Attachment-E

DUMPING OPERATIONS

DUMPING AT SEA PERMIT APPLICATION

Fenit Harbour,

Tralee, Co. Kerry

Attachment E Dumping Operations

CONTENTS

E.1 DUMPING SITE SELECTION REPORT

E.2 GENERAL INFORMATION E.2 (I) Characteristics of the dumping site(s) E.2 (II) Location of the dumping site

E.3 DETAILS OF THE DUMPING OPERATION E.3 (I) Date of commencement and duration of the dumping operations E.3 (II) Name and address of operator contracted to carry out the dumping at sea (if known) E.3 (III) Location and method of dumping E.3 (IV) Total quantities (in tonnes (wet weight) and cubic meters) to be dumped per day/ week/month.

Attachment E.1(I) Dump site Selection Report (MWP 2015)

Attachment E.2(I) Marine Benthic Study Harbour Dredging and Disposal Operations (Aquafact 2018)

Page 1 of 6

Attachment E Dumping Operations

E.1 DUMPING SITE SELECTION The proposed dump site for the future dredging campaign is the same as that used by Fenit Harbour and Marina for disposal of dredged materials arising from the maintenance dredging campaign undertaken in 2016 and in previous campaigns back to 1996. The use of the dumpsite within Bay had evolved historically overtime and was influenced by local fisheries knowledge, navigation and guidance from the management team in Fenit Harbour. Historically Dumping At Sea Permits were issued by the Department of Marine and those permits did not have the benefit of a detailed site selection process. The preparation of the DAS permit application in 2014 included a comprehensive site selection process to ensure the suitability of the dumpsite. The dump site selection process was driven by constraints analysis and an iterative process where potential locations were examined and either discounted or investigated further. Prior to its final selection a number of assessments at the dumpsite were undertaken including: . Baseline bathymetry undertaken by Hydrographic Surveys Ltd to establish the bed profile. . Current speed and direction assessment undertaken by Hydrographic Surveys Ltd. . Underwater Archaeological Impact Assessment completed by Lar Dunne Archaeology . Baseline Characterisation Report completed by Aquafact . Sediment Transport Model completed by Aquafact . Sediment sampling from the proposed dredge material within the harbour and analysis of same by RPS Laboratories . Natura Impact Statement (NIS) addressing both the dredge location and the proposed dumpsite location.

A copy of the site selection report completed in 2014/2015 is included in Attachment E.1(I).

Given the short timeframe since the last dumping activities, the site characteristics of the existing dumpsite would not be expected to have changed significantly in the intervening period so historical studies undertaken relating to the dumpsite and its selection are deemed to be relevant.

Notwithstanding this, prior to the selection of the existing dumpsite as the proposed site for disposal of sediments arising from future maintenance dredging campaign, a number of further surveys have been undertaken. These include:

 Benthic survey of the dump site completed by Aquafact  Site Characterisation Report and sediment sampling completed by Aquafact  Updated Archaeological Report completed by Lar Dunne Archaeology  Updated Marine Mammal Risk Assessment by IWDG The reports were completed by the same consultant specialists who completed studies as part of the Dumpsite Selection Report of 2014/2015.  AQUAFACT International Services Ltd carried out a benthic survey of the dump site in 2018. The survey identifies variations in the community type and dominating between the sampling stations. These local variations are common in the natural environment. This would suggest that the past dumping activities had no long term impact on the general environment within the dump site. A copy of this report is included in Attachment E.2(I).

Page 2 of 6

Attachment E Dumping Operations

 Nothing of archaeological interest was found during the underwater archaeological assessment of the dumpsite in 2015.  The report of the Marine Mammal Observer indicates that the dumping of dredged material did not have a significant impact on marine mammals in the area.

E.2 GENERAL INFORMATION

E.2 (I) Characteristics of the dumping site(s)

Distance from nearest shore The dumpsite is located approximately 3km west of the coast at Carrahane Lower townland and approximately 1.5km north-northwest of in the outer part of . It lies between 1.5km to 2.5km south and southeast of Illaunnabarnagh and Mucklaghmore Islands

Average, minimum and maximum depth of water (referenced to OD Malin); Depths within the dumpsite range between 16.4 and 19.6m and outside the dumpsite they ranged from 13.7 to 19.1m.

Sediment characteristics The sediment type in the disposal site consists of fine/medium sand, coarse/medium sand and gravelly coarse sand and sandy gravel. Areas of hard ground occur in the western half. Very fine sand dominate just over 1km south of the dumpsite. Fine/very fine sand dominate to the east of the dumpsite and a gravelly coarse/very coarse sand dominate to the north. All sediments were classified as sand, gravelly sand or sandy gravel by Folk (1954). Silt-clay fractions were low throughout (<10%). Further details are provided in the Marine Benthic Study of the dumpsite undertaken by Aquafact. (See Attachment E.2 (I)).

Nature of seabed habitats The faunal assemblage of the dumpsite and surrounding areas can be classified by Fossitt (2000) as SS1 Infralittoral gravels and sands. Variations in the community type and dominating species between the stations was evident. These local variations are common in the natural environment. All species observed are typically of the gravelly/sandy habitat in the area. Some of the main dominants of the assemblage include the bivalve Spisula subtruncata and the polychaetes Magelona johnstoni, Nephtys sp. and Syllis pontxioi. Further details are provided in the Marine Benthic Study of the dumpsite undertaken by Aquafact. (See Attachment E.2 (I)).

