screened in for further assessment: 1160 Large shallow inlets and bays, 1170 Reefs and 1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts. Details on this are included in Table 11.

Bannow Bay SPA

The proposed development site is located within the Bannow Bay SPA. Therefore the likelihood of significant potential impacts on the Bannow Bay SPA with respect to the following, cannot be discounted without further analysis.

1. Potential habitat loss 2. Potential impacts from noise and disturbance 3. Potential cumulative impacts

Therefore a number of SCI’s for the Bannow Bay SPA which may be impacted by these have been screened in for further assessment: A046 Light-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota, A048 Shelduck Tadorna tadorna, A054 Pintail Anas acuta, A130 Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus, A140 Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria, A141 Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola, A142 Lapwing Vanellus vanellus, A143 Knot Calidris canutus, A149 Dunlin

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 38 DixonBrosnan 2020 Calidris alpine, A156 Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa, A157 Bar-tailed Godwit, Limosa lapponica, A160 Curlew Numenius arquata, A162 Redshank Tringa tetanus and A999 Wetlands and Waterbirds. Details on this are included in Table 11.

Bannow Bay SAC

The Bannow Bay SAC is located 27m from the proposed development site. Therefore the likelihood of significant potential impacts on the Bannow Bay SAC with respect to the following, cannot be discounted without further analysis.

1. Potential impacts from water quality impacts during construction 2. Potential cumulative impacts

A number of QI’s for the Bannow Bay SAC which may be impacted by these have been screened in for further assessment: 1130 Estuaries, 1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide, 1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand, 1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) and 1410 Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi). Details on this are included in Table 11.

Ballyteige Burrow SPA

SCI species within the Ballyteige Burrow SPA may use habitats within the proposed development site as foraging grounds. Therefore the likelihood of significant potential impacts on the Ballyteige Burrow SPA with respect to the following, cannot be entirely discounted without further analysis.

1. Potential impacts from noise and disturbance 2. Potential cumulative impacts

Therefore a number of SCI’s for the Ballyteige Burrow SPA which may be impacted by these have been screened in for further assessment: A046 Light-bellied Brent Goose (Branta bernicla hrota), A048 Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna), A140 Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria), A141 Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola), A142 Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), A156 Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa), A157 Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica) and A999 Wetland and Waterbirds. Details on this are included in Table 11.

Keeragh Island SPA

SCI species within the Keeragh Island SPA may use habitats within the proposed development site as foraging grounds. Therefore the likelihood of significant potential impacts on the Keeragh Island SPA with respect to the following, cannot be entirely discounted without further analysis.

1. Potential impacts from noise and disturbance 2. Potential cumulative impacts

The SCI for the Keeragh Island SPA which may be impacted by these has been screened in for further assessment: A017 Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo). Details on this are included in Table 11.

Saltee Islands SAC

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 39 DixonBrosnan 2020 QI species within the Saltee Islands SAC may use habitats within the proposed development site as foraging grounds. Therefore the likelihood of significant potential impacts on the Saltee Islands SAC with respect to the following, cannot be entirely discounted without further analysis.

1. Potential impacts from noise and disturbance 2. Potential cumulative impacts

The QI species within the Saltee Islands SAC which may be impacted by these has been screened in for further assessment: 1364 Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus). Details on this are included in Table 11.

3.12 Screening statement

In line with a precautionary approach, a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment of the proposed development is considered necessary in respect of the Hook Head SAC, Bannow Bay SPA, Bannow Bay SAC, Keeragh Island SPA and Ballyteige Burrow SPA.

4. Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment Natura Impact Statement

4.1 Characteristics of Relevant Site

As concluded by the Appropriate Assessment Screening, and adopting a precautionary approach, the Natura 2000 sites for which a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment is required are the Saltee Islands SAC, Hook Head SAC, Saltee Islands SAC, Bannow Bay SPA, Bannow Bay SAC, Keeragh Islands SPA and Ballyteige Burrow SPA. Conservation objectives are discussed below and site synopses included in Appendix 1.

4.2 Impact Assessment

In carrying out an appropriate assessment the competent authority is obliged to make a determination as to whether or not the proposed development would adversely affect the integrity of the relevant European sites (i.e. the Saltee Islands SAC, Hook Head SAC, Bannow Bay SPA, Bannow Bay SAC, Keeragh Island SPA and Ballyteige Burrow SPA) in view of their conservation objectives. Accordingly, an appropriate assessment of the implications for the Saltee Islands SAC, Hook Head SAC, Bannow Bay SPA, Bannow Bay SAC, Keeragh Island SPA and Ballyteige Burrow SPA of the proposed development implies that, prior to its approval, all the aspects of the proposed development which can, by themselves or in combination with other plans or projects, affect these Natura 2000 sites conservation objectives must be identified in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field.

4.2.1 Natura 2000 Sites Conservation Objectives for Hook Head SAC, Bannow Bay SPA, Bannow Bay SAC, Saltee Islands SAC, Keeragh Islands SPA and Ballyteige Burrow SPA

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.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 40 DixonBrosnan 2020 A site-specific conservation objective aims to define favourable conservation conditions for a particular habitat or species at that site. The maintenance of habitats and species within Natura 2000 sites at a favourable conservation condition will contribute to the overall maintenance of favourable conservation status of those habitats and species at a national level.

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 habitats, and  the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is 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 qualifying interests and specific conservation objectives for the Hook Head SAC, Bannow Bay SPA, Bannow Bay SAC, Saltee Islands SAC, Keeragh Island SPA and Ballyteige Burrow SPA are listed in Tables 2 to 7.

4.3 Status of relevant qualifying species and habitats within Hook Head SAC, Bannow Bay SPA, Bannow Bay SAC, Saltee Islands SAC, Keeragh Island SPA and Ballyteige Burrow SPA

4.3.1 Hook Head SAC

4.3.1.1 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts (1230)

Sea cliffs on the Irish coast approximately correspond to the EU Annex I habitat Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts (1230). Sea cliffs are defined as “a steep or vertical slope located on the coast, the base of which is in either the intertidal (littoral) or subtidal (sublittoral) zone. The cliff may be composed of hard rock such as basalt, or of softer substrate such as shale or boulder clay. Hard cliffs are at least 5m high, while soft cliffs are at least 3m high. The cliff top is generally defined by a change to an obvious less steep gradient. In some cases the cliff may grade into the slopes of a hillside located close to the coast. In these cases the cliff is defined as that part of the slope which was formed by processes of coastal erosion, while the cliff top is where there is the distinct break in slope. Both the cliff and the cliff top may be subject to maritime influence in the form of salt spray and exposure to coastal winds. A cliff can ascend in steps with ledges, and the top of the cliff is taken to occur where erosion from wave action is no longer considered to have been a factor in the development of the landform. The cliff base may be marked by a change in gradient at the bottom of the cliff. Where the base is exposed it can be characterised by scree, boulders, a wave- cut platform or sand, among other substrates. …….. A cliff is considered to have reached its end point where it is no longer over 5m high (hard cliffs) of 3m high (soft cliffs), or no longer has a steep slope. …….. Sea cliffs may support a range of plant communities such as grassland, heath, scrub and bare rock communities, among others” (Barron et al. 2011 National survey and assessment of the conservation status of Irish sea cliffs).

Sea cliffs can be broadly divided into two categories: hard (or rocky) cliffs and soft (or sedimentary) cliffs, both of which are covered by the Annex I habitat ‘vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts’. Hard cliffs are composed of rocks such as limestone,

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 41 DixonBrosnan 2020 sandstone, granite or quartzite which are hard and relatively resistant to mechanical erosion. Soft cliffs are composed of softer rock, such as shale, or unconsolidated material, such as glacial till. Vegetation of hard sea cliffs in exposed situations exhibits a strong maritime influence and is relatively stable. Soft cliff habitats are more prone to slope failure, which results in the presence of fast-colonising pioneer species.

The overall objective for ‘Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts’ within the Hook Head SAC is to ‘maintain the favourable conservation condition'. Specific conservation targets for this habitat within Hook Head SAC are outlined in Table 12.

The low cliffs, which form the upper boundary of the shoreline of the proposed development site come within this category (Photograph 3) and these are classified as CS3 Sedimentary Sea Cliffs. No cliff habitat will be removed as part of the proposed development and mitigation measures outlines in Section 6 will ensure that no accidental damage occurs to this habitat during construction works.

Table 12. QI habitats for which a potential impact has been identified – specific targets

Habitats Attribute Measure Target

Vegetated Habitat length Kilometres Area stable, subject to natural sea cliffs processes, including erosion. For sub- of the sites mapped: Loftushall - 0.55km; Atlantic Hook Head - 2.36km; and Baginbun and Baltic Head - 9.20km coasts (1230) Habitat Occurrence No decline, subject to natural distribution processes

Physical structure: Occurrence of No alteration to natural functioning of functionality and artificial geomorphological and hydrological hydrological barriers processes due to artificial structures regime

Vegetation Occurrence Maintain range of sea cliff habitat structure: zonations including transitional zones, zonation subject to natural processes including erosion and succession

Vegetation Centimetres Maintain structural variation within structure: sward vegetation height

Vegetation Percentage Maintain range of sub- communities composition: cover at a with typical species listed in the Irish typical species representative Sea Cliff Survey (Barron et al. 2011) and sub- sample of communities monitoring stops

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 42 DixonBrosnan 2020 Habitats Attribute Measure Target

Vegetation Percentage Negative indicator species (including composition: non-natives) to represent less than 5% negative indicator cover species

Vegetation Percentage Cover of bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) composition: on grassland and/or heath less than bracken and 10%. Cover of woody species on woody species grassland and/or heath less than 20%

4.3.1.2 Reefs (1170)

Reefs on the Irish coast approximately correspond to the EU Annex I habitat Reefs (1170). Reefs are defined as Submarine, or exposed at low tide, rocky substrates and biogenic concretions, which arise from the sea floor in the sublittoral zone but may extend into the littoral zone where there is an uninterrupted zonation of plant and animal communities. These reefs generally support a zonation of benthic communities of algae and animal species including concretions, encrustations and corallogenic concretions (EU 2013).

Reefs can be either biogenic concretions or of geogenic origin. They are hard compact substrata on solid and soft bottoms, which arise from the sea floor in the sublittoral and littoral zone. Reefs may support a zonation of benthic communities of algae and animal species as well as concretions and corallogenic concretions.

Extensive areas of reef occur within the Hook Head SAC. Intertidally they generally occur as vertical rock faces or inclined bedrock with large boulders whilst to the west of Hook Head at Doonoge Point the reef forms a series of gullies. Sub-tidally, the reefs are aligned in a north- east/south-west orientation. They are largely cobbles and boulders on bedrock with some smaller areas of cobble/boulder fields recorded towards the north-east of the site. Three community types/complexes can be distinguished for this habitat: Exposed to moderately exposed intertidal reef community complex; Echinoderm and sponge dominated community omplex; and Laminaria dominated community. Specific conservation targets for Reef habitat within the Hook Head SAC are outlined in Table 13.

Table 13. QI habitats for which a potential impact has been identified – specific targets

Habitat Attribute Measure Target Reefs 1170 Distribution Occurrence The distribution of reefs should remain stable, subject to natural processes Habitat area Hectares The permanent area is stable, subject to natural processes Community Biological The following reef community structure composition complexes should be maintained in a natural condition: Exposed to moderately exposed intertidal reef community complex; and

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 43 DixonBrosnan 2020 Habitat Attribute Measure Target Echinoderm and sponge dominated community Community Hectares The extent of Laminaria extent dominated community should be conserved, subject to natural processes. Community Biological The biology of Laminaria structure composition dominated community should be conserved, subject to natural processes

As discussed in section 3.7.1.2, 95 m2 area of rock in the intertidal zone (below the ordinance survey High Water Mark) and 4 m2 in the subtidal zone (below the ordinance survey Low Water Mark) will be impacted with a surface area of approximately 99m². The total area of reef habitat within this SAC is estimated by the NPWS at 10,534ha. The maximum reef habitat to be affected by the proposed development (99 m2) would be 0.00000094%.

4.3.1.3 Large Shallow Inlets and Bays (1160)

Large shallow inlets and bays along the Irish coast correspond to the EU Annex I habitat Large Shallow Inlets and Bays (1160). These are defined as: Large indentations of the coast where, in contrast to estuaries, the influence of freshwater is generally limited. These shallow indentations are generally sheltered from wave action and contain a great diversity of sediments and substrates with a well-developed zonation of benthic communities. These communities have generally a high biodiversity. The limit of shallow water is sometimes defined by the distribution of the Zosteretea and Potametea associations.

Part of Hook Head SAC encompasses the westerly reaches of Ballyteigue Bay. This large, open, south-westerly facing bay it is bound to the east by Forlorn Point and the Saltee Islands and is exposed to prevailing winds and swells from the southwest and moderate to locally strong tidal streams. These hydrographic conditions are reflected in the substrate which is generally coarse and dominated by hard ground. Specific conservation targets for Large Shallow Inlets and Bay (1160) habitat within the Hook Head SAC are outlined in Table 14.

Table 14. QI habitats for which a potential impact has been identified – specific targets

Habitat Attribute Measure Target Large Habitat area Hectares The permanent habitat area is Shallow stable or increasing, subject to Inlets and natural processes Bays (1160) Community Hectares The following communities extent should be maintained in a natural condition: Sand with Chaetozone christiei and Tellina sp. community; and Coarse sediment with Pisidia longicornis and epibenthic fauna community complex.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 44 DixonBrosnan 2020 The area of Large shallow inlets and bays habitat (1160) within the Hook Head SAC is 5,243 ha. Approximately 160 m2 of this habitat will be affected by the proposed development. This represents 0.0000031% of the total of this habitat within the SAC.

4.3.2 Bannow Bay SPA

The Bannow Bay SPA covers an area of 1,363 hectares in size with 92% of that being composed of marine area. Bannow Bay is a large, very sheltered, estuarine system with a narrow outlet to the sea. Very extensive intertidal mud and sand flats are exposed at low tide, with an average width of about 2 km. A number of small to medium sized rivers flow into the site, the principal being the Owenduff and the Corock which enter at the top end of the estuary. The sediments have a rich macroinvertebrate fauna, with such species as Scrobicularia plana, Hediste diversicolor and Arenicola marina being frequent. Salt marshes are well developed in the sheltered areas of the site. The main land use within the site is shellfish farming. The site is surrounded by agricultural land. Species listed as SCI’s for the Bannow Bay SPA, as well as their conservation status, are included Table 15.

Table 15. Species listed as Special Conservation Interests of the Bannow Bay SPA and their Conservation status.

Species Birds Directive BOCCI Annex Red Amber I II III List List Branta bernicla hrota Light-bellied Brent Goose X Calidris canutus Knot X Numenius arquata Curlew X X Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit X Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit X X Tringatotanus Redshank X Vanellus vanellus Lapwing X X Haematopus ostralegus Oystercatcher X Tadorna tadorna Shelduck X Anas acuta Pintail X X X Pluvialis apricaria Golden Plover X X X X Pluvialis squatarola Grey Plover X Calidris alpina Dunlin X X Symbol Description Annex 1: species and sub-species are particularly threatened. I Member States must designate Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for their survival and all migratory bird species. Annex 2: bird species can be hunted. However, the hunting periods are limited and hunting is forbidden when birds are at their most II vulnerable: during their return migration to nesting areas, reproduction and the raising of their chicks. Annex 3: overall, activities that directly threaten birds, such as their deliberate killing, capture or trade, or the destruction of their nests, are III banned. With certain restrictions, Member States can allow some of these activities for species listed here.

These species are listed as Special Conservation Interests for the Bannow Bay SPA for the following reasons:

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 45 DixonBrosnan 2020 1. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the biogeographical population of Light-bellied Brent Geese (Branta bernicla hrota). The mean peak number of this species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 561 individuals.

2. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the all-Ireland population of Dunlin (Calidris alpina). The mean peak number of this species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 3,038 individuals.

3. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the biogeographical population of Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa). The mean peak number of this species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 546 individuals.

4. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the biogeographical population of Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica). The mean peak number of this Annex I species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 471 individuals.

Additional Special Conservation Interests for Bannow Bay SPA are as follows:

5. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the all-Ireland population of Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna). The mean peak number of this species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 500 individuals.

6. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the all-Ireland population of Pintail (Anas acuta). The mean peak number of this species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 52 individuals.

7. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the all-Ireland population of Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus). The mean peak number of this species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 711 individuals.

8. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the all-Ireland population of Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria). The mean peak number of this Annex I species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 1,955 individuals.

9. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the all-Ireland population of Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola). The mean peak number of this species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 142 individuals.

10. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the all-Ireland population of Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus). The mean peak number of this species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 2,950 individuals.

11. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the all-Ireland population of Knot (Calidris canutus). The mean peak number of this species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 508 individuals.

12. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the all-Ireland population of Curlew (Numenius arquata). The mean peak number of this species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 891 individuals.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 46 DixonBrosnan 2020 13. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the all-Ireland population of Redshank (Tringa totanus). The mean peak number of this species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 377 individuals.

14. The wetland habitats contained within Bannow Bay SPA are identified of conservation importance for non-breeding (wintering) migratory waterbirds. Therefore, the wetland habitats are considered to be an additional Special Conservation Interest.

Specific conservation targets for the Bannow Bay SPA are outlines in Table 16.

Table 16. QI species for which a potential impact has been identified – specific targets

Species/Habitats Attribute Measure Target

Light-bellied Brent Population Percentage Long-term population trend stable Goose trend change or increasing Knot Curlew Black-tailed Godwit Bar-tailed Godwit Redshank Distribution Range, timing No significant decrease in the Lapwing and intensity range, timing or intensity of use of Oystercatcher of use of areas by each species, other than Shelduck areas that occurring from natural Pintail patterns of variation Golden Plover Grey Plover Dunlin Wetlands Habitat area Hectares The permanent area occupied by the wetland habitat should be stable and not significantly less than the area of 1,364ha, other than that occurring from natural patterns of variation

No mudflat habitat was recorded within the proposed development site. The mix of shoreline habitat, shallow bay and sea cliff habitat is not valuable for the SCI wading bird species within the Bannow Bay SPA. Oystercatcher were observed during site surveys and are likely to forage along the shoreline. NPWS data indicates that Light-bellied Brent Goose are likely to roost near the proposed development site, although no Brent Geese were recorded on or near the proposed development site during DixonBrosnan site visits.

4.3.3 Bannow Bay SAC

4.3.3.1 Estuaries (1130)

The habitat Estuaries [1130] defined by the Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats - EUR28 as follows;

“Downstream part of a river valley, subject to the tide and extending from the limit of brackish waters. River estuaries are coastal inlets where, unlike 'large shallow inlets and bays' there is generally a substantial freshwater influence. The mixing of freshwater and sea water and the

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 47 DixonBrosnan 2020 reduced current flows in the shelter of the estuary lead to deposition of fine sediments, often forming extensive intertidal sand and mud flats. Where the tidal currents are faster than flood tides, most sediments deposit to form a delta at the mouth of the estuary.”.

Estuaries are habitat complexes which comprise an interdependent mosaic of subtidal and intertidal habitats, which are closely associated with surrounding terrestrial habitats. Many of these habitats, such as Mudflats and sandflats not covered by sea water at low tide [1140], saltmarshes, Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time [1110] and Reefs [1170], are identified as Annex I habitat types in their own right.

Estuaries are considered to be the transitional water body area as defined by the EPA under the Water Framework Directive. The nearest estuarine habitat (NPWS 2011) is located approximately 7.9 km northeast of the proposed development site, at near Wellingtonbridge. Specific conservation targets for this habitat with the Bannow Bay SAC are outlined in Table 17.

Table 17. QI habitats for which a potential impact has been identified – specific targets

Habitats Attribute Measure Target Estuaries Habitat area Hectares The permanent habitat area is stable or (1130) increasing, subject to natural processes Community Hectares The following sediment communities should be distribution maintained in a natural condition: Muddy estuarine community complex; Sand to muddy fine sand community complex; Fine sand with Fabulina fabula community Community Hectares Maintain the natural extent of the Sabellaria extent alveolata reef, subject to natural process

4.3.3.1 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide 1140

The Bannow Bay SAC is designated for the marine Annex I qualifying interest Mudflats and sandflats (1140) not covered by seawater at low tide. The Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats - EUR28 defines the habitat as ‘Sands and muds of the coasts of the oceans, their connected seas and associated lagoons, not covered by sea water at low tide, devoid of vascular plants, usually coated by blue algae and diatoms. They are of particular importance as feeding grounds for wildfowl and waders. The diverse intertidal communities of invertebrates and algae that occupy them can be used to define subdivisions of 11.27, eelgrass communities that may be exposed for a few hours in the course of every tide have been listed under 11.3, brackish water vegetation of permanent pools by use of those of 11.4.’

The estimated areas of the communities within the Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide habitat within the Bannow Bay SAC are; Fine sands with Pygospio elegans and Corophium volutator community complex – 557ha; Intertidal sand dominated by polychaetes community complex – 318ha. According to the conservation objectives for the site, significant continuous or ongoing disturbance of communities should not exceed an approximate area of 15% of the interpolated area of each community type, at which point an inter-Departmental management review is recommended prior to further licensing of such activities. Mudflats and sandflats habitats (1140) are located approximately 27m west of the proposed development site.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 48 DixonBrosnan 2020 The specific conservation objectives for Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide in Bannow Bay SAC (Table 18) is to maintain a favourable conservation condition.

Table 18. QI habitats for which a potential impact has been identified – specific targets

Habitats Attribute Measure Target Mudflats Habitat area Hectares The permanent habitat area is stable or and increasing, subject to natural processes sandflats Community Hectares Maintain the extent of the Zostera- not distribution dominated and the Barnea candida covered by communities, seawater subject to natural processes. at low tide Zostera Shoots/m2 Conserve the high quality of the Zostera- shoot density dominated community, subject to natural processes Barnea Individuals/m2 Conserve the high quality of the Barnea candida candida community, subject to natural density Processes Community Hectares Conserve the following community distribution complexes in a natural condition: Fine sands with Pygospio elegans and Corophium volutator community complex; and Intertidal sand dominated by - polychaetes community complex

4.3.3.2 Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand

This pioneer saltmarsh vegetation colonises intertidal mud and sandflats in areas protected from strong wave action and is an important precursor to the development of more stable saltmarsh vegetation. It develops at the lower reaches of saltmarshes where the vegetation is frequently flooded by the tide, and can also colonise open creek sides, depressions or pans within saltmarshes, as well as disturbed areas of upper saltmarshes. The overall objective for ‘Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand’ in the Bannow Bay SAC is to ‘maintain the favourable conservation condition’.

The Fethard sub-site is located south of Bannow Bay in a small sheltered inlet south of Fethard village. The inlet is sheltered at the seaward end by a small sand spit with minor development of sand dunes. One notable feature of this site is that the majority of the saltmarsh has developed in the past 100 years and the old OSI 2nd edition 6 inch map does not show any saltmarsh habitat within the inlet, which is marked as containing intertidal mud and sand flats. Three Annex I saltmarsh habitats occur at this sub-site: Salicornia mudflats, Atlantic salt meadows and Halophilous scrub (McCorry & Ryle, 2009). Specific conservation targets for Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand within Bannow Bay SAC are outlined in Table 19. Small patches of Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand (1310) are located approximately 3 km northwest of the proposed development site near Gorteens.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 49 DixonBrosnan 2020 Table 19. QI habitats for which a potential impact has been identified – specific targets

Habitats Attribute Measure Target Salicornia Habitat area Hectares Area increasing, subject to and other natural processes, including annuals erosion and succession. For colonising sub-sites mapped: Bannow mud and Island -0.002ha, Clonmines - sand 0.02ha, Taulaght - 0.01ha, Saltmills - 0.01ha, Gorteens - 0.01ha, Fethard - 0.10ha. Habitat Occurrence No decline, subject to natural distribution processes Physical Presence/absence Maintain or where necessary structure: of physical barriers restore natural circulation of sediment supply sediments and organic matter, without any physical obstructions Physical Hectares flooded; Maintain natural tidal regime structure: frequency flooding regime Physical Occurrence Maintain/restore creek and pan structure: creeks structure, subject to natural and pans processes, including erosion and succession Vegetation Occurrence Maintain range of saltmarsh habitat structure: zonations including transitional zonation zones, subject to natural processes including erosion and succession Vegetation Centimetres Maintain structural variation within structure: sward vegetation height Vegetation Percentage cover Maintain more than 90% of area structure: at a representative outside creeks vegetated vegetation cover. sample of monitoring stops Vegetation Percentage cover Maintain range of sub- communities composition: at a representative with typical species listed in typical species sample of Saltmarsh Monitoring Project and sub- monitoring stops (McCorry & Ryle, 2009). communities Vegetation Hectares No significant expansion of Spartina structure: anglica. No new sites for this negative species and an annual spread of indicator species: less than 1% where it is Spartina anglica

4.3.3.3 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) and Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi)

Saltmarshes are stands of vegetation that occur along sheltered coasts, mainly on mud or sand, and are flooded periodically by the sea. They are restricted to the area between mid- neap tide level and high-water spring tide level.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 50 DixonBrosnan 2020 Both Atlantic and Mediterranean salt meadows occur within the Bannow Bay SAC. As is the case on the majority of Irish saltmarshes, Atlantic salt meadows is the dominant saltmarsh habitat within the Barrow Bay area, where it occurs in a mosaic with other saltmarsh habitats, including ‘Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand’ and ‘Mediterranean salt meadows’ (NPWS 2012b).

The extent of Atlantic salt meadow (ASM) around the Fethard sub-site has been assessed as favourable (NPWS 2012b). There are no indications of any measurable loss of habitat due to erosion or land-use changes within the current monitoring period. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Atlantic salt meadow was once more extensive at Fethard, but that the spread of Spartina swards within the intertidal zone and onto firmer substrates. This has resulted in the development of extensive Spartina/Atlantic salt meadow mosaic, which has ultimately reduced the area of pure Atlantic salt meadow. However this has largely occurred prior to the current monitoring period and there are no indications that the extent of Atlantic salt meadow has been reduced during the current monitoring period. The future prospects are rated as unfavourable-inadequate. This assessment assumes that the current management activities and level of impacts such as eutrophication continue in the near future. Most of the ASM is in adequate condition but there are currently some damaging impacts from nutrient enrichment. These are likely to continue while untreated sewage continues to flow into the site.

There is no Mediterranean salt meadow in the vicinity of Fethard. The closest areas of this habitat are located at Gorteens and Saltmills, approximately 3.6 km north-northwest of the proposed development site.

The overall objective for ‘Atlantic salt meadows’ and ‘Mediterranean salt meadows’ in the Bannow Bay SAC is to ‘restore the favourable conservation condition'. Specific conservation targets are outlined in Table 20.

Table 20. QI habitats for which a potential impact has been identified – specific targets

Habitats Attribute Measure Target

Atlantic salt Habitat area Hectares Area increasing, subject to meadows Atlantic salt natural processes, including (Glauco- meadows erosion and succession. For Puccinellietalia sub-sites mapped: maritimae) & Bannow Island -2.57ha, Mediterranean Clonmines -16.16ha, salt meadows Taulaght - 2.95ha, (Juncetalia Saltmills - 1.14ha, maritimi) Gorteens - 1.17ha, Grange - 0.01ha, Fethard - 5.85ha Habitat area Hectares Area increasing, subject to Mediterranean natural processes, including salt meadows erosion and succession. For sub-sites mapped: Clonmines - 1.92ha, Taulaght -0.49ha, Saltmills - 0.83ha, Gorteens - 0.77ha, Grange -0.40ha

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 51 DixonBrosnan 2020 Habitats Attribute Measure Target

Habitat Occurrence No decline, subject to natural distribution processes (Both) Physical Presence/absence Maintain or where necessary structure: of physical barriers restore natural circulation of sediment supply sediments and organic matter, (Both) without any physical obstructions Physical Hectares flooded; Maintain natural tidal regime structure: frequency flooding regime (Both) Physical Occurrence Maintain/restore creek and pan structure: creeks structure, subject to natural and pans (Both) processes, including erosion and succession Vegetation Occurrence Maintain range of saltmarsh structure: habitat zonations including zonation (Both) transitional zones, subject to natural processes including erosion and succession Vegetation Centimetres Maintain structural variation structure: within sward vegetation height (Both) Vegetation Percentage cover Maintain more than 90% of area structure: at a representative outside creeks vegetated vegetation cover sample of (Both) monitoring stops Vegetation Percentage cover Maintain range of sub- composition: at a representative communities with typical typical species sample of species listed in Saltmarsh and sub- monitoring stops Monitoring Project (McCorry & communities Ryle, 2009). (Both) Vegetation Hectares No significant expansion of structure: Spartina. No new sites for this negative species and an annual spread indicator of less than 1% where it is species: already known to occur Spartina anglica (Both)

4.3.4 Ballyteige Burrow SPA

Ballyteige Burrow SPA is located on the south coast of Co. Wexford between the towns of Kilmore Quay and Cullenstown. The site is dominated by a long sand and shingle barrier (spit) which supports an impressive dune complex known as the Burrow. On the seaward side is a long beach, approximately 8km in length. Behind the spit lies a shallow, tidal sea inlet and estuary of the Duncormick River (The Cull). The eastern portion of this intertidal system was reclaimed in the 19th century by construction of the Cull Bank and is now polderland (Killag),

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 52 DixonBrosnan 2020 comprising mostly improved grassland and arable land. The western portion of The Cull retains semi-natural habitat including mudflats which are exposed at low tide and saltmarsh.

Table 21. Species listed as Special Conservation Interests of the Ballyteige Burrow SPA and their Conservation status.

Species Birds Directive BOCCI Annex Red Amber I II III List List Branta bernicla hrota Light-bellied Brent Goose X Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit X Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit X X Vanellus vanellus Lapwing X X Tadorna tadorna Shelduck X Pluvialis apricaria Golden Plover X X X X Pluvialis squatarola Grey Plover X Symbol Description Annex 1: species and sub-species are particularly threatened. Member I States must designate Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for their survival and all migratory bird species. Annex 2: bird species can be hunted. However, the hunting periods are limited and hunting is forbidden when birds are at their most vulnerable: II during their return migration to nesting areas, reproduction and the raising of their chicks. Annex 3: overall, activities that directly threaten birds, such as their deliberate killing, capture or trade, or the destruction of their nests, are III banned. With certain restrictions, Member States can allow some of these activities for species listed here.

These species are listed as Special Conservation Interests for the Bannow Bay SPA for the following reasons:

1. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the biogeographical population of Light-bellied Brent Geese (Branta bernicla hrota). The mean peak number of this species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 290 individuals.

2. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the all-Ireland population of Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna). The mean peak number of this species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 167 individuals. 3. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the all-Ireland population of Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria). The mean peak number of this Annex I species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 4,630 individuals. 4. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the all-Ireland population of Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola). The mean peak number of this species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 69 individuals. 5. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the all-Ireland population of Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus). The mean peak number of this species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 7,808 individuals.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 53 DixonBrosnan 2020 6. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the biogeographic population of Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa). The mean peak number of this species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 474 individuals. 7. During winter the site regularly supports 1% or more of the all-Ireland population of Bar- tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica). The mean peak number of this Annex I species within the SPA during the baseline period (1995/96 – 1999/00) was 582 individuals. 8. The wetland habitats contained within Ballyteige Burrow SPA are identified of conservation importance for non-breeding (wintering) migratory waterbirds. Therefore the wetland habitats are considered to be an additional Special Conservation Interest. Table 22. QI species for which a potential impact has been identified – specific targets

Species/Habitats Attribute Measure Target

Light-bellied Brent Population Percentage Long term population trend stable Goose trend change or increasing Black-tailed Godwit Bar-tailed Godwit Lapwing Shelduck Golden Plover Distribution Range, timing No significant decrease in the Grey Plover and intensity range, timing or intensity of use of of use of areas by each species, other than areas that occurring from natural patterns of variation

Wetlands Habitat area Hectares The permanent area occupied by the wetland habitat should be stable and not significantly less than the area of 1,364ha, other than that occurring from natural patterns of variation

No mudflat habitat was recorded within the proposed development site. The mix of shoreline habitat, shallow bay and sea cliff habitat is not valuable for the SCI wading bird species within the Ballyteige Burrow SPA. NPWS data indicates that Light-bellied Brent Goose are likely to roost near the proposed development site, although no Brent Geese were recorded on or near the proposed development site during DixonBrosnan site visits.

4.3.5 Keeragh Islands SPA

The Keeragh Islands are two low-lying islets located just over 1 km offshore from the south Wexford coastline. The site includes the islets and associated rocky shorelines and reefs, as well as the surrounding marine area to a distance of 200 metres. The islets, which rise to a maximum height of about 9 m above sea level, have very small areas of land permanently above the tide line. The vegetation is predominantly maritime in character, with species such as Festuca rubra, Armeria maritima, Cochlearia officinalis and Silene vulgaris subsp. maritima. The surrounding reefs support a range of seaweeds.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 54 DixonBrosnan 2020 The site has a nationally important breeding colony of Phalacrocorax carbo, which is considered to be one of the largest in the country. The site was well monitored in the past though an up-to-date survey is urgently required. Gulls bred in the past and small numbers may still breed. The islands may be used as a night roost by wintering waterfowl from the mainland. The site is well isolated and with little disturbance.