Current/flow/tidal regime; etc. Tidal currents are generally low at the dump site. The current largest velocities occur at mid ebb and mid flood with magnitudes ranging from 0.2 to 0.3 m/s.

Past Disposal at the dumpsite The dumpsite was previously used as the disposal site for the dredging campaign at Fenit Harbour undertaken in 2016. The volume of material dumped was 130,000 tonnes.

Page 3 of 6

Attachment E Dumping Operations

E.2 (II) Location of the dumping site

Co-ordinates from the corners of the dump site areas are set out in Table 1 below. A chart outlining its position is shown in Figure 1 below and in Drawing No. 18598-5005A

Table 1 Co-ordinates of Dumping at sea location

WGS84 datum ITM Latitude Longitude Easting Northing (dd mm.mmm) (dd mm.mmm) (TL) 52 19.43938 9 54.34701 470091 620862 (TR) 52 19.453516 9 53.467316 471091 620862 (BR) 52 18.9145 9 53.444 471091 619862 (BL) 52 18.90036 9 54.32385 470091 619862

Figure 1 Location of spoil disposal site

Page 4 of 6

Attachment E Dumping Operations

E.3 DETAILS OF THE DUMPING OPERATION

E.3 (I) Date of commencement and duration of the dumping operations The commencement date is unknown at this juncture as it is subject to the grant of the foreshore licence and dumping at sea permits. Operations will commence as rapidly as possible after the required licence and permit have been issued and a contractor appointed. Table 1 sets out an anticipated dumping schedule.

It is envisaged that in Year 1 dumping will take place over a 4-6 week period, and annually thereafter over a 3-4 week period. Dumping activities are envisaged to take place typically between February- May annually.

E.3 (II) Name and address of operator contracted to carry out the dumping at sea (if known) Currently unknown. Contractor not yet appointed.

E.3 (III) Location and method of dumping Location as described and shown in Section E.2 (II).

Method of dumping will be undertaken by releasing the dredged material by opening the hatches in the bottom of the dredging vessel.

The area over which the dredger deposit each load is recorded with co-ordinates and the volume deposited is noted. Deposition is undertaken at optimum times of the tide, within good weather windows. There will also be monitoring of the plume at the deposition site as part of normal good practice. Once the dredger is finished the disposal process it then returns back to port and recommences the dredging operation

The hydrodynamic modelling assessment undertaken for the 2016 permit, shows that less than 20% of the material will deposit and stay within the dumpsite location and the remainder will re-disperse within the wider and outer bay area. Given that material is not contaminated and occurs within the bay, then the fact that the majority re-disperses within the dumpsite area and the wider bay should have no negative effects, as in effect the dredging and deposition process is mimicking what occurs naturally in the system. Any temporary deposition of material will not have a detrimental effect on faunal communities within the habitat.

Page 5 of 6

Attachment E Dumping Operations

E.3 (IV) Total quantities (in tonnes (wet weight) and cubic meters) to be dumped per day/ week/month.

Table 1 Approximate estimates of material be dumped on an weekly basis

Total Volume to be Dumped Estimated Estimated Volume per Week Dumping duration Year (Tonnes) m3 (tonnes) m3 1 250,000 156,250 4-6 weeks 40,000 – 65,000 25,000 – 40,500 2 100,000 62,500 3-4 weeks 25,000 – 33,500 15,500 – 21,000 3 150,000 93,750 3-4 weeks 37,500 – 50,000 23,500 – 31,250 4 75,000 46,875 3-4 weeks 18,750 - 25,000 11,700 – 15,500 5 150,000 93,750 3-4 weeks 37,500 – 50,000 23,500 – 31,250 6 75,000 46,875 3-4 weeks 18,750 - 25,000 11,700 – 15,500 7 100,000 62,500 3-4 weeks 25,000 – 33,500 15,500 – 21,000 8 100,000 62,500 3-4 weeks 25,000 – 33,500 15,500 – 21,000

Page 6 of 6

Attachment E Dumping Operations

Attachment E.1(I)

Dump site Selection Report (MWP 2015)

Fenit Harbour

Dumping at Sea Application

Site selection report

14996 Dump Site selection report January 2015

ISSUE FORM Project number 14996 Document number Document revision Rev A Document title Dump Site selection report Document status Draft Document prepared by Ken Fitzgerald Document checked by

i

14996 Dump Site selection report January 2015

Table of contents

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2 CRITERIA FOR DUMP SITE SELECTION ...... 1

3 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, CONSULTATION AND REPORTS...... 1

4 DUMP SITE SELECTION PROCESS ...... 2 4.1 Stage 1...... 2 4.2 Stage 2 ...... 3 4.3 Stage 3 ...... 5 Table 1 Screening for Appropriate Assessment ...... 8 Table 2 Natura Impact Statement ...... 8

5 HISTORY OF PREVIOUS DUMPSITE ...... 8

6 DISCUSSION ...... 9

7 ANALYSIS ...... 11

8 CONCLUSION ...... 12

ii

14996 Dump Site selection report January 2015

1 INTRODUCTION

Malachy Walsh & Partners (MWP) was commissioned to prepare a Dumping At Sea (DAS) application for ongoing maintenance dredging work in Fenit Harbour. As part of the DAS application submission a dump site selection report has to be completed.

This report sets out the criteria that were used to select the dump site and discusses the merits and reasons for the final site selection.

2 CRITERIA FOR DUMP SITE SELECTION

The following criteria were used in the dump site selection process:

. Avoidance of shipping lanes and main navigation routes

. Avoidance of known seabed archaeological features

. Avoidance of Natura 2000 sites

. Avoidance of fishing grounds and nursery areas for fish and aquaculture

. Avoid impacts on Blue Flag beaches

. Selection of area of sea bed with reasonable depths of water

. Selection of an area of sea bed that has a suitable profile or depression

. Location that has favourable current regime

. Location that has suitable bed characteristics for receipt of dredged material

. Minimisation of impacts on benthic communities within and surrounding the dump site

. Examination of previously used dump site locations and experience with these locations

3 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, CONSULTATION AND REPORTS. In completing this report the following information, consultation and reports were utilised to inform the selection process.

1

14996 Dump Site selection report January 2015

. Review of previous dumping at sea licence applications

. Review of admiralty charts and previous bathymetry surveys

. Review of NPWS web mapping to identify European Designated sites

. Completion of initial bathymetry for two possible site locations

. Completion of initial tidal flow metering at two possible site locations

The following consultations were undertaken

. Consultations with the Fisherman from Fenit Harbour, about the suitability of a number of locations within the Bay.

. Consultations with the Harbour Master at Fenit

. Consultation with the Harbour Pilot in the port relative to navigation and shipping lanes

. Consultation with Development Applications Unit (DAU)/(NPWS)

. Consultation with the Underwater Archaeology Unit (DAU)

. Consultation with the EPA inspector to discuss the proposed project and application

Consultation with the planning authority Kerry County Council was not undertaken as they are the client for this application and they own and operate the harbour. However their representative is the Harbour Master in Fenit and he was consulted throughout the process.

Following from the above a constraint map was prepared which set out two possible locations for a dump site within Tralee Bay. The constraints as set out were then used to further examine the possible sites. It should be noted that other possible locations for dumping at sea were discussed with stakeholders but were immediately discounted for fishery reasons and in order to avoid sensitive ecological and environmental effects along with potential impacts on blue flag beaches.

The dump site selection process was driven by constraints analysis and an iterative process where each location was examined and then discounted, or investigated further.

4 DUMP SITE SELECTION PROCESS

4.1 STAGE 1.

Initially a number of potential sites were discussed at a high level for the purposes of feasibility or not. Some of the sites were immediately discounted for fishery or environmental reasons or for reasons of depth etc.

2

14996 Dump Site selection report January 2015

Figure 1 below shows the initial list of potential search areas.

Area outside this line excluded

Fenit

Area due east of this line excluded due to oysters

Figure 1. Potential search areas and initial exclusion zones .

In the initial phase of the process some high level constraints were set out. The area outside of Tralee Bay due west of a line from the Brandon Point to Kerry Head was automatically excluded due to depths of water, distance from the dredge location and exposure to weather.

A second exclusion zone was adopted for the area of inner Tralee Bay and estuary due east of Fenit due to the existence of the oyster fishery and the existence of the Tralee Bay Shellfish Area.

Three potential search areas were initially identified as outlined above in Figure 1. These were initially selected due to suitability of water depths, proximity to the dredge location and they were outside the two exclusion zones.

4.2 STAGE 2

This stage then progressed to look at the search areas and Tralee Bay outside of the exclusion zones. At this stage a constraints map was developed which showed the following constraints:

. Designated Natura sites, Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC) . Natural Heritage Areas (NHA) & Proposed Natural Heritage Areas (pNHA) . Location of recorded wrecks on the sea bed

The location of these designated sites can be seen in Figure 2 below. Once this was set out one of the search areas due west of Fenit and due east of Beach was excluded as it was within the SAC and pNHA. Historically (prior to 1996) there are some records of material being deposited in this general area , but the practice was not repeated as this was also a prime area for the nursery of fish and it was also close to the pristine sandy beaches along this section of Tralee

3

14996 Dump Site selection report January 2015

Bay. There are also a number of known wrecks in this general area. The shallow water depths also make it unsuitable for navigation with a suction hopper dredger of a certain scale.

This then left two search areas, namely Area A (shown in Red) which is in outer Tralee Bay outside of Mucklaghmore Island and Illaunnabarnagh Island as can be seen in Figure 2 below, and the second area is Area B (shown in Purple) which is located in the vicinity of previous dump sites used for previous deposition of dredged material from the harbour dating back to 1996.

Figure 2. Constraints map and location of search area A and B.

At this point some baseline bathymetry was undertaken by Hydrographic Surveys Ltd for both locations to establish the bed profile. In addition current metering was undertaken by Hydrographic Surveys Ltd at both sites to establish what the current regime was.

Site A is the outer site and bed level depths at this location are 27m CD and this location has good separation from the designated sites. This area of water is open to the wider Atlantic swell and weather.

Site B is located inside the islands of Mullaghmore and Illaunnabarnagh and is within a depth of water of 13 to 16m CD. This area is closer to the harbour dredge location and is in a somewhat more shaded location in terms of weather exposure. It is located closer to designated sites as can be seen from Figure 2 above.

4

14996 Dump Site selection report January 2015

The data collated at both potential sites indicated that either site would be a viable option from a technical dredging point of view, but acknowledging that the outer site was more challenging in terms of weather, swell and distance from the dredge location.