The conservation objectives for the Keeragh Islands SPA is to maintain the population of Cormorant at the site.

Cormorant were recorded feeding within the marine waters in and near the proposed development site on a number of occasions during DixonBrosnan site surveys. It should be noted that foraging Cormorant are likely to be habituated to boat traffic from the existing pier.

4.3.6 Saltee Islands SAC

Grey Seals are strictly protected in the Republic of Ireland under the Wildlife Act, 1976 and the Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000. They are also listed under Annex II of the European Union’s EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) as species of Community Interest, whose conservation requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). In the latter part of the 1990s, the National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS) proposed all of the major known breeding sites as candidate SACs, ten sites for the Grey Seal (Appendix I) one of which was the Saltee Islands SAC.

Table 23. QI species for which a potential impact has been identified – specific targets

Species/Habitats Attribute Measure Target

Grey Seal Access to Number of Species range within the site Halichoerus grypus suitable artificial should not be restricted by habitat barriers artificial barriers to site use

Breeding Breeding The breeding sites should be behaviour sites maintained in a natural condition.

Moulting Moult haul- The moult haul-out sites should behaviour out sites be maintained in a natural condition. Resting Resting haul- The resting haul-out sites should behaviour out sites be maintained in a natural condition. Population Number of The grey seal population composition cohorts occurring within this site should contain adult, juvenile and pup cohorts annually Disturbance Level of Human activities should occur impact at levels that do not adversely affect the grey seal

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 55 DixonBrosnan 2020 Species/Habitats Attribute Measure Target

population

4.4 Water quality 4.4.1 EPA classification

The EPA have defined the area in proximity to the proposed development site as ‘Coastal Waters’. Coastal waters can be assigned a classification of; High, Good, Moderate, Poor or Bad. The former three are considered to be acceptable, while the latter two water quality ratings are considered as unsatisfactory. Results indicate that water quality of the Eastern Celtic Sea, which is in close proximity to the proposed development site is classified as unassigned between the period 2010-2015, thus no results are available.

4.4.2 Water Framework Directive - Eastern Celtic Sea (HAs 13;17) (IE_SE_050_0000)

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is a key initiative aimed at improving water quality throughout the EU. It applies to rivers, lakes, groundwater, coastal & transitional waters. The Directive requires an integrated approach to managing water quality on a river basin basis; with the aim of maintaining and improving water quality. The Directive requires that management plans be prepared on a river basin basis and specifies a structured approach to developing those plans. It requires that a programme of measures for improving water quality be brought into effect.

Specifically, the WFD aims to protect/enhance all waters (surface, ground and coastal waters), achieve "good status" for all waters, manage water bodies based on river basins (or catchments), involve the public and streamline legislation. These risk parameters are listed in Table 24.

The location of the Fethard Harbour/Pier lays within the Eastern Celtic Sea (HAs 13;17) coastal waterbody.

A) The Water Frameworks Directive assesses the water quality of rivers and coastal waters and ranks their status as follows: High, Good, Moderate, Poor, Bad or Yet to be determined. The status of the Eastern Celtic Sea (HAs 13;17) is determined to be Unassigned

B) The Water Framework Directive also determines the “Risk” level of the river and coastal waters as follows:1a – At risk of not achieving Good Status, 1b – Probably at risk of not archiving Good Status, 2a – Expected to achieve Good Status, 2b – strongly expected to achieve Good Status. The Eastern Celtic Sea (HAs 13;17) is considered 1a - At risk of not achieving Good Status based on the following parameters.

Table 24. Risk parameters

Risk Test Description Eastern Celtic Sea (HAs 13;17) Overall Morphological Risk - Worst Case Not at Risk Worst case of Point and Marine Direct Impacts At Risk Overall (2008)

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 56 DixonBrosnan 2020 Risk Test Description Eastern Celtic Sea (HAs 13;17) Coastal Risk Overall - Worst case (2008) At Risk WWTPs (2008) At Risk IPPCs (2008) Not at Risk Section 4s (2008) Not at Risk

C) The Water Framework Directive also sets out the future plans for the protection and restoration of rivers and coastal waters as follows: Protect, Restore – 2015, Restore – 2021, Restore - 2027. The objective for the Eastern Celtic Sea (HAs 13;17) is Unassigned at this current point.

5. Potential impacts Based on the EC Article 6 Guidance Document (2001) and IEEM guidelines ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment’ (IEEM, 2018) impacts are assessed, using a combination of professional judgement and criteria or standards where available. As the Natura 2000 sites are of International importance, any significant adverse impacts would be significant at an ‘International’ level. However, where impacts are expected not to have a significant impact on the integrity of these habitats at an International level but are likely to have National or Local level impacts, this has been stated.

The potential impacts associated with the proposed development are discussed in the following section with respect to their likelihood to have significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites.

As part of the assessment direct, indirect and cumulative impacts were considered. Direct impacts refer to habitat loss or fragmentation arising from land-take requirements for development. Indirect and secondary impacts do not have a straight-line route between cause and effect, and it is potentially more challenging to ensure that all the possible indirect impacts of the project/plan - in combination with other plans and projects have been established.

As part of the assessment the potential for impacts associated with the development were reviewed as outlined below:

 Impact-loss of habitat  Impacts from noise and disturbance on qualifying species  Impacts on water quality and aquatic ecology  Cumulative Impacts

5.1 Potential Impact from loss of habitat

The footprint of the proposed development is located within the Hook Head SAC. This is a large coastal/marine SAC which support a range of habitats listed under the EU Habitats Directive. The proposed development site is also located within the Bannow Bay SPA.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 57 DixonBrosnan 2020 As part of the proposed development there will be a direct loss of marine habitat within the Hook Head SAC and Bannow Bay SPA. The total area of the development within the Hook Head SAC and Bannow Bay SPA, is 695 m².

Coverage of Reef (1170) and Large shallow inlets and bays (1160) habitat within the Hook Head SAC is 10,534 ha and 5,244 ha respectively. The proposed works will result in a small nett loss of marine habitat. There will be permanent habitat loss of 99m² or rock habitat (reef) and approximately 160m² of large shallow inlets and bays. There will be a direct impact on species living within intertidal and subtidal sediment. The cliff along the upper shoreline (Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts) will not be impacted by the proposed development. No significant impact on erosion or deposition patterns are predicted to occur. Mitigation measures outlines in Section 6 will ensure that no accidental damage to cliff habitat occurs during construction works. Overtime the pier base will be colonised by similar rocky shore species and the shelter provided by the larger pier will allow the colonisation of more species, increasing the biodiversity of the area directly in the lee of the pier. Where temporary habitat loss occurs, by dredging and other construction activity, re- colonisation by flora and fauna from surrounding areas is predicted to be relatively rapid. In mobile, sedimentary habitats recovery of benthic communities following dredging has been shown to be as rapid as four weeks (UK Marine SAC, 2008). Areas of rocky intertidal habitat temporarily lost during construction will also be re-colonised relatively rapidly, although the development of a climax community may take several years and follow a well understood pattern of succession (Hawkins and Jones, 1992). The success and extent of any developing communities may be influenced by the effects of tidal scour around the piers. Based on the small scale of the proposed development and the minor loss of habitats within the SAC, no significant effects from habitat loss is predicted to occur within the Hook Head SAC as a result of the proposed development.

The overall size of the Bannow Bay SPA is 1364 ha. A small area of potential feeding habitat will be lost as a result of the proposed development. The habitat loss will consist mainly of small areas of rock and intertidal/subtidal habitat. The Fethard Bay area, as monitored by the NPWS, is a valuable site for Brent Goose and Oystercatcher. However, with the exception of Oystercatcher and Cormorant which were recorded in low numbers, no other SCI species were recorded within the proposed development site. Few birds used this area during high and low tides. No birds were recorded foraging within the intertidal habitats of the proposed development site. A small number of birds, mainly gulls, were observed roosting on the walls and lights around the pier during high and low tides. Cormorant and Shags were observed feeding in the offshore waters at high and low tides. However, this type of open water habitat is common both inside and outside the SPA boundaries. Based on the small scale of the proposed development and the minor loss of low value feeding habitats within the SPA, no significant effects will occur on the SCIs within the Bannow Bay SPA as a result of the proposed development. As detailed in section 4, the NPWS conservation objectives for the Hook Head SAC (NPWS 2011) and Bannow Bay SPA (NPWS 2012) list specific targets with respect to QI habitats/species. Based on the short-term nature of the works, the small scale of the proposed development, the ability of flora and fauna to recolonise and the low value of foraging habitat within the proposed development site, no negative impacts on habitat distribution or area are predicted to occur. Thus, no significant effects on the conservation objectives of Large Shallow Inlets and Bays (1160), Reefs (1170) or Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 58 DixonBrosnan 2020 coasts (1230) will occur. Similarly, no significant effect related to loss of feeding habitat for SCI species within the Bannow Bay SPA will occur.

5.2 Potential impacts from noise and disturbance

The proposed development site is located within the Bannow Bay SPA. Potentially increased noise and disturbance associated with the site works could cause disturbance/displacement of fauna. If of sufficient severity, there could be impacts on reproductive success. Foraging Grey Seal which are a qualifying interest for the Saltee Island SAC could also be affected.

The potential effects and impacts of disturbance have been widely recognised in wildlife conservation legislation, as has the need to develop conservation measures for birds whilst taking human activities into account. Article 4.4 of the Bird’s Directive (79/409/EEC) requires member states to “take appropriate steps to avoid… any disturbances affecting the birds, in so far as these would be significant having regard to the objectives of this Article”. This specifically relates to conservation measures concerning Annex I species.

Disturbance of important qualifying bird species could potentially occur during the construction phase of the project. However, predicting potential impacts on birds from disturbance can be problematic. Although there are many instances where waterfowl and people appear to co- exist on estuaries, there are widespread examples where effects and impacts of varying severity have been described.

Optimal foraging theory is a useful basis from which to understand likely effects of disturbance on feeding. Many studies have shown that birds concentrate where feeding is best. If birds are forced temporarily or permanently to leave these places, then there is an increased risk that their foraging ability will suffer. However, the severity of this type of situation and the way is which birds respond; vary in a very complex way. The multiplicity of variables underlying the observed interactions between birds and people makes it difficult to assess the cause and implications of a particular instance of disturbance. The magnitude of disturbance to birds may arise from synergistic effects of more than one activity.

Noise levels of 70 dB and above are regularly cited within the literature as being the threshold beyond which disturbance to estuarine bird species can be predicted to occur (Cutts et al. 2013). However, the greatest levels of disturbance response typically occur when the difference between ambient noise levels and peak noise levels is greatest, and when combined with visual human presence (Cutts et al. 2013).

Burger (1981), in a study of a coastal bay, found that birds were present 42% of the time when people were present, but birds were present 72% of the time when people were absent. Human activities such as jogging or grass mowing, which involved rapid movement or close proximity to roosting birds, usually caused them to flush (fly away). Slow-walking birdwatchers and bait-diggers did not usually cause birds to flush. Gulls and terns were least affected and usually returned to where they had been; ducks usually flushed and flew to the centre of the pond; and herons, egrets and shorebirds were most disturbed and flushed to distant marshes.

The magnitude and predictability of impacts as a result of disturbance ranges between species, seasons, weather, source and duration of disturbance, degree of previous exposure of the individuals to disturbance and the occurrence of additional disturbances. Most disturbances to wetland birds result in an interruption to normal activity and the displacement

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 59 DixonBrosnan 2020 of birds over variable distances, often into sub-optimal habitats. This can be critical during severe winters and can lead to a reduction in the carrying capacities of important wintering wetland sites. However, in general studies show that most bird species have the ability to habituate to regular and continual sources of noise and visual disturbances providing there is no large 'startling' component.

Gill et al. (2001) found no evidence that human presence reduced the number of Black-tailed Godwits that were supported on coastal sites at a range of spatial scales. The study took place on estuaries that varied widely in both the level and type of human activity, but neither had any influence on Godwit distribution or abundance. There was also no effect of the presence of marinas or footpaths on the number of Godwits supported on the adjacent mudflats. Burton et al. (2002) examined the impacts of human disturbance on estuarine waterbirds at low tide. While this study did find significant impacts of the human landscape features i.e. marinas, footpaths, roads etc, on bird densities, the buffer distance at which birds were disturbed were less than 200m for all species examined.).

It is noted that the proposed development is located within a pre-existing and functional harbour and in close proximity to a number of private dwellings. The movement of boats to and from the proposed pier could potentially disturb birds within open waters around the site.

The proposed slipway will be used mainly by leisure boats and the RNLI Boat. It is estimated an average of up to 4 boats (4 launch and 4 recovery) per day plus by lifeboat as required.However, given that an operational pier currently exists at the site, it can be concluded that these birds are already subject to and tolerant to a comparable level of boat traffic. The proposed development may slightly increase boat traffic within the area. This could potentially disturb key bird species within the SPA. However, it is noted that any increase in leisure craft traffic will occur mainly during the summer months and therefore will not disturb the exclusively wintering SCI species which use the SPA. Based on the small scale of the proposed development and the current level of boating and human activity at the proposed development site, no significant effect from noise or disturbance during the operational phase is predicted to occur within the Bannow Bay SPA as a result of the proposed development. During the construction stage, there may be short-term increases in disturbance, but it will not be significant in the context of existing noise levels. NPWS surveys indicate that the Fethard Bay subsite of the Bannow Bay SPA, within which the proposed development site is located, is an important foraging ground for Brent Goose and other qualifying species within the SPA. However, the proposed development site itself does not appear to be an important area for these bird species. DixonBrosnan surveys, which looked at the proposed development site as well as intertidal and subtidal habitats around the site, found the highest bird densities within the intertidal estuary, southwest of the proposed development site. During low tide several qualifying species (i.e. Light-bellied Brent Goose, Dunlin, Curlew, Redshank, Oystercatcher) were found on the exposed mudflats of the estuary, approximately 1 km southwest of the proposed development site. The highest numbers of birds were recorded in the brackish area around Fethard Bridge, approximately 2 km southwest of the proposed development site. A small number of Cormorant and Shags were observed feeding in the offshore waters adjacent to the proposed development site at high and low tides. However, no birds were recorded foraging on intertidal habitats within the proposed development site. Thus, the highest densities of birds appear to be located between 1-2 km from the proposed development site.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 60 DixonBrosnan 2020 Nonetheless, construction works associated with the proposed development have the potential to cause disturbance/displacement of wintering waterbirds, if undertaken during the wintering and passage season, due to the proximity to key foraging areas. Therefore, works will avoid the wintering bird season (September to March). This will minimise the disturbance to any wintering/migratory bird species utilising the area during this period.

As detailed in Section 4, the NPWS conservation objectives for the Bannow Bay SPA, Ballyteigue Burrow SPA and Keeragh Islands SPA (NPWS 2012), list specific targets with respect to SCIs. Whilst noise and disturbance during construction or operation could potentially disrupt bird activity, given the timing of works to avoid peak wintering numbers, the existing level and type of activity as the site, the short-term nature of the disturbance, and the ability of birds to move away from disturbance, no significant impact on SCI’s or their conservation objectives from noise and disturbance is predicted to occur within the Bannow Bay SPA, Ballyteigue Burrow SPA and Keeragh Islands SPA.

The Saltee Islands SAC is one of seven key breeding grounds in the country for Grey Seal however they are located a considerable distance from the proposed works (9.4km). As there are no important sites in proximity to proposed works and there is a considerable degree of disturbance at the existing facility, no significant impacts on Grey Seal is envisaged. Fethard harbour is small in size and any increase in boat traffic will be low and thus no significant impact on seals is envisaged. In the absence of blasting no specific mitigation measures are considered necessary. Therefore given the distance from valuable feeding grounds, the small scale of the proposed development, the ability of seals to move away from disturbance and the small increase in boat traffic the proposed development site will not impact on this QI species or effect the ingegrity of the Saltee Islands SAC.

5.3 Impacts on Water Quality during construction

Potential impacts on aquatic habitats which can arise from this type of development include increased silt levels in surface water run-off, inadvertent spillages of hydrocarbons and/or other chemical substances during construction could introduce toxic chemicals into the aquatic environment via direct means or surface water run-off. The duration and extent of the impact however is hard to predict as it is influenced by many abiotic factors such as dilution, particle size, turbulence and tidal currents. Some hydrocarbons exhibit an affinity for sediments and thus become entrapped in deposits from which they are only released by vigorous erosion or turbulence. Oil products may contain various highly toxic substances, such as benzene, toluene, naphthenic acids and xylene which are to some extent soluble in water; these penetrate into the fish and can have a direct toxic effect. The lighter oil fractions (including kerosene, petrol, benzene, toluene and xylene) are much more toxic to fish than the heavy fractions (heavy paraffins and tars). In the case of turbulent waters, the oil becomes dispersed as droplets into the water. In such cases, the gills of fish can become mechanically contaminated and their respiratory capacity reduced. However, any such spills, in the unlikely event of their occurrence, would be minor in the context of the available dilution in the Celtic Sea.

Hydrocarbon contamination, if severe, could potentially impact on water quality and thus could impact on aquatic qualifying species for the Bannow Bay SPA, Ballyteige Burrow SPA and the Keeragh Islands SPA e.g. Shelduck and Cormorant. Significant impacts on fish stocks could impact on these species due to a reduction in prey availability. A range of mitigation measures

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 61 DixonBrosnan 2020 have been specified in section 6 to minimise the risk of such spills occurring and measures have been specified to effectively deal with such spills were they to occur. It is also noted that any spills would be minor in the context of the dilution provided estuarine/marine environment. No impact on water quality from hydrocarbons or other chemical spills during construction and thus on the aquatic qualifying interests and conservation objectives for qualifying interests is predicted to occur.

High levels of silt can impact on fish species. If of sufficient severity, adult fish could be affected by increased silt levels as gills may become damaged by exposure to elevated suspended solids levels. If of sufficient severity, aquatic invertebrates may be smothered by excessive deposits of silt from suspended solids. In areas of stony substrate, silt deposits may result in a change in the macro-invertebrate species composition, favouring less diverse assemblages and impacting on sensitive species. Cement can also affect fish, plant life and macroinvertebrates by altering pH levels of the water.

Aquatic plant communities may also be affected by increased siltation. Submerged plants may be stunted and photosynthesis may be reduced. Qualifying habitats which are estuarine or terrestrial in nature are very unlikely to be affected.

During construction the principal concern relates to potential impacts on coastal processes due to sediment plumes during dredging. The dredging will be undertaken during periods of relatively calm weather. The principal driving mechanism of sediment transport will be due to tidal currents. The majority of the material to be dredged will be mud/sand and broken rock, which will vary in size.

Any rock that falls from the excavator bucket will fall directly to the seabed. Finer material such as coarse sand and gravel has fall velocities through water in the order of 0.1 to 0.5m/s and will also fall quickly through the water column and will remain near (within 5 to 10m) the dredge area until moved by wave action. Finer material than coarse sand that escapes into the water column will remain in suspension until it reaches an area of quiet water where it is deposited out. The volumes of such material in the proposed dredging will have the ability to be dispersed over a very large area.

The sediment being dredged is similar in composition to much of the soft shallow intertidal/subtidal sediments in proximity to the development area. Accordingly, it will readily assimilate into this existing sediment pool without adversely affecting its physical composition or ecological function. While there will be increased turbidity arising from the dredging works, this will be temporary in nature and is a naturally occurring feature of marine environments with no potential to give rise to negative ecological effects.

The sediment infaunal community present within the development footprint is considerably low in comparison to similar habitat in the surrounding landscape. With regard to the species recorded within the development footprint, they are expected to recover rapidly following cessation of dredging, i.e. within 12 months. Deposition in intertidal habitat will occur over a number of tidal cycles and will not result in any change to the existing infaunal communities in these habitats which are burrowing organisms and adapted to the natural deposition of sediments in estuarine/marine environments.

There is no risk of alteration to the hydrological regime within the surrounding Natura 2000 sites resulting from the dredging activity. The reduction in levels of seabed at the locations will

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 62 DixonBrosnan 2020 not result in any alteration of flow or changes to the accretion or deposition of sediments. No changes are therefore expected on the hydrological environment as a result of the proposed works.

Due to the dilution provided in the marine environment and naturally fluctuating levels of silt, impacts are only likely to arise from extremely severe levels of siltation. The risk of significant silt levels being generated already low given the limited scope of the proposed development and will be further reduced due to the mitigation measures to be implemented.

Due to the location and nature of the development, there is the potential for silt, hydrocarbons, chemicals and cement in surface water run-off to impact on surrounding waterbodies. However, a range of mitigation procedures will be employed during construction to minimise the potential for impacts on water quality. These mitigation methods will effectively prevent impacts from silt and hydrocarbons etc. Following the implementation of mitigation measures, no impact on water quality and thus on the aquatic qualifying interests and conservation objectives for qualifying interests during construction is predicted to occur.

5.4 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts refer to a series of individually impacts that may, in combination, produce a significant impact. The underlying intention of this in combination provision is to take account of cumulative impacts from existing or proposed plans and projects and these will often only occur over time. The proposed works could theoretically create a cumulative impact. Other developments relevant to the proposed development and potential cumulative impacts are listed in Table 25.

High negative threats, pressures and activities identified for the Hook Head SAC, Bannow Bay SAC, Saltee Islands SAC, Bannow Bay SPA, Ballyteige Burrow SPA and Keeragh Islands SPA include discharges, disposal of household/recreational facility waste, intensive fish farming, fishing and harvesting aquatic resources, off-road motorized driving, other outdoor sports and leisure activities, dumping, depositing of dredged deposits and erosion.

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 63 DixonBrosnan 2020 Table 25. Other developments near site and potential cumulative impacts

Plans and Projects Key Policies/Issues/Objectives Directly Related to the Conservation of the European Network

River Basin Management Plan The project should comply with the environmental The implementation and compliance with key environmental policies, 2018-2021 objectives of the Irish RBMP which are to be achieved issues and objectives of this management plan will result in positive in- generally by 2021. combination effects to European sites. The implementation of this plan will have a positive impact for the biodiversity. It will not contribute to in-  Ensure full compliance with relevant EU legislation combination or cumulative impacts with the proposed development.

 Prevent deterioration

 Meeting the objectives for designated protected areas

 Protect high status waters

 Implement targeted actions and pilot schemes in focus sub-catchments aimed at: targeting water bodies close to meeting their objective and addressing more complex issues which will build knowledge for the third cycle.

Inland Fisheries Ireland To ensure that Ireland’s fish populations are managed and The implementation and compliance with key environmental issues and Corporate Plan 2016 -2020 protected to ensure their conservation status remains objectives of this corporate plan will result in positive on-combination favourable. That they provide a basis for a sustainable effects to European sites. The implementation of this corporate plan will world class recreational angling product, and that pristine have a positive impact for biodiversity of inland fisheries and ecosystems. aquatic habitats are also enjoyed for other recreational It will not contribute to in-combination or cumulative impacts with the The Inland Fisheries Act 2010. uses. proposed development.

To develop and improve fish habitats and ensure that the conditions required for fish populations to thrive are sustained and protected.

To grow the number of anglers and ensure the needs of IFI’s other key stakeholders are being met in a sustainable conservation focused manner.

EU (Quality of Salmonid Waters) Regulations 1988. All works during development and operation of the project must aim to conserve fish and other species of fauna and

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 64 DixonBrosnan 2020 Plans and Projects Key Policies/Issues/Objectives Directly Related to the Conservation of the European Network

flora habitat; biodiversity of inland fisheries and ecosystems and protect spawning salmon and trout.

Irish Water Capital Investment Proposals to upgrade and secure water services and water Likely net positive impact due to water conservation and more effective Plan 2014-2016 treatment services countrywide. treatment of water.

The WSSP forms the highest tier of asset management plans (Tier 1) which Irish Water prepares and it sets the overarching framework for subsequent detailed implementation plans (Tier 2) and water services projects (Tier 3). The WSSP sets out the challenges we face as a Irish Water has prepared a Water Services Strategic Plan country in relation to the provision of water services and identifies (WSSP, 2015), under Section 33 of the Water Service No. strategic national priorities. It includes Irish Water’s short, medium and 2 Act of 2013 to address the delivery of strategic objectives long-term objectives and identifies strategies to achieve these objectives. which will contribute towards improved water quality and As such, the plan provides the context for subsequent detailed biodiversity requirements through reducing: Water Services Strategic Plan implementation plans (Tier 2) which will document the approach to be (WSSP, 2015)  Habitat loss and disturbance from new / upgraded used for key water service areas such as water resource management, infrastructure; wastewater compliance and sludge management. The WSSP also sets out the strategic objectives against which the Irish Water Capital  Species disturbance; Investment Programme is developed. The current version of the CAP outlines the proposals for capital expenditure in terms of upgrades and  Changes to water quality or quantity; and new builds within the Irish Water owned assets.

 Nutrient enrichment /eutrophication. The overarching strategy was subject to AA and highlighted the need for additional plan/project environmental assessments to be carried out at the tier 2 and tier 3 level. Therefore, no likely significant in-combination effects are envisaged.

WWTP discharges Fethard-on-Sea and Environs WWTP, Duncannon WWTP, Discharges from municipal WWTPs are required to meet water quality Campile WWTP, New Ross WWTP, Graignuenamanagh standards. Irish Water Capital Investment Plan 2014-2016 and 2017 – Tinnahinch WWTP, Borris Waste Water Works, 2021 proposes to upgrade water treatment services countrywide. The Goresbridge WWTP, Muinebheag and Leighlinbridge long-term cumulative impact is predicted to be negligible. WWTP, Carlow WWTP, Athy WWTP, Stradbally Agglomeration WWTP, Monasterevin Town, WWTP, Portarlington WWTP, Thomastown WWTP, Bennettsbridge WWTP, Kilkenny City and Environs WWTP, Castlecomer WWTP, Clogh – Moneenroe WWTP, Durrow WWTP,

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 65 DixonBrosnan 2020 Plans and Projects Key Policies/Issues/Objectives Directly Related to the Conservation of the European Network

Waterford city WWTP, Portlaw WWTP, Carrick-on-Suir WWTP, Fiddown WWTP, Kilsheelan WWTP, Clonmel WWTP etc.

IPPC Programme There are no IPPC licenced facilities in the vicinity of the Discharges from these facilities are governed by strict limits to ensure proposed development site. compliance with quality standards. The long-term cumulative impact is predicted to be negligible. The closest facility is located at Campile, New Ross, 14.5 km NW of the proposed development site (Ref P0606-02).

Applications Under consideration The following developments were submitted to Wexford Future developments will only be granted permission where discharges County Council for the Ramstown, Fethard within the last 5 from same meet with relevant water quality standards. The long-term years (09/01/2020). cumulative impact is predicted to be negligible.

20191450: TONY MURPHY ON BEHALF OF ST. MOGUES GAA CLUB. PERMISSION FOR THE ERECTION OF AN INDOOR SPORTS ARENA AND A SINGLE STOREY GYMNASIUM AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORKS.

20181481: MARIE COLFER. PERMISSION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE/WORKSHOP TO THE REAR OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORKS

20180073: MAURA HICKEY. PERMISSION FOR THE ERECTION OF A FULLY SERVICED DWELLING HOUSE ALONG WITH ALL ASSOCIATED SITE WORKS TO FACILITATE SAME

20170957: COLM & SHEENA O ROURKE. PERMISSION FOR CHANGES AND RENOVATIONS TO AN EXISTING DWELLING HOUSE TO INCLUDE CHANGES TO THE FRONT ELEVATION AND THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW TREATMENT SYSTEM & PERCOLATION AREA AND ALL ASSOCIATED SITE WORKS

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 66 DixonBrosnan 2020 Plans and Projects Key Policies/Issues/Objectives Directly Related to the Conservation of the European Network

20161074: AIDAN SMITH. PERMISSION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSIONS TO THE FRONT AND REAR OF EXISTING SINGLE STOREY DWELLING HOUSE

20160647: BARBARA KELLY. CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE STOREY DWELLING HOUSE, DOMESTIC EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT AND ANCILLARY SITE WORKS

20160217: MARGARET ROCHE & SEAN CONNICK. PERMISSION FOR RETENTION FOR CHANGES TO EXISTING DWELLING, WHICH INCLUDE FIRST FLOOR ACCOMMODATION

20160065: DIANE & CATHAL O CONNELL. PERMISSION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED DOMESTIC GARAGE, INCORPORATING A STORAGE LOFT, AND ALL ASSOCIATED SITE WORKS

20150075: SHELAGH SUTTON & DARA CURRAN. PERMISSION FOR THE ERECTION OF EXTERNAL BALCONIES AND CHANGES TO ELEVATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH INTERNAL REORGANISATION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORKS

Fethard Pier Screening & NIS 67 DixonBrosnan 2020

In the absence of any significant potential impacts on the qualifying interests and conservation interests for the surrounding Natura 2000 sites and in the absence of significant impacts on its overall integrity, no potential cumulative impact from the proposed works has been identified.

6. Mitigation measures The likely success of the proposed mitigation measures is high, either in their current form or as they will be supplemented on-site to achieve the desired result. The mitigation measures have been drawn up in line with current best practice and include an avoidance of sensitive habitats at the design stage and mitigation measures will function effectively in preventing significant ecological impacts. The following mitigation measures will be implemented:

6.1 Construction measures – Guidelines

 Particular attention shall be given by the Contractor to the requirement of avoidance of nuisance due to noise, dust, vibration, as well as air and water pollution. The Contractor shall take particular account of the sensitive location of this site.

 All personnel involved with the project will receive an on-site induction relating to operations and the environmentally sensitive nature of Natura 2000 sites and to re- emphasize the precautions that are required as well as the precautionary measures to be implemented. All staff and subcontractors have the responsibility to:

o Work to agreed plans, methods and procedures to eliminate and minimise environmental impacts,

o Understand the importance of avoiding pollution on-site, including noise and dust, and how to respond in the event of an incident to avoid or limit environmental impact;

o Respond in the event of an incident to avoid or limit environmental impact;

o Report all incidents immediately to their line manager;

o Monitor the work place for potential environmental risks and alert the immediate line manager if any are observed; and

o Co-operate as required, with site inspections.

 A detailed environmental management plan will be prepared and implemented during site works which specifies mitigation measures including relevant planning conditions. The ecologist will liaise with the contractor and will be responsible for dealing with any specific ecological issues which may arise during the works and liaising with statutory bodies if required.

 Construction best practice measures (of relevance in respect of any potential ecological impacts) will be implemented throughout the project, including the

68 DixonBrosnan preparation and implementation of detailed method statements. The works will incorporate the relevant elements of the guidelines outlined below:

o Murphy (2004) Requirements for the Protection of Fisheries Habitat during Construction and Development Works at River Sites. Eastern Regional Fisheries Board, Dublin.

o IFI (2016) Guidelines on protection of fisheries during construction Works in and adjacent to waters. Inland Fisheries Ireland Report.

o Masters-Williams et al. (2001) Control of water pollution from construction sites. Guidance for consultants and contractors (C532). CIRIA.

o Murnane, Heap and Swain (2006) Control of water pollution from linear construction projects. Technical guidance (C648). CIRIA.

o Murnane et al. (2006) Control of water pollution from linear construction projects. Site guide (C649). CIRIA.

6.2 Construction works – water quality

 The employment of good construction management practices will minimise the risk of pollution of soil, storm water run-off, seawater or groundwater. The Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) in the UK has issued a guidance note on the control and management of water pollution from construction sites, Control of Water Pollution from Construction Sites, guidance for consultants and contractors (Masters-Williams et al. 2001).

 All personnel involved with the project will receive an on-site induction relating to operations and the environmentally sensitive nature of the proximity of the coastal waters and re-emphasise the precautions that are required.

 The working area used during construction will be clearly outlined prior to the commencement of works and will be kept to the minimum area necessary to effectively complete the works.

 All site personnel will be trained and aware of the appropriate action in the event of an emergency, such as the spillage of potentially polluting substances. In the event of spillage of any polluting substance and/or pollution of a watercourse, Wexford County Council, Inland Fisheries Ireland and the NPWS shall be notified.

 The Contractor shall ensure that there is no spillage of oil or other pollution into the harbour water or any watercourses leading thereto or to any other watercourse encountered. Before commencing any work, which could involve spillage of oil into these waters, the Contractor shall consult the Employer’s Representative and provide anti-pollution measures as may be required to prevent such spillage.

 Spill kits will be retained on site to ensure that all spillages or leakages are dealt with immediately and staff are trained in their proper use.

69 DixonBrosnan  All equipment will be maintained in good condition to prevent impacts on water quality. All equipment and machinery will have regular checking for leakages and quality of performance.

 All vehicles used on site will be inspected on a daily basis to ensure there are no minor leaks of hydrocarbons. Refuelling of machinery will occur in designated areas on an impermeable surface away from any drains or watercourses.

 It will be ensured that all staff are trained and follow vehicle cleaning procedures. Post details of the procedures in the work area for easy reference. Use of cleaning chemicals will be minimised.

 Machinery including hand-tools will never be washed in the harbour waters.

 Concrete will be delivered to the site on-demand and not stored on or near the site.