Before progressing further it was decided to consult with the fisherman within Fenit Harbour and the Harbour Pilot who know the bay in terms of environment, fishing, weather, navigation etc. They were also involved in the initial dump site selection process prior to the capital dredge that was undertaken in 1996 and so are well informed on the nature of the bay and the successful nature of previous dredging and dumping campaigns over the years.

At the meeting in the Harbour Office in Fenit the constraint mapping was presented to them and we went through the obvious identified constraints that exist. From a fishing perspective Site A was not favoured as this was a very good fishing ground and the fishing community would strenuously object to this location. The harbour pilot also had concerns as this was close to the main navigational route that was used by large Liebherr shipping vessels entering the bay and approaching the port. In general both parties had concerns due the exposed nature of the location in terms of weather and swell and the distance from the dumpsite for transport of materials.

In the opinion of the fishermen and based on their previous experience since 1996 they felt that Site B was the optimum location as it was not in an area where they had concerns in terms of fisheries. In addition they stated that this location has a localised depression and is one of the deeper areas inside the islands that would be suitable. These criteria also came into play when selecting this location previously. Upon looking at the constraint mapping the area has no known wrecks and is also outside of the designated sites.

It can be seen from Figure 2 above that the location of the previous dumping at sea sites is adjacent and overlaps Area B. The Harbour Pilot had no navigational issues for this location. While the location is closer to the beaches at Barrow and Banna and the SAC and SPA in this area, there is still an adequate separation from the shoreline and features of importance. It is also closer to the dredge location which allows for more efficient journey and turnaround time for the suction hopper dredger to dump and return to port.

The initial bathymetry and tidal current metering showed that the site was suitable from a high level perspective, but it warranted further investigation.

At this stage based on the information gathered to date and based on the consultations it was decided to eliminate Site A in the outer bay and to concentrate on the inner Area B search area.

4.3 STAGE 3

This stage focussed on more intensive examination of Area B and it included the following studies:

. Underwater Archaeological Impact Assessment completed by Lar Dunne Archaeology in conjunction with the Side-scan Sonar and Magnetometer Survey Report completed by Hydrographic Surveys Ltd

5

14996 Dump Site selection report January 2015

. Baseline Characterisation Report completed by Aquafact

. Sediment Transport Model complete by Aquafact

. Current speed and direction assessment based on the deployment of an ADCP unit deployed at site B in July 2014 for a period of 15 days. This was undertaken by Hydrographic Surveys Ltd.

. Sediment sampling from the proposed dredge material within the harbour and analysis of same by RPS Laboratories

. Natura Impact Statement (NIS) addressing both the dredge location and the proposed Area B dumpsite location.

The consultation that was undertaken with the DAU and the Underwater Archaeology Impact Assessment completed by Lar Dunne Archaeology confirmed that the area of seabed proposed for the dumpsite location has no wrecks or archaeological conditions that would mitigate the proposed site being used for disposal of dredged material.

The baseline characterisation report completed by Aquafact sets out the sampling regime and results. The sampling included a benthic faunal of the dumpsite along with grain size analysis and carbon content. A sediment characterisation survey was undertaken for both the dumpsite and dredge location. The Aquafact report outlines the results of the sampling and analysis and the report discusses the findings. In summary the dumpsite is primarily classified as consisting of fine/medium sand, coarse/medium sand and coarse/very coarse sand, but has areas of hard ground on the western half. From a faunal perspective the area is classified under Fossitt (2000) as SS1 Infralittorral gravel and sands. All species observed are typically of the gravelly/sandy habitat in the area and the species present represent a balanced mix of longer lived deeper burrowing equilibrium species and smaller short lived opportunistic species.

The sediments from within the harbour area were classified as muddy sand throughout by Folk (1954), being dominated by silt clay and very fine sand for the most part. The Aquafact Baseline Characterisation Report is included as Attachment B2 to the application form.

The Sediment Transport Model report is included as Attachment J to the application form. The report sets out the basis for the model, the model calibration with the results of ADCP survey and the hydrodynamics of the bay.

The model simulation covered a 50 day period from the 18th July to the 6th of September 2014 and the results of the simulations for different points in the tidal cycle are included in the report. The following is an extract from the report’s conclusion;

The general tendency over the 50-day simulation period is for the silt deposition to migrate southwards, then westward and eventually northwards out of Tralee Bay and westward to open sea. Temporary deposition in the reef areas to the south, southwest, northwest and the reefs further to the west of the disposal site is predicted. Deposition rates over the 50-day simulation period are

6

14996 Dump Site selection report January 2015 generally in the wider areas of the reefs to be less than 0.2 to 0.5kg/m2 but local highs of up to 3kg/m2 are predicted.

Due to the higher settling velocities the sand fraction is less mobile than the silt with the heavier fractions(representing coarse and very coarse sands) shown to remain deposited within the disposal site. The lighter sand fractions of medium to very fine sands are transported to the south of the site where they remain. Only the very fine Sand migrates towards the reef area to the south and southwest similar to the silt fraction but of a considerably lower rate.

In conclusion the silt and very fine sand fractions of the sediment will be transported from the disposal site under ambient tidal currents and will temporarily deposit in the surrounding reefs to the northwest, south, southwest and west. Deposition rates are shown to be generally less than 0.2 to 0.5kg/m2 but local highs of up to 3kg/m2 are predicted. In terms of sediment depth 1kg/m2 represents a sediment depth of 0.55mm per m2 at density of 1800kg/m3.The heavier sand is shown to remain at or near the disposal site. This amount of additional sediment depositing on any substrate does not have the capacity to cause smothering or blocking of light. No impact is therefore considered likely on any habitat or species.