 Concrete pouring will not take place during heavy rain when run off is likely due to excess water. Shuttering will be designed to accommodate small increases in the volume of material contained within the shuttered area due to rainfall. Pre-cast concrete will be used if possible; otherwise all cast-in-place concrete will be isolated from flowing water for a minimum of 48 hours to allow pH to reach neutral levels.

 Wash down and washout of concrete transporting vehicles will not be permitted at the location of construction. Such wash down and washout activities will take place at an appropriate facility offsite or at the location where concrete was sourced.

 Dredging has the ability to create sediment plumes within the coastal waters in the vicinity of the development. To mitigate potential environmental impacts during dredge plant operations, the following mitigation measures are proposed:

o Ensure that dredging is undertaken in a manner that limits, as far as practically possible, the disturbance and dispersion of sediments during dredging operations.

o Ensure that the most suitable dredging equipment is used in order to minimise the suspension of any fine sediments and contaminants at the dredge site, where considered appropriate.

o A silt curtain will be installed where necessary around the dredging area once the dredge plant is in place, and prior to starting the dredge plant. The silt curtain will need to enclose the area and must be placed in areas upstream and downstream of the dredging area.

o The silt curtain will be placed where necessary in a manner to minimize release of total suspended solids into the coastal waters.

o A suitably qualified Environmental Monitor will be on site to collect water quality samples and to monitor general activities at the site. Specifically, the Environmental Monitor will be required to: . Be on site at all times during operation of the dredge plant; . Collect water quality samples and physical parameters within and outside the silt curtain;

70 DixonBrosnan . Dredging will be discontinued should it be determined that work is adversely affecting water quality, as directed by the Environmental Monitor; . If dredging is halted, dredging can only be restarted under instructions from the Environmental Monitor.

 Works will be suspended during severe flood events or when such events are forecast. This makes all activities and measures easier to implement and manage and limits the potential for generation of sediment and mobilisation of both sediment and pollutants downstream.

6.3 Construction works – storage and waste

 The Contractor shall be responsible for keeping the whole of the Site i.e. the site or sites on private property or along public roads, passageways or public open spaces, in a clean and tidy position.

 A construction and demolition waste management plan will be developed and maintained by the main contractor prior to construction works commencing on site. The Plan will meet the requirements of the DoEHLG Best Practice Guidelines on the Preparation of Waste Management Plans for Construction & Demolition Projects.

 Careful consideration will be given to the location of any fuel storage facilities i.e. oil, petrol and other fuel containers will be double-skinned and bunded to be able to contain 110% volume to guard against potential accidental spills or leakages entering local watercourses linked to the European sites. Bund specification will conform to the current best practice for oil storage such as Enterprise Irelands Best Practice Guidelines. Construction materials will be stored in a secure compound to prevent the potential for vandalism and theft of material.

 Dedicated fuel storage areas will be introduced on-site or fuelling should take place offsite.

 It will be ensured that all areas where liquids are stored or cleaning is carried out are in a designated impermeable area that is isolated from the surrounding area, e.g. by a roll-over bund, raised kerb, ramps or stepped access.

 All wastes generated as part of the construction process will be controlled and managed to ensure environmental protection. All site wastes (hazardous and non- hazardous), will be stored in designated areas and taken off site frequently to prevent large quantities accumulating. Careful ordering of materials will be undertaken to minimise quantities present on-site.

 Wastes which cannot be recycled will be removed from site by a licensed waste contractor to an appropriate licensed landfill facility ensuring adherence to the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991.

 Segregated waste for recycling will be removed from site to an appropriate Materials Recycling Facility for reprocessing. 6.4 Dredging- mitigation

 Dredging footprint to be reduced as much as practicable.  Compaction of sediments can be minimised by ensuring the all plant and machinery

71 DixonBrosnan use a defined route to /from the work site. Additionally, the use of geotextile in the area to be used for stockpiling of rock will also minimise compaction. It is considered that the area impacted will be small and that any impact will be temporary and localised. The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) has produced guidance (Guidance to Manage the Risk to Marine Mammals from Man-made Sound Sources in Irish Waters, NPWS, 2014) in relation to marine mammals that could potentially be affected. This methodology is standard best practice for conducting works as proposed. The operational methodology will require that this guidance will be adhered to during construction under the supervision of a suitably qualified ecologist. The following measures which relate to dredging will be implemented during the survey. It is noted that there are protocols within the NPWS guidance for different activities and the supervising ecologist/marine mammal observer (MMO) will modify the protocol as required based on a detailed work programme.

1. A qualified and experienced marine mammal observer (MMO) shall be appointed to monitor for marine mammals and to log all relevant events using standardised data forms

2. Unless information specific to the location and/or plan/project is otherwise available to inform the mitigation process (e.g., specific sound propagation and/or attenuation data) and a distance modification has been agreed with the Regulatory Authority, dredging activity shall not commence if marine mammals are detected within a 500m radial distance of the dredging sound source, i.e., within the Monitored Zone. Pre-Start Monitoring

3. Dredging activities shall only commence in daylight hours where effective visual monitoring, as performed and determined by the MMO, has been achieved. Where effective visual monitoring, as determined by the MMO, is not possible the sound-producing activities shall be postponed until effective visual monitoring is possible.

4. An agreed and clear on-site communication signal must be used between the MMO and the Works Superintendent as to whether the relevant activity may or may not proceed, or resume following a break (see below). It shall only proceed on positive confirmation with the MMO.

5. In waters up to 200m deep, the MMO shall conduct pre-start-up constant effort monitoring at least 30 minutes before the sound-producing activity is due to commence. Sound-producing activity shall not commence until at least 30 minutes have elapsed with no marine mammals detected within the Monitored Zone by the MMO.

6. This prescribed Pre-Start Monitoring shall subsequently be followed immediately by normal dredging operations. The delay between the end of Pre-Start Monitoring and the necessary full dredging output must be minimised. Dredging operations

7. Once normal dredging operations commence, there is no requirement to halt or discontinue the activity at night-time, nor if weather or visibility conditions deteriorate nor if marine mammals occur within a 500m radial distance of the sound source, i.e., within the Monitored Zone. Breaks in sound output

72 DixonBrosnan 8. If there is a break in dredging sound output for a period greater than 30 minutes (e.g., due to equipment failure, shut-down or location change) then all Pre-Start Monitoring must be undertaken in accordance with the above conditions prior to the recommencement of dredging activity.

9. Full reporting on MMO operations and mitigation undertaken must be provided to the Regulatory Authority as outlined in Appendix 7.

6.5 Construction works – Ecology

 Works will avoid the wintering bird season (September to March). This will minimise the disturbance to any wintering/migratory bird species utilising the harbour during this period.

 To prevent incidental damage by machinery or by the deposition of spoil during site works, any habitats earmarked for retention in close proximity will be securely fenced or sign posted early in the construction phase. These will be clearly visible to machine operators. Cliff habitat, hedgerow, tree and scrub vegetation that are to be retained which are located in close proximity to working areas will be clearly marked and fenced off to avoid accidental damage during excavations and site preparation.

 Works will primarily take place during hours of daylight to minimise disturbance to any roosting birds and/or feeding nocturnal mammal species. 6.6 Construction works – noise

 The contract documents will restrict working hours to between 08:00 and 18:00 hours Monday to Friday. The Contractor shall ensure that, at all properties outside the site boundaries the sound levels arising from activities do not exceed the following levels:

 Best practice noise and vibration control measures will be employed by the contractor. The best practice measures set out in BS 5228 (2009) Parts 1 and 2 will be complied with. This includes guidance on several aspects of construction site environmental measures, including, but not limited to the following:

o The potential for any item of plant to generate noise will be assessed prior to the item being brought onto the site. The least noisy item should be selected.

73 DixonBrosnan o All vehicles and mechanical plant used on the works shall be fitted with effective exhaust silencers and shall be maintained in good and efficient working order for the duration of the works in compliance with BS5228.

o The Contractor shall remove from the works any item of plant which in the opinion of the Employer’s Representative is ineffectively silenced.

o If replacing a noisy item of plant is not a viable or practical option, consideration will be given to noise control “at source”. This refers to the modification of an item of plant or the application of improved sound reduction methods in consultation with the supplier. For example, resonance effects in panel work or cover plates can be reduced through stiffening or application of damping compounds; rattling and grinding noises can often be controlled by fixing resilient materials in between the surfaces in contact.

o Mobile plant will be switched off when not in use and will not be left idling. o All items of plant will be subject to regular maintenance. Such maintenance can prevent unnecessary increases in plant noise and can serve to prolong the effectiveness of noise control measures.

o All compressors shall be “sound reduced” models fitted with properly lined and sealed acoustic covers and shall be kept closed whenever the machines are in use and all ancillary pneumatic percussive tools shall be fitted with mufflers or silencers of the type recommended by the manufacturers.

o Pumps and mechanical static plant shall be enclosed by acoustic sheds or screens where directed by the Employer’s Representative.

o Any plant such as generators and pumps which are required to work outside the hours of 0800 hrs to 1800 hrs shall be surrounded by an acoustic enclosure to the approval of the Employer’s Representative which shall restrict the noise level to not less than 5 dB(A) as stated above.

 At all other times the sound level of 50 dB(A) L10 (18hr) and a maximum noise level of 55 dB(A) shall not be exceeded unless the existing ambient noise levels are higher. In such cases the ambient noise level can be exceeded by 5 dB(A). Sound levels shall be monitored by methods set out in Appendix B of BS5228.

6.7 Construction works - air

 Construction activities have the potential to generate dust emissions, particularly during the site clearance and excavation stages. The potential for dust to be emitted depends on the type of construction activity being carried out in conjunction with ambient conditions, including rainfall, wind speed, wind direction and on the distance to potentially sensitive locations.

 Most of the dust would be deposited close to the potential source and any impacts from dust deposition would typically be within a hundred metres or so of the construction area. A dust minimisation plan will be prepared and implemented by the building contractor during the construction phase of the project. The following avoidance, remedial or reductive measures will be implemented as part of the dust minimisation plan:

74 DixonBrosnan  In circumstances where weather conditions result in the emission of dust from the site, the Contractor shall provide for damping facilities by means of the spraying of water or such other means as may be appropriate to prevent nuisance and shall be deemed to have included for this in the Contract Sum. Exhaust emissions from vehicles operating within the site, including trucks, excavators, diesel generators or other plant equipment, will be controlled by the contractor through regular servicing of machinery.

 Vehicle speeds will be limited in the construction site.

 Surrounding roads used by trucks for access to and egress from the site will be cleaned regularly using an approved mechanical road sweeper. Roads will be cleaned subject to local authority requirements. Site roads will be cleaned on a daily basis.

 Materials carried on vehicles to site will be enclosed or covered with tarpaulins.

 Daily visual inspections will be carried out at locations around the site boundary as required. These inspections will monitor the effectiveness of dust mitigation measures.

 Material handling systems and site stockpiling of materials will be designed and laid out to minimise exposure to wind.

7. Conclusions

Natura 2000 sites for which potential significant impacts have been identified are the Hook Head SAC, Bannow Bay SAC, Saltee Islands SAC, Bannow Bay SPA, Ballyteige Burrow SPA and Keeragh Islands SPA.

Impacts which have the potential to impact on these European sites relate primarily to loss of habitat, impacts on water quality and increased noise and disturbance. Potential cumulative impacts were also considered.

A range of mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design, and other mitigation measures have been developed and proposed, with the purpose of avoiding impacts on the qualifying interests and conservation objectives for the Hook Head SAC, Bannow Bay SAC, Saltee Islands SAC, Bannow Bay SPA, Ballyteige Burrow SPA and Keeragh Islands SPA. The likely success of these measures was also considered and no difficulties in their effective implementation were identified.

The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EC (2000) defines ‘integrity’ as the ‘coherence of the site’s ecological structure and function, across its whole area, or the habitats, complex of habitats and / or population of species for which the site is or will be classified’. The European Commission publication Managing Natura 2000 Sites: the provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC (EC, 2018), states that the integrity of the site can be usefully defined as the coherent sum of the site’s ecological structure, function and ecological processes, across its whole area, which enables it to sustain the habitats, complex of habitats and/or populations of species for which the site is designated”

75 DixonBrosnan Following a comprehensive evaluation of the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the qualifying interests and conservation objectives for the Hook Head SAC, Bannow Bay SAC, Saltee Islands SAC, Bannow Bay SPA, Ballyteige Burrow SPA and Keeragh Islands SPA, it has been concluded that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of these sites or any other Natura 2000 sites.

On the basis of objective scientific information, the proposed development will not, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, adversely affect any of the constitutive interests of the Hook Head SAC, Bannow Bay SAC, Saltee Islands SAC, Bannow Bay SPA, Ballyteige Burrow SPA and Keeragh Islands SPA, in light of these site’s conservation objectives.

Accordingly, the following has been concluded:

(i) all aspects of the proposed development project have been identified which, in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field, can by themselves or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the European site in the light of its conservation objectives; (ii) there are complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions regarding the identified potential effects on any relevant European site; (iii) on the basis of those findings and conclusions, the competent authorities are able to determine that no scientific doubt remains as to the absence of the identified potential effects; and (iv) thus, the competent authorities may determine that the proposed development will not adversely affect the integrity of any relevant European site.

76 DixonBrosnan References

Barron, S.J., Delaney, A., Perrin, P.M., Martin, J.R. & O’Neill, F.H. (2011). National survey and assessment of the conservation status of Irish sea cliffs. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 53. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government,

Dublin, Ireland.BWPi (2004) Birds of the Western Palearctic Interactive. BirdGuides Ltd. 2004.

Cutts, Hemingway and Spencer (2013) Waterbird Disturbance Mitigation Toolkit Informing Estuarine Planning & Construction Projects

Delaney, S., Scott, D., Dodman, T. & Stroud, D. (2009) (eds) An atlas of wader populations in Africa and Western Eurasia. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Environmental Protection Agency Ireland (http://www.epa.ie/)

EU 2013. Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats, version EUR 28 (2013) Invasivespecies Ireland (http://invasivespeciesireland.com/)

Folk, R.L., 1954. The distinction between grain size and mineral composition in sedimentaryrock nomenclature. The Journal of Geology, 62, 344-359.

Fossitt, J. A. (2000). A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council of Ireland Series

National Biodiversity Data Centre (http://www.biodiversityireland.ie/)

National Parks and Wildlife Service website (www.npws.ie)

NPWS (2011). Bannow Bay SAC (site code: 0697) Conservation objectives supporting document - marine habitats Version 1 November 2011 National Parks & Wildlife Service February

NPWS (2012a). Bannow Bay Special Protection Area (Site Code 4033) Conservation Objectives Supporting Document VERSION 1. National Parks & Wildlife Service February 2012

NPWS (2012b) Bannow Bay SAC (site code 697) Conservation objectives supporting document -coastal habitats NPWS Version 1 February 2012. National Park and Wildlife Service

NPWS (2013) The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland. Habitat Assessments Volume 2. Version 1.1. Unpublished Report, National Parks & Wildlife Services. Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland

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. & Hiby, A.R. (2007). An assessment of the breeding population of grey seals in the Republic of Ireland, 2005. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 34. National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland.

77 DixonBrosnan Wernham, V. V., Toms, M. P., Marchant, J. H., Clark, J. A., Siriwardena, G. M. & Baillie, S. R. (eds)(2002) The Migration Atlas: movements of birds of Britain and Ireland. T & A D Poyser. London.

78 DixonBrosnan Appendix 1 Site Synopses

Hook Head SAC (Site Code: 000764)

The areas of conservation interest at Hook Head comprise marine subtidal reefs to the south and east of the Hook Head Peninsula, and also 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. Hook Head itself is composed of Carboniferous limestone overlain by Devonian Old Red Sandstone and is palaeontologically of international importance.

The site is a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) selected for the following habitats and/or species listed on Annex I / II of the E.U. Habitats Directive (* = priority; numbers in brackets are Natura 2000 codes):

 [1160] Large Shallow Inlets and Bays  [1170] Reefs  [1230] Vegetated Sea Cliffs

An exposed to moderately exposed intertidal reef community complex occurs around Hook Head. Subtidally the reefs are aligned in a north-east/south-west orientation and are typically strewn with boulders, cobbles and patches of sand and gravel. They are exposed to prevailing winds and swells from the west and tidal streams tend to be moderate but are strong in some areas. There are also a number of isolated reefs that project from a sand plain. 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. A Laminaria-dominated community is recorded from the shallow waters around Hook Head. Deeper waters consist of Echinoderm and sponge-dominated community complex types, characterised by cushion sponges, with branching sponges and the rose ‘coral’ Pentapora foliacea. In addition, the sponge Stryphnus ponderosa, the sea squirts Sidnyum elegans, Distomus variolosus and Stolonica socialis, and the brittlestar Amphiura securigera are present. These species have a limited distribution in Ireland. The rare red algae Schizymenia dubyi also occurs.

The sublittoral sediments within this area consist of exposed, tide-swept patches of duned gravel and moderately exposed silty sand with only weak tidal streams. The duned gravel is characterised by the burrowing sea cucumber Neopendactyla mixta and the burrowing brittlestar Amphiura securigera, whilst the silty sand is relatively barren. A. securigera has only been recorded from the south-east of Ireland (the Kenmare River) and in Northern Ireland, where it is considered rare. The coarse sediments consist of a community complex distinguished by Pisidia longicornis and mobile and epibenthic species.

The sea cliffs, which extend for a distance of approximately 15 km, are mostly low, usually not more than 10 m, though they extend up to 30 m high near Baginbun Head. Both clay and rock cliffs are represented. The vegetation of the cliffs, as well as the underlying rocky shoreline, is characterised by species such as Thrift (Armeria maritima), Rock Samphire (Crithmum maritimum), Rock Sea-lavender (Limonium binervosum), Sea Plantain (Plantago maritima), Buck's-horn Plantain (Plantago coronopus), Rock Sea-spurrey (Spergularia rupicola) and Sea Mayweed (Matricaria maritima).

79 DixonBrosnan The cliffs at this site are of ornithological interest for breeding Chough, Raven) and Peregrine, and there is a small seabird colony, mainly of Guillemots, near Baginbun. The headland is a noted landfall point for migrants.

The waters off Hook Head are rich in marine life and are a popular diver site for SCUBA enthusiasts. Rock pools on the shore support a diverse flora and fauna.

In summary, this site is of conservation importance for its subtidal reef and shallow bay communities, and their diversity of species, as well as for the vegetated sea cliffs. These habitats are listed under the E.U. Habitats Directive. The rocky coastline is also important for a number of breeding birds, two of which are listed on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive.

Bannow Bay SAC (Site Code: 000697)

Bannow Bay SAC is a relatively large estuarine site, approximately 14 km long, on the south coast of Co. Wexford. Small rivers and streams to the north and south-west flow into the bay and their sub-estuaries from part of the site. The bay contains large areas of mud and sand, and the underlying geology is mainly of Ordovician slates with the exception of the areas to the east of Bannow Island which are underlain by Cambrian slates.

The site is a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) selected for the following habitats and/or species listed on Annex I / II of the E.U. Habitats Directive (* = priority; numbers in brackets are Natura 2000 codes):

 [1130] Estuaries  [1140] Tidal Mudflats and Sandflats  [1210] Annual Vegetation of Drift Lines  [1220] Perennial Vegetation of Stony Banks  [1310] Salicornia Mud  [1330] Atlantic Salt Meadows  [1410] Mediterranean Salt Meadows  [1420] Halophilous Scrub  [2110] Embryonic Shifting Dunes  [2120] Marram Dunes (White Dunes)  [2130] Fixed Dunes (Grey Dunes)*

The estuary, including the saltmarshes, makes up just over 80% of the site. At low tide up to three-quarters of the substrate is exposed. There are mudflats in the narrow northern part and also in the south-west and south-east. The sediments of the inner estuary associated with the Corock and Owenduff Rivers are generally black anoxic mud, with some fine sand and broken shell. Mats of green algae (Enteromorpha spp.) are present and seaweeds (Fucus spp.) have colonised stony substrates, particularly further south.

Saltmarshes of exceptional species diversity are found above the sand and mudflats, particularly at the south of the site. Communities associated with cord-grass (Spartina sp.) and glassworts (Salicornia spp.) occur in the saltmarsh and on its fringes. A diverse range of glassworts has been recorded, including Salicornia pusilla, S. ramosissima, S. europaea, S. fragilis and S. dolichostachya.

80 DixonBrosnan The main areas of saltmarsh are on the islands at Clonmines, at the mouth of the tributary at Clonmines, at the mouth of the tributary at Taulaght, close to Saint Kieran’s House, at the north-west of Big Burrow, at the south-east of Bannow Island and at the west of Rabbit Burrow in Fethard Bay. Very small fragmented linear strips of saltmarsh occur in the upper estuary as far north as the confluence of the Corock and Owenduff Rivers and along the other tributaries. The main type of saltmarsh present is Atlantic salt meadow, although the Mediterranean type is also found. Typical species of the former include Common Saltmarsh-grass (Puccinellia maritima), Sea Aster (Aster tripolium), Thrift (Armeria maritima), Sea Plantain (Plantago maritima), Red Fescue (Festuca rubra), Creeping Bent (Agrostis stolonifera), Saltmarsh Rush (Juncus gerardi), Sea Arrowgrass (Triglochin maritima) and Sea Beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima). An abundance of Sea Purslane (Halimione portulacoides) is found in Fethard and in part of the Taulaght saltmarshes. In the larger areas of saltmarsh Sea Rush (Juncus maritimus), a species more typical of Mediterranean salt meadows, is found. Other plants recorded are Lax-flowered Sea-lavender (Limonium humile) and Common Scurvygrass (Cochlearia officinalis).

Good conditions for the community ‘annual vegetation of drift lines’ exist on the seaward side of dune systems at this site. Typical species which have been recorded include Sea Rocket (Cakile maritima), mayweed (Matricaria sp.), Sea Spurge (Euphorbia paralias), Sea-holly (Eryngium maritimum), orache species (Atriplex spp.), Polygonum spp. and Sea Beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima). Areas of habitat which are likely to be suitable for the development of the community ‘perennial vegetation of stony banks’ exist at this site, but are small in area.

Also linked with saltmarshes in places are stony beaches and reedbeds. Narrow shingle beaches up to 30 m wide occur in places along the edge of the estuary. The fringing reed communities are mainly confined to the tributaries and are relatively small in extent. They support Sea Club-rush (Scirpus maritimus), Grey Club-rush (S. tabernaemontani), Hemlock Water-dropwort (Oenanthe crocata) and abundant Common Reed (Phragmites australis). Halophilous scrub occurs in four of the larger saltmarsh areas. It is characterised by the presence of the legally protected (Flora (Protection) Order, 1999) and Red Data Book-listed plant Perennial Glasswort (Arthrocnemum perenne), which occurs in only a few sites in the country.

A mosaic of sand dune habitats occurs in three areas at the edge of the estuary. Embryonic shifting dunes and white dunes are characterised by the presence of Lyme-grass (Leymus arenarius), Marram (Ammophila arenaria), Sea Spurge and Seaholly in both Big Burrow and to the south east of Bannow Island.

The priority habitat fixed grey dune is also present. Typical species here include Common Bird’s-foot-trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), Kidney Vetch (Anthyllis vulneraria), Wild Thyme (Thymus praecox), stork’s-bill species (Erodium spp.), Ribwort Plantain (Plantago lanceolata), Common Restharrow (Ononis repens), Mouse-ear Hawkweed (Hieracium pilosella), Field Wood-rush (Luzula campestris) and Wild Carrot (Daucus carota). Some areas of this dune type contain a carpet of the moss Tortula ruraliformis and lichens (Cladonia sp.). There is some gorse (Ulex sp.) present beside the mossy area at the south-east of the site. Bee Orchid (Ophrys apifera) and Pyramidal Orchid (Anacamptis pyramidalis) have also been recorded. Sharp Rush (Juncus acutus) occurs in a dune slack associated with the grey dunes at Big Burrow. At the west of the system, east of Bannow Island, the dunes are quite high, reaching

81 DixonBrosnan almost 15m. Nonnative plant species, including Tree Mallow (Lavatera arborea), occur in several parts of the site.

Some freshwater habitats occur at the northern end of the site. These consist mainly of a mosaic of marsh, reedbed and willows (Salix spp.). Species present include Common Reed, with young willows scattered throughout and Hemlock Waterdropwort abundant in the ground layer. In other areas the wetland vegetation consists of a mosaic of Phragmites reedbed, patches of Hard Rush (Juncus inflexus), Meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria), Creeping Buttercup (Ranunculus repens), Marsh Bedstraw (Galium palustre), Greater Tussock-sedge (Carex paniculata), Marshmarigold (Caltha palustris) and occasional Bulrush (Typha latifolia), along some old drains. The wetland areas generally merge into a narrow band of dense scrub dominated by Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) and Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), with some Ash (Fraxinus excelsior), willow and gorse.

Most of the estuary has been designated a Special Protection Area (SPA) under the E.U. Birds Directive because of its significant bird interest, particularly during the winter. Parts of this area have also been designated a Wildfowl Sanctuary. Large numbers of wintering wildfowl and waders feed on the mudflats and sandflats, and use the fringing vegetation of reedbed and saltmarsh for roosting and feeding. Populations present include internationally important numbers of Light-bellied Brent Goose (819), and nationally important numbers of Shelduck (475), Pintail (85), Golden Plover (3,144) - a species listed on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive, Lapwing (2,000), Knot (508), Dunlin (3,850), Black-tailed Godwit (697), Bar-tailed Godwit (334) and Redshank (377) (all figures mean peaks 1994/95 to 1997/98).

Important breeding populations found within the site include two species listed on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive (Little Tern and Kingfisher), a colony of Sand Martins in the cliffs at the west of the site and a heronry with approximately 15 breeding pairs. The rare Reed Warbler may also breed in the area.

Otter and Common Seal occur within the site.

Land use at the site consists mainly of shellfish farming; approximately 20 ha of the intertidal area is under cultivation. Current annual production of oysters is approximately 100 tonnes, concentrated mainly on three farms. There are other farms, but these are in the initial stages of cultivation and current production is negligible. There is evidence of poor farm management in some locations. There are numerous abandoned trestles in the intertidal zone and along the top of the shore. Grading equipment is permanently left on the shore and some areas of saltmarsh are being used as a grading area for oysters. In some areas damage is caused to the shingle vegetation and to the substrate by tractors accessing the aquaculture farms. Any further increase in aquaculture poses a threat.

Other land uses include shooting, bird-watching, conservation management, grazing in some of the dune areas, horse-riding on the beach and Big Burrow sand dunes, picnicing, swimming, sailboarding, jet-skiing, line fishing and bait digging. The removal of sand and beach material also occurs at the site.

The site is of considerable conservation significance for the large number of E.U. Habitats Directive Annex I habitats that it contains, including the priority habitat fixed grey dune. The legally protected and Red Data Book plant species Perennial Glasswort also occurs. The site

82 DixonBrosnan is also an SPA because of the important numbers of wintering wildfowl it supports, including an internationally important population of Light-bellied Brent Goose.

Bannow Bay SPA (Site Code: 004033)

Bannow Bay is a large, very sheltered, estuarine system with a narrow outlet to the sea, situated on the south coast of Co. Wexford. It is up to 14 km long along its north-east/south- west axis and has an average width of about 2 km. A number of small- to medium-sized rivers flow into the site, the principal being the Owenduff and the Corock which enter at the top end of the estuary. Very extensive intertidal mud and sand flats are exposed at low tide. The sediments have a rich macroinvertebrate fauna, with such species as Peppery Furrow-shell (Scrobicularia plana), Ragworm (Hediste diversicolor) and Lugworm (Arenicola arenaria) occurring frequently. Mats of green algae (Ulva spp.) are present on the intertidal flats and shorelines. Salt marshes are well-developed in the sheltered areas of the site and are characterised by species such as Common Saltmarsh-grass (Puccinellia maritima), Sea Aster (Aster tripolium), Thrift (Armeria maritima), Sea Plantain (Plantago maritima), Red Fescue (Festuca rubra), Saltmarsh Rush (Juncus gerardi) and Sea Rush (Juncus maritimus). Swards of Glasswort (Salicornia spp.) occur on the lower zones of the salt marshes and extend onto the intertidal flats.

The site is a Special Protection Area (SPA) under the E.U. Birds Directive, of special conservation interest for the following species: Light-bellied Brent Goose, Shelduck, Pintail, Oystercatcher, Golden Plover, Grey Plover, Lapwing, Knot, Dunlin, Blacktailed Godwit, Bar- tailed Godwit, Curlew and Redshank. The E.U. Birds Directive pays particular attention to wetlands and, as these form part of this SPA, the site and its associated waterbirds are of special conservation interest for Wetland & Waterbirds.

Bannow Bay supports an excellent diversity of wintering waterfowl and is one of the most important sites in the south-east. Of particular note is an internationally important population of Light-bellied Brent Goose (561) and Black-tailed Godwit (546) - all figures are mean peaks for the 5 winters 1995/96-1999/2000. The site also supports nationally important numbers of a further eleven species: Shelduck (500), Pintail (52), Oystercatcher (711), Golden Plover (1,955), Grey Plover (142), Lapwing (2,950), Knot (508), Dunlin (3,038), Bar-tailed Godwit (471), Curlew (891) and Redshank (377). The populations of Shelduck and Bar-tailed Godwit are of particular note as they comprise 3.4% and 3.0% of the respective all-Ireland totals. Other species which occur include Wigeon (412), Teal (256), Ringed Plover (38) and Turnstone (50). The intertidal sand and mud flats provide excellent feeding for the waterfowl species, while suitable high tide roosts are provided by the salt marshes and other shoreline habitats. Little Egret, a species which has recently colonised Ireland, also occurs at this site.

Bannow Bay SPA is an excellent example of an enclosed estuarine system. It supports internationally important populations of Light-bellied Brent Goose and Black-tailed Godwit as well as nationally important populations of a further eleven species. Two of the species that occur, i.e. Golden Plover and Bar-tailed Godwit, are listed on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive. Bannow Bay is a Ramsar Convention site and part of Bannow Bay SPA is a Wildfowl Sanctuary.

83 DixonBrosnan Keeragh Islands SPA (site code: 004118)

The Keeragh Islands are two low-lying islets located just over 1 km offshore from the south Wexford coastline. The site includes the islets and associated rocky shorelines and reefs, as well as the surrounding marine area to a distance of 200 m. The islets, which rise to a maximum height of about 10 m above sea level, have a small area of land permanently above the tide line. The vegetation is predominantly maritime in character, with species such as Red Fescue (Festuca rubra), Thrift (Armeria maritima), Common Scurvygrass (Cochlearia officinalis) and Sea Campion (Silene vulgaris subsp. maritima) occurring. The surrounding reefs support a range of seaweeds.

This site is a Special Protection Area (SPA) under the E.U. Birds Directive, of special conservation interest for the following species: Cormorant. The islands have a nationally important breeding colony of Cormorant (200 pairs recorded in 2000), which is considered to be one of the largest in the country. The colony has been well-monitored since it was first recorded in 1968 and there has been a long-term ringing programme. Terns, mainly Arctic Tern, have bred in the past but not since the 1970s. Herring Gull, Great Black-backed Gull and Lesser Black-backed Gull have also bred but no population estimates for recent years are available. A small number of Shag (c.10 pairs) were present in 1970.

In winter the islands are a refuge and night roost for flocks of Light-bellied Brent Goose and for ducks, notably Mallard and Wigeon, as well as smaller numbers of Teal and Shoveler.

The Keeragh Islands SPA is of particular ornithological importance for its nationally important population of breeding Cormorant. It retains potential for attracting breeding terns, species that are listed on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive.

Ballyteige Burrow SPA (Site code: 004020)

Ballyteige Burrow SPA is located on the south coast of Co. Wexford between the towns of Kilmore Quay and Cullenstown. It comprises a sand and shingle barrier beach, approximately 8 km in length, and the estuary of the Duncormick River. The extensive overlying sand spit is known as the Burrow, while the estuary that it encloses is known as the Cull. Some areas of adjacent polderland, particularly to the east, also form part of the site.

The site has a range of coastal habitats, including various types of sand dunes, salt meadows, and intertidal sand and mud flats. Saltmarsh vegetation fringes The Cull, with such species as Sea Aster (Aster tripolium), Sea Arrowgrass (Triglochin maritima), Sea Lavender (Limonium humile) and Glasswort (Salicornia spp.). The estuary empties almost entirely on most tides, apart from the main central channel. Sediments vary from muds in the innermost areas, especially towards Duncormick, to sands elsewhere. In addition to the Duncormick River, the estuary receives the flow from a network of canals which drain the extensive polders to the east and north-east of the site.

The site is a Special Protection Area (SPA) under the E.U. Birds Directive, of special conservation interest for the following species: Light-bellied Brent Goose, Shelduck, Golden Plover, Grey Plover, Lapwing, Black-tailed Godwit and Bar-tailed Godwit. The E.U. Birds Directive pays particular attention to wetlands, and as these form part of this SPA, the site and its associated waterbirds are of special conservation interest for Wetland & Waterbirds.