The ADCP results were utilised by Aquafact in the completion of the Sediment Transport Model and are available upon request if required.

The results of the sediment sampling and analysis are included in the Baseline Characterisation report completed by Aquafact and this report is attached as Attachment B2 to the application form.

The results for the analysis of sediments undertaken and completed by RPS are included in Attachment B.1 (II) to the application form. The results conclude that sediments have characteristics that fall within Class 1 or Class 2 of the guidance levels for contamination in sediment to be dredged. Accordingly the sediment is regarded as being marginally contaminated, but importantly is not likely to cause biological effects/toxicity to marine organisms. This means that the material being dredged from within the harbour does not have a negative or damaging profile and would not have a negative effect on the faunal communities of the proposed dumpsite.

The Natura Impact Statement (NIS) was completed to address both the dredge location at Fenit Harbour and the proposed dumping at Sea location in outer bay. This report is an extensive document and looks in detail at the potential impacts on Natura 2000 sites. It includes a detailed analysis of the potential risks associated with the dredging operations and the deposition of material on the sea bed at the proposed dumpsite. The NIS is included in Attachment A.2 to the application form.

The findings of the Screening for Appropriate Assessment and Natura Impact Statement are outlined in Table 1 and 2 on the following page:

7

14996 Dump Site selection report January 2015

TABLE 1 SCREENING FOR APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT The project entails maintenance dredging at Fenit Harbour and disposal of the Project dredge material to a dumpsite in Tralee Bay in Project Proponent Kerry County Council Project Location Fenit Harbour and Tralee Bay It has been concluded that the proposal to dredge Fenit harbour and dispose of the dredge materials at a dumpsite in Tralee Bay is likely to have a significant effect, or significant effects cannot be ruled out at this stage, on the following Natura 2000 sites:

Conclusion  Tralee Bay and Magharees Peninsula, West to SAC (002070)  Akeragh, Banna and SAC (000332)  Tralee Bay Complex SPA (004188)  SAC (002261)  Magharee Islands SPA (004125)

TABLE 2 NATURA IMPACT STATEMENT The project entails maintenance dredging at Fenit Harbour and disposal of the Project dredge material to a dumpsite in Tralee Bay in County Kerry Mitigation measures include:  Restrictions on the timing of dredging Mitigation  Water quality management  Control of overflow from suction hopper dredger

In conclusion, provided the recommended mitigation measures are implemented in full, it is not expected that the proposal to carry out maintenance dredging at Fenit Harbour and disposal of the dredge material to a dumpsite in Tralee Bay will result in an adverse residual impact on the Natura 2000 sites considered in this NIS, namely:

Conclusion  Tralee Bay and Magharees Peninsula, West to Cloghane SAC (002070)  Akeragh, Banna and Barrow Harbour SAC (000332)  Tralee Bay Complex SPA (004188)  Magharee Islands SAC (002261)  Magharee Islands SPA (004125)

5 HISTORY OF PREVIOUS DUMPSITE In 1996 a large capital dredge of the order of 240,000m3 was undertaken to facilitate the development of the marina, eastern breakwater and the new spring pier. At the time the dumpsite was elected by the design team in conjunction with the Harbour Master, Fishermen and local stakeholders. That site is overlaps the current proposed area of Site B outlined above.

Over the years a series of maintenance dredging campaigns have been undertaken in Fenit and the material has been deposited in the vicinity of the currently proposed dumpsite. This location has proven successful previously and there have been no adverse effects locally or indirectly.

8

14996 Dump Site selection report January 2015

The material deposited previously was placed using bottom opening dredge barges or suction/trailer/hopper vessels that have a similar mechanism to discharge the loads to the sea bed. On each of the occasions the dredge captain and a dedicated crew member monitor the visual scale of the plume as it is discharging and dispersing in the water column at the dumpsite. Typically and depending on the capacity of the dredge vessel hopper there can be multiple trips over a period of weeks and varying times of the tide. On previous dumping campaigns there has been no documented negative effect.

The previous dumpsite location has proven to be a suitable one and has been used many times without issue. The choice of this location originally back in 1996 was informed by local knowledge, the fishermen’s views, the harbour pilot and a review of the admiralty charts.

The proposed dump site area B as discussed above and as examined in the various studies shows the suitability of the site for dumping at sea of dredged material.

6 DISCUSSION The process of selecting a suitable dump site in Tralee Bay for the disposal of dredged material from Fenit Harbour was undertaken in stages between 2013, 2014 and concluding in January of this year.

The process was an iterative process which involved a series of consultations and studies being completed as each potential site was examined, eliminated or investigated further.

Dredging has been undertaken in Fenit over the last 20 years on a regular basis and the material from each dredge campaign has been disposed of at sea within Tralee Bay. Over the years a number of dumping at sea permits were secured from the Department of Marine and Natural Resources or Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food.

Given the physical shape of the harbour and its piers and structures within the bayy there will be an ongoing requirement for maintenance dredging as the harbour footprint is an obstacle within the footprint of the bay, and interrupts the natural hydrodynamics of the area. This in effect means that the harbour footprint acts as a barrier or semi enclosed structure that catches sediment by means of reduced and impeded flows. The harbour area has an ongoing accumulation of material within the commercial berth and the inner harbour area and this will continually need to be dredged going forward.