84 DixonBrosnan The principal ornithological importance of the site is wintering waterfowl, with internationally important populations of Light-bellied Brent Goose (290) and Black-tailed Godwit (474) occurring – all figures are five year mean peaks for the period 1995/96 to1999/2000. It also supports nationally important numbers of Shelduck (167), Golden Plover (4,630), Grey Plover (69), Lapwing (7,808), and Bar-tailed Godwit (582). Several other species occur in numbers of regional importance, including Wigeon (306), Ringed Plover (133), Dunlin (1,020) and Redshank (206). The estuarine habitats provide feeding and roosting areas for the waterfowl species, though a lot of the birds also feed on the intensively managed lands of the adjacent polders.

Cullenstown Strand has a small colony of breeding Little Tern, though nesting may not occur in every year. Ballyteige Burrow SPA is of ornithological importance because it supports internationally important populations of Light-bellied Brent Goose and Black-tailed Godwit, and nationally important populations of a further five species. Of particular note is that three of the species that occur at the site, i.e. Golden Plover, Bar-tailed Godwit and Little Tern, are listed on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive. Ballyteige Burrow is a Biogenetic Reserve site and part of the Ballyteige Burrow SPA is a Statutory Nature Reserve.

Saltee Islands SAC (Site Code: 000707) This site comprises the Saltees 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 between 4 and 5 km 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 a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) selected for the following habitats and/or species listed on Annex I / II of the E.U. Habitats Directive (* = priority; numbers in brackets are Natura 2000 codes): [1140] Tidal Mudflats and Sandflats [1160] Large Shallow Inlets and Bays [1170] Reefs [1230] Vegetated Sea Cliffs [8330] Sea Caves [1364] Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) The subtidal reefs at this site range from rugged bedrock with steep sided gullies to large boulders mixed with sand or cobbles and pebbles. They range from exposed, to moderately exposed, to wave action. The communities present are excellent examples of those typical of tide-swept areas and many have fauna and flora that are tolerant of sand scour. The area is notable for the range of colonial sea squirts present. With the exception of only a few samples, the communities are very species rich, with samples taken during the BioMar Survey having from 78 to 117 species. No other area surveyed during the BioMar Survey had so many species rich communities. In shallow water the reefs support a forest of mixed kelp species, with scour tolerant fauna on tide-swept bedrock or a kelp forest of Laminaria hyperborea with a faunal cushion and foliose red algae. With increasing depth the kelp thins to a kelp park. The kelp understorey ranges from a turf of hydroids, bryozoans, sponges and numerous colonial sea squirts, to a community characterised by the bryozoan Flustra foliacea or an understorey foliose red algae. On the sides of boulders a community with Deadman’s Fingers (Alcyonium digitatum), the keel worm Pomatoceros triqueter and algal and bryozoan crusts is found. In deeper water (15-30 m) animal dominated reef communities occur. The most notable of these is a community dominated by the sea squirt Stolonica socialis and the bryozoan Flustra foliacea. This community is rich in colonial sea squirts, in which Archidistoma aggregatum, Sidnyum elegans and Distomus variolosus and the solitary Pyura squammata

85 DixonBrosnan occur. Stolonica socialis is only known from the south-east and north-west of Ireland, while S. elegans has not previously been recorded in Ireland. Distomus variolosus is only known from between Galway and Tralee Bay on the west coast, and the east and south-east coasts of Ireland. Pyura squammata appears to have a widespread but local distribution in Ireland. The sea anemone Cataphellia brodricii occurs in this community and in shallow water, both around the Saltee Islands and in other areas in the south-east. The only other records for this species are from Roaringwater Bay, Co. Cork. Where the bedrock is steep or large boulders are present the community may be formed of cushion sponges, branching sponges, massive sponges, Nemertesia hydroids, the rose coral Pentapora foliacea, or Alcyonium digitatum. Beds of the brittlestars Ophiothrix fragilis and Ophiocomina nigra are also found in the area, and on very steep to vertical reefs the plumose anemone Metridium senile may be found. Species not mentioned above, and with limited distribution in Britain and Ireland and considered to be worthy of conservation, include the sponges Tethyspira spinosa and Plocamilla coriacea, the hydroids Aglaophenia acacia, Tamarisca tamarisca, Halecium muricatum and Sertularella gaudichaudi, the sea slug Okenia aspersa, the bryozoan Schizomavella sarniensis and the burrowing brittlestar Amphiura securigera. The majority of these species occur in the ascidian dominated communities and the Stolonica socialis community in particular. Tethyspira spinosa is only known from the Saltees and Roaringwater Bay in Ireland. Plocamilla coriacea is a recently described species, only recorded from the Saltees, Carnsore Point and Tuscar Rock, Co. Wexford and Kilkieran Bay, Co. Galway. Aglaophenia acacia is a southern species and occurs at several sites around the Saltees, with only one previous record in Ireland. Prior to the BioMar survey the only 20th century records for Halecium muricatum in Britain and Ireland were from the Isle of Man. This species is now known to occur at the Saltees and in Co. Donegal. The records for Sertularella gaudichaudi from this area are the only Irish records. The sea slug Okenia aspersa occurs at two sites in the area and these are the only recent records for Ireland. Schizomavella sarniensis is a recently described species of bryozoan and to date in Ireland has only been recorded from around the Saltees. The current known distribution of the burrowing brittlestar Amphiura securigera in Ireland appears to be the south-east of the country and Kenmare River, Co. Cork. The littoral sediments of the Saltee Islands area are moderately exposed to wave action. Talitrid amphipods live under drift algae on the strand line. The mid shore is characterized by polychaete worms (Hediste diversicolor, Malacoceros fuliginosus, Spio filicornis and Arenicola marina), crustaceans (Crangon crangon) and crabs (Carcinus maenas). The low shore is characterized by the polychaete worms Spio filicornis and Lanice conchilega, the burrowing crustacean Atylus swammerdamei, crabs and bivalve molluscs (Fabulina fabula and occasional Cerastoderma edule). The sublittoral sediment around the Saltees is composed of exposed, tide-swept shelly gravel characterised by the burrowing sea cucumber Neopendactyla mixta, with hydroids and bryozoans attached to cobbles. Both islands have exposed rocky cliffs on the south and east sides. On Great Saltee these are mostly around 30 m high, and about half this on Little Saltee. The cliffs have a typical sea cliff flora, with Thrift (Armeria maritima), Sea Campion (Silene vulgaris subsp. maritima), Sea Plantain (Plantago maritima), Sea Aster (Aster tripolium), Common Scurvygrass (Cochlearia officinalis), Rock Sea-spurrey (Spergularia rupicola), Sea Mayweed (Matricaria maritima), Red Fescue (Festuca rubra), Sea Spleenwort (Asplenium marinum) and Sea Samphire (Crithmum maritimum). Sea Stork’s-bill (Erodium maritimum) also occurs, and Golden-samphire (Inula crithmoides) has been recorded in the past. Excellent displays of lichens (Ramalina spp. and Xanthoria spp.) are present. The northern and western sides of

86 DixonBrosnan both islands are fringed with shingle and boulder shores, with small areas of intertidal sandflats. Sea caves occur at the base of the cliffs on Great Saltee. Some of these are sublittoral and some have boulder beaches at the back. Since the abandonment of farming on the islands (apart from sheep grazing on Little Saltee), Bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) has become dominant over much of the terrestrial area and often occurs in association with Bluebells (Hyacinthoides nonscripta). Bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) are also frequent. Dry grassland still occurs in some of the old fields, with species such as Yorkshire-fog (Holcus lanatus), Ground Ivy (Glechoma hederacea), Common Ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), Common Nettle (Urtica dioica) and thistles (Cirsium spp.). Several springs and seepage areas provide habitat diversity. Species present include Water- cress (Nasturtium officinale), Jointed Rush (Juncus articulatus), Bog Stitchwort (Stellaria alsine), Marsh Pennywort (Hydrocotyle vulgaris) and, in at least one location, Early Marsh- orchid (Dactylorhiza incarnata). Great Saltee has a breeding population of Grey Seal, one of the very few in eastern Ireland. The breeding population was estimated at 571-744 individuals in 2005. A one-off moult count in 2007 gave a figure of 246 individuals. The Saltee Islands are internationally important for their colonies of breeding seabirds. Particularly notable are the Gannets on Great Saltee (2,050 pairs in 2000), Cormorants on Little Saltee (273 pairs in 2000), Shags on both islands (265 pairs), Fulmars (525 pairs 1998- 2000), Kittiwakes (2,125 pairs in 1999), and auks – Guillemots (21,436 individuals), Razorbills (c. 4,000 individuals) and Puffins (1,822 individuals). There is also a small Manx Shearwater colony (c. 150-175 pairs) on Great Saltee. The breeding populations of large gulls have declined dramatically in recent years. The Lesser Black-backed Gull colony is still important (245 pairs), but numbers of Herring Gull (c. 50 pairs) and Great Black-backed Gull (c. 90) are now very low. There are one or two pairs of breeding Peregrine, and one pair of Chough occur here - at the eastern edge of their Irish range. Both of these species are listed on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive. Great Saltee is a major site for spring and autumn landbird migration. Very large numbers of pipits, swallows, martins, thrushes, warblers and finches occur, while smaller numbers of a great variety of other species (some very rare in Ireland) have also been recorded. The island is also a good site for migrant Lepidoptera, especially Red Admirals, Painted Ladies, Clouded Yellows, Silver Y moths and Humming-bird Hawk Moths. This site is of high conservation importance for the occurrence of several habitats which are listed on Annex I of the E.U. Habitats Directive, of which the reefs are of exceptional quality and diversity. The site is of international importance for breeding seabirds and has two species which are listed on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive. In addition, the site has a breeding population of Grey Seal, an Annex II species on the E.U. Habitats Directive.

87 DixonBrosnan Appendix 2. Bird Surveys

1. Introduction

DixonBrosnan were commissioned by T.J. O’Connor & Associates to carry out a winter bird assessment of a coastal site at Fethard Harbour, Co Wexford. Surveys were carried out on the 12th of December 2007, 14th February 2008 and 15th December 2019. The aim of the surveys was to assess the bird species likely to occur in the area in winter.

2. Receiving environment

2.1 Location

For the purposes of this report, the entire area on which the study was carried out is referred to as the “study site”. The area of proposed development is referred to as the “development site”. The proposed development site, an existing pier, is located on the southern banks of a small estuary which runs from Fethard village to the sea at Ingard Point. The study site covers the area from 100 metres east of the pier, towards Ingard Point, to the village of Fethard approximately 1.5 km upstream within the estuary. The study site contains areas of estuarine and marsh habitats as well as some rocky shore habitats along the banks of the estuary. Both the study site and the proposed development site form part of the Bannow Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and proposed Natural Heritage Area (pNHA) (site code 000697). Approximately 2 km northeast of the study site is the Bannow Bay Special Protection Area (SPA). The Bannow Bay site has been routinely monitored by Irish Wetland Birds (I-WEBS) counts since 1994 (Crowe, 2005). This SPA supports internationally important numbers of light-bellied brent goose and black tailed godwit as well as nationally important numbers of shelduck, pintail and golden plover.

2.2 Methodology A low tide survey was carried out on the 12th December 2007 and a high tide visit on the 14th February 2008. The 15th December 2019 survey was carried out during low tide. The high tide visit was made to establish which locations of the study area are used by roosting waders and wildfowl. The low tide visits were used to assess the locations around the study area which are used as feeding areas for waders and wildfowl. On each visit, counts of wildfowl, waders and gulls were made at a series of points around the site (Figure 1). In addition, a list of terrestrial species of birds encountered on all three visits was also recorded. All parts of the study area were walked and all species seen or heard were recorded. Bird identification follows Mullarney et al (1999).

88 DixonBrosnan

Figure 1. Overview of count areas within the study site (source Google Earth)

2.3 Weather Weather conditions on December 12th 2007 were cool, clear and bright. Winds were light, approximately 1-2 m/s. On February 14th 2008 conditions were cool and dull with a south- easterly wind of 3-4 m/s. Conditions were dry during both survey days. On 15th December 2019 winds were light with light rain.

3. Results

3.1 Survey of tidal and intertidal areas A total of 19 species of wildfowl, waders and gulls were recorded at the study site in 2007/2008 and 2019. The results of high and low tide counts are included in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3. Two Annex I species of the EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), curlew and little egret, were recorded at the study site. No internationally or nationally important numbers of birds were recorded at the site (Crowe, 2005).

Table 1. Description of count sites and the birds recorded during low tide conditions (12.12.07)

Species Area A Area B Areas C Area D

Brent goose 9 4

Herring gull 4 21

Dunlin 11

Heron 1 1

Great black backed 1 1 gull

Oystercatcher 7

89 DixonBrosnan Species Area A Area B Areas C Area D

Curlew 1 2

Redshank 14 9

Cormorant 1 1

Shag 1

Black headed gull 39 2

Little egret 1

Mallard 43

Coot 1

Total number birds 100 15 57 3

Total species 7 3 9 3

Table 2. Description of count sites and the birds recorded during high tide (14.02.08)

Species Area A Area B Area C Area D

Herring gull 1 5

Cormorant 2

Shag 2

Oystercatcher 2 2

Lesser black backed 1 gull

Mallard 2

Redshank 2 14

Bar tailed godwit 1

Curlew 3

Egret 2

Teal 24

Mallard 13

Grey plover 1

Total number birds 39 11 18 11

Total species 3 7 4 4

90 DixonBrosnan Table 3. Description of count sites and the birds recorded during low tide (15.12.19)

Species Area Area Area C Area D A B Mallard 64 66 Lesser Black-backed 14 4 gull Common gull 2 3 18 1 Little egret 1 Oystercatcher 2 1 Cormorant 1 Shag 2 Total number of birds 68 71 32 8 Total species 3 4 2 4

3.1.1 Area A- Freshwater/Brackish area near village

This area includes the freshwater/brackish areas on either side of Fethard Bridge near Fethard village. A tidal barrage under the bridge retains water at the western side of the bridge. This area of the study site held the largest density of birds at high and low tide. During low tide relatively large numbers of mallard and black-headed gulls were observed roosting on the river bank to the west of the bridge. Teal and mallard were also observed feeding on the exposed mud during low tide. Other species observed here at low tide included redshank, curlew, little egret and coot.

3.1.2 Area B- Wetland area near small bridge

Moving inland towards the village, the habitat becomes more marshy and vegetated with shallow streams of freshwater running into the estuary from the surrounding landscape. At low tide a number of brent geese were observed roosting in this area as well as herring and black- headed gulls. A small number of birds were observed here at high tide, feeding on the margins of the freshwater areas. Kingfisher, little egret and curlew, all Annex I species, were recorded here.

3.1.3 Area C- Area West of Pier

This covers the intertidal areas to the west of the development site. Large areas of mudflats are exposed here at low tide. The habitat becomes marshier moving westward towards the village. At low tide a large group of herring gulls were observed feeding in this area, as well as a number of other species including brent geese, dunlin, oystercatcher and redshank. Few birds used the area at high tide and all birds listed in table A3.2 were observed overflying the area.

3.1.4 Area D- Pier area and east of pier

This includes the site of proposed development at the pier, the rocky shore to the west of the pier and the offshore waters around the site. Few birds used this area during high and low tides. A small number of birds, mainly gulls, were observed roosting on the walls and lights

91 DixonBrosnan around the pier during high and low tides. Cormorant and shags were observed feeding in the offshore waters at high and low tides.

3.2 Terrestrial birds

Seventeen terrestrial bird species were recorded during the study site visits (Table 4). The species recorded are typical of this type of habitat. The majority of these birds were recorded in the hedgerows and agricultural fields which line the road between the proposed development site at Fethard pier and Fethard village. Two Annex I terrestrial species of the EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) were recorded. A female merlin was observed overflying area C, to the west of the pier at high tide. A kingfisher was recorded overflying the marshy area at Area C.

3.3 Breeding birds

The main aim of this study was to examine the distribution of wildfowl, waders and gulls in the coastal and intertidal area around the proposed development site. Therefore a specific breeding bird survey was not carried out. The majority of the terrestrial bird species recorded are likely to breed at the study site. Other species not recorded during the winter visits which are likely to breed within the study site include willow warbler, grasshopper warbler, sedge warbler and swallow.

Table 4. Terrestrial bird species recorded at the study site

Species Number

Blackbird 9

Bullfinch 7

Chaffinch 11

Dunnock 7

Feral pigeon 13

Greenfinch 6

House sparrow 12

Jackdaw 12

Kingfisher 1

Meadow pipit 4

Merlin 1

Robin 3

Rook 32

Starling 10

Stonechat 2

Woodpigeon 9

92 DixonBrosnan Wren 6

3.4 Status of birds of conservation concern

BirdWatch Ireland and the Royal Society of the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Northern Ireland have compiled a list of species of high, medium and low conservation priority in Ireland based on several criteria (Newton, et al. 1999). Currently there are 18 species included on the Red List, which signifies these are species of conservation concern. Rare and vulnerable species are also listed on Annex I of the EU Bird’s Directive (79/409/EEC).