Importantly all the material accumulating within the harbour is coming from the wider bay system which is dynamic. This coastal system has constant movement and deposition of sediments and material within the bay due to currents, coastal processes and due to the impacts of storms and extreme tides.

The maintenance dredging campaigns effectively are moving material from one part of the system to another part of the system within Tralee Bay. Once dredged, the natural cycle will continue with material accumulating once more.

9

14996 Dump Site selection report January 2015

Importantly there is no industrial activity or discharges within the harbour area, nor is there any heavy industry of boat building or repairs. There are no sources of industrial wastes or emissions within the harbour. The main activity of the harbour is the shipping of Liebherr cranes, the activities of the marina and a small inshore fishing fleet. There is no slipway within the harbour to facilitate the cleaning or anti fouling of boats, or to facilitate any large scale repair or painting works. Any maintenance or repair work is facilitated by the removal of boats from the water and they are then repaired off site or within the nearby former railway yard, in the boat club yard, or at private residences, or dedicated boat repair premises in Tralee or elsewhere.

The evidence from the sampling and historic knowledge of the harbour and the coastal processes shows that the material that is accumulating within the harbour and surrounds is not contaminated and is typical of what exists within the bay.

In recent dredging campaigns the dredging has been undertaken by both suction hopper type dredgers, but also with a back hoe excavator mounted on a boat or barge, in conjunction with transport barges. Various methods have been used over the years and without any negative effects on the adjacent oyster fishery, blue flag beaches or the wider bay area.

Both the dredging and dumping at sea activities have been managed by the Harbour Authority in conjunction with the dredge captain and local stakeholders and no issues have been identified throughout previous campaigns.

The assessment undertaken as part of the dump site selection process have shown that the material being dredged is not contaminated and that it is suitable for deposition at the proposed dumpsite location.

The assessment of the dumpsite location has shown that it is suitable to receive the material from the dredge footprint within the harbour.

The hydrodynamic model has shown that less than 20% of the material will deposit and stay within the dumpsite location and the remainder will re-disperse within the wider and outer bay area. Any accumulation of material on reefs will be minimal and this deposition will be temporary as the natural currents will eventually re disperse the material within the wider area. Any temporary deposition of material will not have a detrimental effect on faunal communities within the habitat.

Given that material is not contaminated and occurs within the bay, then the fact that the majority re-disperses within the dumpsite area and the wider bay should have no negative effects, as in effect the dredging and deposition process is mimicking what occurs naturally in the system.

10

14996 Dump Site selection report January 2015

7 ANALYSIS

The following table sets out the criteria for site selection and shows how the potential sites comply with the various criteria:

Selection Criteria Site A Site B Notes Avoidance of shipping lanes and √ √ Both sides avoid, however Area A main navigation routes is in closer proximity to shipping lanes Avoidance of known seabed √ √ Both sites avoid archaeological features Avoidance of Natura 2000 sites √ √ Both sites avoid Avoidance of fishing grounds and √ Area A was not preferred by the nursery areas for fish and no fishermen as they regard this as aquaculture prime fishing grounds Avoid impacts on Blue Flag √ √ Area B is closer to Blue Flag beaches beaches but there is still adequate separation Selection of area of sea bed with √ Area A has 27m CD bed level reasonable depths of water no which is not ideal Selection of an area of sea bed √ √ that has a suitable profile or depression Location that has favourable √ √ While both have good or similar current regime characteristics, Area A is in more open water and more exposed Location that has suitable bed √ √ characteristics for receipt of dredged material Minimisation of impacts on no √ In site A there is the potential to benthic communities within and impact on the fishery surrounding the dump site Examination of previously used √ Site B overlaps with historic dump site locations and no location of successful dumpsites experience with these locations Favourable approval from all no √ Fishermen had concerns with Area stakeholders A due to good fishery grounds. Proximity to port and dredge no √ Shorter route to the dump site location and less exposure to weather

11

14996 Dump Site selection report January 2015

8 CONCLUSION The process of selecting a suitable dump site is one that that involves a series of steps including baseline surveys, reports, consultation and a review of existing information and historical practices in the area.

This report sets out how this process was undertaken and the reasons why certain decisions were taken. There are multiple constraints within the Bay and there are different physical properties in the outer bay as against the inner estuary area due east of Fenit Port.

The consultation with stakeholders was an important step and informed the decision making process and also brought relevant and good experience to the process.

Based on this assessment and on the results from the various reports/consultations completed Malachy Walsh & Partners are of the opinion that Dump Site B is the optimum location for the dumping at sea site.

12

Attachment E Dumping Operations

Attachment E.2 (I)

Marine Benthic Study Fenit Harbour Dredging and Disposal Operations (Aquafact 2018)

Marine Benthic Study Fenit Harbour Dredging and Disposal Operations

Produced by

AQUAFACT International Services Ltd

For

Malachy Walsh and Partners

On behalf of

Kerry County Council

January 2018

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

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1

2. Materials & Methods ...... 4

2.1. Sampling Procedure ...... 4 2.2. Sample Processing ...... 6 2.3. Data Analysis ...... 7

3. Results ...... 10

3.1. Fauna ...... 10 3.1.1. Univariate Analysis ...... 10 3.1.2. Multivariate Analysis...... 11 3.1.3. Sediment...... 16 3.1.3.1. Granulometry ...... 16 3.1.3.2. Organic Carbon ...... 18

4. Discussion ...... 21

5. References ...... 21

List of Figures Figure 1.1: Location of the dredge area in Fenit Harbour...... 2 Figure 1.2: Location of spoil disposal site...... 3 Figure 2.1: Location of faunal stations sampled on the 23rd November 2017...... 5 Figure 3.1: Dendrogram produced from Cluster analysis...... 13 Figure 3.2: MDS plot...... 14 Figure 3.3: A breakdown of sediment type at each faunal station...... 19 Figure 3.4: Folk (1954) classification...... 20

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Station coordinates and depths ...... 6 Table 2.2: The classification of sediment particle size ranges into size classes (adapted from Buchanan, 1984) ...... 7 Table 3.1: Univariate measures of community structure...... 11

Table 3.2: SIMPER Results ...... 15 Table 3.3: Granulometric data from the faunal survey...... 17 Table 3.4: Organic carbon results for the faunal stations ...... 18

List of Appendices

Appendix 1 Photographic Log Appendix 2 Sediment Analysis Methodologies Appendix 3 Faunal Abundances

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

1. Introduction

Kerry County is applying to the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (Foreshore Unit) to carry out a dredging regime within Fenit Harbour. In addition, a Dumping at Sea (DaS) permit is being sought from the EPA to allow the dredged material to be disposed of in the designated spoil ground outside the harbour. A recent dredging campaign was carried out in 2015 which was licenced under EPA Dumping at Sea permit no. S0007-02 and Foreshore licence no. FS 6474 issued by the Foreshore unit of the Department of Environment. The licences expired 1 year after the commencement date of 20th of October 2015. Over the course of 10 days in April 2016 over 130,000 tonnes of material were dredged from the harbour. It is envisaged that the dump site chosen for the 2016 campaign will be used again for the deposition of all the material dredged under the proposed multi-annual application.

AQUAFACT International Services Ltd. was commissioned by Malachy Walsh and Partners on behalf of Kerry County council to carry out a benthic survey of the dump site. Aquafact International Services Ltd. carried out the baseline study for the same dump site for the 2015 dredging campaign. The stations sampled for the 2015 survey were revisited. Figures 1.1 and 1.2 show the location of the dredge area within Fenit Harbour and the location of the spoil disposal site respectively.

1 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

Figure 1.1: Location of the dredge area in Fenit Harbour.

2 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

Figure 1.2: Location of spoil disposal site.

3 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

2. Materials & Methods

2.1. Sampling Procedure

To carry out the subtidal benthic assessment of the dump site area, AQUAFACT sampled a total of 8 stations. The location of the sampling sites can be seen in Figure 2.1 and the station coordinates can be seen in Table 2.1. Sampling took place on the 23rd November 2017 from a local Boat the Corulan. There was a southwesterly force 1-2 breeze blowing.

AQUAFACT has in-house standard operational procedures for benthic sampling and these were followed for this project. Additionally, the recently published MESH report on “Recommended Standard methods and procedures” was adhered to.

A 0.025m2 Day grab was used to sample Fenit Harbour. On arrival at each sampling station, the vessel location was recorded using DGPS (lat/long). Additional information such as date, time, site name, sample code and depth were recorded in a data sheet.

Two replicate grab samples were taken at the faunal stations and a third for sediment grain size and organic carbon analysis. The grab deployment and recovery rates did not exceed 1 metre/sec. This was to ensure minimal interference with the sediment surface as the grab descended. Upon retrieval of the grab a description of the sediment type was noted in the sample data sheet. Notes were also made on colour, texture, smell and presence of .

A digital image of each sample (including sample label) was taken and its reference number entered in the sample data sheet. These images can be seen in Appendix 1. The grab sampler was cleaned between stations to prevent cross contamination.

4 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

Figure 2.1: Location of faunal stations sampled on the 23rd November 2017.

5 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

Table 2.1: Station coordinates and depths

Station Longitude Latitude Easting Northing Depth (m) DS1 -9.89643 52.3196 70737.19 120303.2 18.4 DS2 -9.89866 52.3194 70584.65 120288.3 18.8 DS3 -9.89639 52.3176 70734.03 120078.4 17.8 S4 -9.89575 52.322 70790.58 120570.1 19.6 S5 -9.89363 52.3257 70945.8 120974.7 19.1 S6 -9.88843 52.3195 71282.49 120283.4 18.5 S7 -9.8964 52.31539 70727.02 119837 16.4 S8 -9.89977 52.3049 70466.53 118673.6 13.7

The samples collected for faunal analysis were carefully and gently sieved on a 1mm mesh sieve as a sediment water suspension for the retention of fauna. Great care was taken during the sieving process in order to minimise damage to taxa such as spionids, scale worms, phyllodocids and amphipods. The sample residue was carefully flushed into a pre-labelled (internally and externally) container from below. Each label contained the sample code and date. The samples were stained immediately with Eosin-briebrich scarlet and fixed immediately in with 4% w/v buffered formaldehyde solution (10% w/v buffered formaldehyde solution for very organic mud). These samples were ultimately preserved in 70% alcohol upon return to the laboratory.