Four Annex I species were recorded at the study site, curlew, little egret, merlin and kingfisher. Curlew is also a red-listed species due to a greater that 50% decline in the Irish breeding population during the last 25 years (Newton, et al. 1999). Ten Amber listed species were recorded at the site. The reasons for their inclusion on the Amber list are noted in Table 5. Other birds of conservation concern also noted in the area though not recorded in the study site were chough and gannet. Both these birds were observed on the north western side of the bay opposite the study site. The chough is a red listed species due to a greater that 50% decline in the Irish breeding population over the last 25 years. The gannet is amber listed due to the fact that more than 50% of the Irish breeding population are found at ten or fewer sites.

93 DixonBrosnan Table 5. Status of species of conservation concern recorded at study site (Newton et al.,1999)

Species BDM WI BDP BR BDR BL WL Red Amber List List

Bar-tailed X X godwit

Black-headed X X X X gull

Brent goose X X X

Cormorant X X X

Grey plover X X

Kingfisher X X

Little egret

Merlin X X

Redshank X X X

Teal X X

BDM- Moderate decline breeding population (p) or range (r)

BDP – Breeding Population Decline

BDR- Breeding Range Decline

BDM – Breeding Range Decline

WI- >20% of the northwest Europe population breeding in Ireland

BL- >50% of the Irish breeding population found in 10 or fewer sites

WL- >50% of Irish non-breeding population found in 10 or fewer sites

94 DixonBrosnan

4. Impact of proposed development

4.1 Habitat loss The area of proposed development is approximately 695 m2 in size. Thus the habitat loss resulting from the proposed development will be relatively small. Small areas of intertidal habitat around the proposed development site will be lost, however few birds were observed foraging or roosting on these areas during site visits, thus the impact is considered to be minimal. 4.2 Disturbance The main impact of the proposed development is likely to be disturbance during the construction phase. Noise and activity levels will increase significantly during this time. However considering that building works will be largely confined to the eastern area of the study site, the disturbance at the more important bird areas to the west of the study site will be minimal. Increased boat traffic during the operational phase may cause disturbance to birds feeding in the offshore waters around the proposed development site. These birds can acclimatise to increased activity levels and given that the existing pier is currently operational, birds are likely to have already habituated to a certain level of disturbance. Thus any impact on birds is likely to be imperceptible to slight over the long term. The area to be developed is of low value for terrestrial birds and the impacts on terrestrial birds will be slight. 4.3 Impact of birds of conservation concern The most significant impact arising from the proposed development from a species conservation concern viewpoint would be the loss of individuals of rare species. Four Annex I species were recorded within the study site i.e. curlew, little egret, merlin and kingfisher. However these species were observed away from the proposed development site (Area B and C) and thus are unlikely to be significantly negatively impacted as a result of the proposed development. 4.4 Impacts on the SAC and pNHA The proposed development site is located within the Bannow Bay Special Area of Conservation (site code 000697). While most of the SAC has been included in the Bannow Bay Special Protection Area (SPA) (site code 004033) under the E.U. Birds Directive, the study site has not been included in the designation. There are large numbers of wintering wildfowl and waders which feed on the mudflats and sandflats of the SAC and use the fringing vegetation of reedbed and saltmarsh for roosting and feeding. The SAC supports internationally important numbers of brent goose, as well as a number of nationally important numbers of species including the Annex I species golden plover. Important breeding populations of little tern and kingfisher (Annex I species) also occur within the SAC. Although Bannow Bay supports internationally important concentrations of wildfowl and waders, no significant concentrations of these birds were recorded within the study site. The majority of waders and wildfowl were recorded in the intertidal and marshy areas near Area B

95 DixonBrosnan and C, away from the proposed development site. Thus the impact on birds within the SAC is likely to be negligible. 5. Mitigation measures

5.1 Construction phase mitigation measures The zone of works will be fenced off from the outset, to prevent ingress into areas that require protection. Particular care will be taken at the boundary of the SAC outside the proposed development site, so that construction activities do not cause damage to habitats in this area. All construction staff, including all sub-contracted workers, will be notified of the boundaries of the SAC and will be made aware that no construction waste of any kind (rubble, soil, etc.) is to be deposited in these protected areas and that care must be taken with liquids or other materials to avoid spillage. No construction activity should take place outside the areas earmarked for development and all construction materials should be stored on the landward side of the development site away from the SAC. Considering the distance between the site of the proposed development and the important areas of foraging waders and wildfowl within the SAC, direct disturbance to wintering birds within designated habitats is unlikely to be significant. Furthermore, the presence of an existing pier at the SAC site suggests that birds within the SAC have already habituated to a certain level of disturbance. Short term monitoring of the estuarine birds during the construction phase is recommended to ensure that the proposed development does not impact on the local bird community. The habitats which will be affected by the proposed development are not of value for breeding birds. However a more detailed survey of breeding birds is recommended if development at the site is extended to more ecologically sensitive areas in the future. 6. References

Crowe, O. (2005). Irelands Wetlands and their Waterbirds: Status and distribution. BirdWatch Ireland, Wicklow. Newton, S., Donaghy, A., Allen, D. and D. Gibbons. (1999). Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland. Irish Birds 6(3) 333-344.

Mullarney, K., Stevensson, L., Zetterstrom, D. and Grant, P.J. (1999). Collins Bird Guide. Harper Collins, London

96 DixonBrosnan Appendix 3. Fethard intertidal surveys

1. Introduction

DixonBrosnan environmental consultants were commissioned by T.J. O’Connor Consulting Engineers to carry out an ecological survey at the site of a proposed pier extension at Fethard Harbour, Co. Wexford.

The aim of this survey was to identify the baseline ecological value of the marine areas bordering the site and identify the probable impacts arising from the extension of the existing pier.

The intertidal survey was carried on the 15th December 2007. Samples were taken from sedimentary and rocky habitats in the littoral and the edge of the sub-littoral zones along five transects. The transects cover the area which may be affected by site works. A 0.25m2 quadrat was used to randomly select the location of the detailed sampling areas. The samples taken from the site are considered representative of habitats in this area which consist of a mixture of mud/sand and rocky shore habitats. Weather conditions on the 15th were calm with intermittent rainfall (2.8mm) collected at the nearest Met Eireann station (JOHNSTOWNII). The highest recorded wind speed for the day was 10.8 knots and the air temperature recorded was 8˚ Celsius. A sediment survey was carried out on November 30th 2010. A repeat intertidal survey was carried out on the 15th December 2019.

2. Methodology

Five transects were put in place running from the high tide line to the subtidal zone. These sampling locations were selected to give a geographical spread and ensure that a variety of habitats were sampled. The classification of these habitats follows the scheme outlined in the Heritage Council publication A Guide to Habitats in Ireland (Fossit, 2000).

Measurements along the shore were taken using a surveyor’s tape and any relevant features were recorded. In the intertidal zone, a 0.25m2 quadrat was used at each station along the transect. Each transect was examined for flora and fauna and where required samples were taken from sedimentary habitats. During the sediment survey, which was carried out on November 30th 2010, five samples were taken from the marine habitats potentially affected by site work at low tide

3. Survey Results 2007 and 2019

Descriptions of each transect site and the species recorded at each transect in 2007 and 2019 are provided below. The location of the transects is provided in Figure 1.

97 DixonBrosnan

Figure 1 Transect Locations

98 DixonBrosnan 3.1 Transect 1

Table 1 Transect 1 overview

Transect 1 was located to the west of the existing pier structure. This area is dominated by rocky shore habitats with fucoid algae interspersed with areas of mud. Habitat types found here were classified as Muddy sand shores (LS3) and Sheltered rocky shores (LR3). Seaweed was found to dominate this transect, with wrack species such as Serrated wrack (Fucus serratus), Spiral wrack (Fucus spiralis) and Knotted wrack (Ascophyllum nodosum) being most dominant.

Table 2 Transect 1 results

2007 2019

Species Species

Habitat Low shore Middle High shore Low shore Middle shore High shore classification Shore Transect Muddy sand (LS3) Corallina officinalis Fucus spiralis Fucus Ascophylum Ascophylum Fucus spiralis 1 spiralis nodosum nodosum Patella vulgata Patella Pelvetia Fucus spiralis Fucus spiralis Actinia equine vulgate canaliculata Sheltered rocky Littorina obtusata Patella Fucus Patella Chthamulus (LR3) vulgata serratus vulgata montagui Carcinus maenas Carcinus Patella maenas vulgata Actinia Mastocarpus equine stellatus

99 DixonBrosnan Table 3 Transect 2 overview

Transect 2 is a mixed transect with rocky outcrops and sand on the lower and middle shore. The upper section of the middle shore and the upper shore have some mixed sediments with coarse gravels, rocks and boulders. Habitat classifications were Muddy sand shores (LS3) and Sheltered rocky shores (LR3) and Mixed sediment shores (LS5). Large amounts of seaweed were found on the middle and upper limits of this transect. Very few organisms were observed, with only the common limpet (Patella vulgate) recorded.

Table 4 Transect 2 results

2007 2019

Species Species Habitat Low shore Middle High shore Low shore Middle High classification Shore shore shore Transect Muddy sand Fucus Littorina Fucus Fucus Ulva 2 (LS3) serratus saxatilis serratus spiralis lactuca Neomphrite Carcinus Ascophylum Patella Fucus fugulus maenas nodosum vulgata spiralis Sheltered rocky Gammarus sp. Chlorophyta Ascophylum (LR3) sp. nodosum Unid. Phaeophyta sandhopper sp. Mixed sediment Actinia equine (LS5)

100 DixonBrosnan

Table 5 Transect 3 Site description

Transect 3 was taken within the sheltered harbour and confined at the lower and upper limits by pier walls. Therefore, only two samples were taken. No rocky substrate recorded and dominated by medium to fine grain sand. The only species recorded was lugworm. The redox discontinuity layer was generally with 7cm of the surface. Habitat classification recorded was Muddy sand shores (LS3).

Table 6 Transect 3 Results

2007 2019 Species Species Habitat Low shore Middle High Low Middle High shore classification Shore shore shore shore Transect Muddy sand Arenicola Arenicola Arenicola Ascophylum 3 (LS3) marina marina marina nodosum Patella vulgata

101 DixonBrosnan Table 7 Transect 4 Description

Transect 4 (was located to the east of the existing structure. The lower shore was similar to transect 5 with rocky outcrops on the lower shore supporting a variety of algal species (i.e. Fucus spiralis and Caragheen moss) and typical rocky shore species such as common limpet (Patella vulgate) and Dogwhelk (Nucella lapillus). Habitat classifications were Muddy sand shores (LS3) and Sheltered rocky shores (LR3).

Table 8 Transect 4 Results

2007 2019 Species Species Habitat Low shore Middle High shore Low shore Middle High shore classification Shore shore Transect Muddy sand Fucus Ascophyllum Patella Patella Nucella 4 (LS3) serratus nodosum vulgata vulgata lapillus Mastocarpus Chondrus Fucus Fucus Patella stellatus crispus spiralis serratus vulgata Sheltered Patella Fucus Rhodophyta Ulva lactuca Fucus spiralis rocky (LR3) vulgata serratus sp. Littorina Palmaria Nucella Mastocarpus littorea palmate lapillus stellatus Nucella Carcinus lapilis maenas Gammerus Arenicola sp. marina Carcinus Unid. maenas sandhopper Nereid sp/ Halichondria panicea

102 DixonBrosnan Table 9 Transect 5 description

Transect 5 was located approximately 40m east of the existing pier the lower shore. The habitat is dominated by rocky outcrops with a mixture of fucoid and red algae. Faunal species are typical rocky shores and include common barnacle, limpet and beadlet anemone. In the mid to high shore the habitat gives way to relatively uniform sediments of fine sand/mud with smaller rock outcrops. Algae is largely absent with the exception of a small section of serrated wrack and beadlet anemone was the only faunal species detected. The sample was taken from the upper boundary of the middle shore where algae is absent. Habitat classifications Muddy sand shores (LS3)

and Sheltered rocky shores (LR3).

Table 10 Transect 5 Results

2007 2019 Species Species Habitat Low shore Middle Shore High Low shore Middle High shore classification shore shore Transect Muddy sand Fucus serratus Fucus serratus Nucella Fucus Actinia equine 5 (LS3) lapillus serratus Mastocarpus Fucus Ulva Mastocarpus stellatus vesiculosis lactuca stellatus Sheltered Chondrus crispus Semibalanus Patella Chthamalus rocky (LR3) balanoides vulgata montagui Ulva lactuca Rhodophyta sp. Ceramium rubestris Patella vulgata Monodonta lineata Nucella lapilis Semibalanus balanoides Lipophrys pholis Pholis gunnellus

103 DixonBrosnan

The results of the 2007 and 2019 intertidal surveys are compared in Table 11. Table 11. Comparison of 2007 and 2019 intertidal survey results

2007 2019 Species Species Habitat classification Low shore Middle Shore High shore Low shore Middle shore High shore Muddy sand (LS3) Corallina officinalis Fucus spiralis Fucus spiralis Ascophylum nodosum Ascophylum nodosum Fucus spiralis Patella vulgata Patella vulgate Pelvetia canaliculata Fucus spiralis Fucus spiralis Actinia equine Transect 1 Sheltered rocky (LR3) Littorina obtusata Patella vulgata Fucus serratus Patella vulgata Chthamulus montagui Carcinus maenas Carcinus maenas Patella vulgata Actinia equine Mastocarpus stellatus Muddy sand (LS3) Fucus serratus Littorina saxatilis Fucus serratus Fucus spiralis Ulva lactuca Neomphrite fugulus Carcinus maenas Ascophylum nodosum Patella vulgata Fucus spiralis Transect 2 Sheltered rocky (LR3) Gammarus sp. Chlorophyta sp. Ascophylum nodosum Unid. sandhopper Phaeophyta sp. Mixed sediment (LS5) Actinia equine Muddy sand (LS3) Arenicola marina Arenicola marina Arenicola marina Ascophylum nodosum Transect 3 Patella vulgata Muddy sand (LS3) Fucus serratus Ascophyllum nodosum Patella vulgata Patella vulgata Nucella lapillus Mastocarpus stellatus Chondrus crispus Fucus spiralis Fucus serratus Patella vulgata Sheltered rocky (LR3) Patella vulgata Fucus serratus Rhodophyta sp. Ulva lactuca Fucus spiralis Littorina littorea Palmaria palmate Nucella lapillus Mastocarpus stellatus Transect 4 Nucella lapilis Carcinus maenas Gammerus sp. Arenicola marina Carcinus maenas Unid. sandhopper Nereid sp/ Halichondria panicea Muddy sand (LS3) Fucus serratus Fucus serratus Nucella lapillus Fucus serratus Actinia equine Mastocarpus stellatus Fucus vesiculosis Ulva lactuca Mastocarpus stellatus Sheltered rocky (LR3) Chondrus crispus Semibalanus balanoides Patella vulgata Chthamalus montagui Ulva lactuca Rhodophyta sp. Ceramium rubestris Transect 5 Patella vulgata Monodonta lineata Nucella lapilis Semibalanus balanoides Lipophrys pholis Pholis gunnellus

104 DixonBrosnan 3.3 Sediment Profile

Five samples were taken from the marine habitats potentially affected by site work at low tide on November 30th 2010. 100g were taken for each sample which were sieved using Wentworth graded sieves. Following separation of the sediment fractions the sediments were according to Folk R.L. (1954) as outlined below in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Results for samples 4 and 5 which were obtained to the east of the existing pier and sample 3 taken from inside the pier itself shown in Table 2.

Figure 1. Particle size and sediment type classification.

105 DixonBrosnan

Figure 2. Sediment type classification Source: Folk R.L (1954) The distinction between grain size and mineral composition in sedimentary rock nomenclature. Journal of Geology Seaweed identification source: Bunker, F., Brodie, J., Maggs, C., Bunker, A. (2017). Seaweeds of Britain and Ireland, Second edition, Wild Nature Press, United Kingdom. Intertidal organism identification: Marine Species Identification Portal (2020). [online] Available at: http://species-identification.org/ [Accessed 12/03/2020].

106 DixonBrosnan Appendix 4. NPWS bird survey maps

107 DixonBrosnan

108 DixonBrosnan

109 DixonBrosnan

110 DixonBrosnan

111 DixonBrosnan

112 DixonBrosnan

113 DixonBrosnan

114 DixonBrosnan

115 DixonBrosnan

116 DixonBrosnan

117 DixonBrosnan

118 DixonBrosnan

119 DixonBrosnan