2.2. Sample Processing

All faunal samples were placed in an illuminated shallow white tray and sorted first by eye to remove large specimens and then sorted under a stereo microscope (x 10 magnification). Following the removal of larger specimens, the samples were placed into Petri dishes, approximately one half teaspoon at a time and sorted using a binocular microscope at x25 magnification.

The fauna was sorted into four main groups: Polychaeta, , Crustacea and others. The ‘others’ group consisted of echinoderms, nematodes, nemerteans, cnidarians and other lesser phyla. The fauna were maintained in stabilised 70% industrial methylated spirit (IMS) following retrieval and identified to species level where practical using a binocular microscope, a compound microscope and all relevant taxonomic keys. After identification and enumeration, specimens were separated and stored to species level.

The sediment granulometric analysis was carried out by AQUAFACT using the traditional

6 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

granulometric approach. Traditional analysis involved the dry sieving of approximately 100g of sediment using a series of Wentworth graded sieves. The process involved the separation of the sediment fractions by passing them through a series of sieves. Each sieve retained a fraction of the sediment, which were later weighed and a percentage of the total was calculated. Table 2.2 shows the classification of sediment particle size ranges into size classes. Sieves, which corresponded to the range of particle sizes (Table 2.2), were used in the analysis. Appendix 2 provides the detailed granulometric methodology.

Table 2.2: The classification of sediment particle size ranges into size classes (adapted from Buchanan, 1984)

Range of Particle Size Classification Phi Unit <63µm Silt/Clay >4 Ø 63-125 µm Very Fine Sand 4 Ø, 3.5 Ø 125-250 µm Fine Sand 3 Ø, 2.5 Ø 250-500 µm Medium Sand 2 Ø, 1.5 Ø 500-1000 µm Coarse Sand 1 Ø, 1.5 Ø 1000-2000 µm (1 – 2mm) Very Coarse Sand 0 Ø, -0.5 Ø 2000 – 4000 µm (2 – 4mm) Very Fine Gravel -1 Ø, -1.5 Ø 4000 -8000 µm (4 – 8mm) Fine Gravel -2 Ø, -2.5 Ø 8 -64 mm Medium, Coarse & Very Coarse Gravel -3 Ø to -5.5 Ø 64 – 256 mm Cobble -6 Ø to -7.5 Ø >256 mm Boulder < -8 Ø

The sediment samples collected from the faunal stations had their organic carbon analysis performed by ALS Laboratories in Loughrea using the Loss on Ignition method. Appendix 2 provides the methodology.

2.3. Data Analysis

Statistical evaluation of the faunal data was undertaken using PRIMER v.6 (Plymouth Routines in Ecological Research). Univariate statistics in the form of diversity indices are calculated. Numbers of species and numbers of individuals per sample will be calculated and the following diversity indices will be utilised: 1) Margalef’s species richness index (D) (Margalef, 1958),

7 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

S 1 D  log N 2 where: N is the number of individuals S is the number of species 2) Pielou’s Evenness index (J) (Pielou, 1977) H' (observed) J = H' max H' where: max is the maximum possible diversity, which could be achieved if all

species were equally abundant (= log2S)

3) Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H') (Pielou, 1977)

S H' = - p (log p ) i=1 i 2 i th where: pI is the proportion of the total count accounted for by the i taxa

4) Simpson’s Diversity Index (Simpson, 1949)

1-λ’ = 1-{ΣiNi(Ni-1)} / {N(N-1)} where N is the number of individuals of species i.

Species richness is a measure of the total number of species present for a given number of individuals. Evenness is a measure of how evenly the individuals are distributed among different species. The Shannon-Wiener index incorporates both species richness and the evenness component of diversity (Shannon & Weaver, 1949) and Simpson’s index is a more explicit measure of the latter, i.e. the proportional numerical dominance of species in the sample (Simpson, 1949).

The PRIMER programme (Clarke & Warwick, 2001) was used to carry out multivariate analyses on the station-by-station faunal data. All species/abundance data from the grab surveys was square root transformed and used to prepare a Bray-Curtis similarity matrix in PRIMER ®. The square root transformation was used in order to allow the intermediate abundant species to play a part in the similarity calculation. All species/abundance data from the samples was used to prepare a Bray- Curtis similarity matrix. The similarity matrix was then be used in classification/cluster analysis. The aim of this analysis was to find “natural groupings’ of samples, i.e. samples within a group that are more similar to each other, than they are similar to samples in different groups (Clarke & Warwick, loc. cit.). The PRIMER programme CLUSTER carried out this analysis by successively fusing the

8 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

samples into groups and the groups into larger clusters, beginning with the highest mutual similarities then gradually reducing the similarity level at which groups are formed. The result was represented graphically in a dendrogram, the x-axis representing the full set of samples and the y- axis representing similarity levels at which two samples/groups are said to have fused. SIMPROF (Similarity Profile) permutation tests were incorporated into the CLUSTER analysis to identify statistically significant evidence of genuine clusters in samples which are a priori unstructured.

The Bray-Curtis similarity matrix was also be subjected to a non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) algorithm (Kruskal & Wish, 1978), using the PRIMER programme MDS. This programme produced an ordination, which is a map of the samples in two- or three-dimensions, whereby the placement of samples reflects the similarity of their biological communities, rather than their simple geographical location (Clarke & Warwick, 2001). With regard to stress values, they give an indication of how well the multi-dimensional similarity matrix is represented by the two-dimensional plot. They are calculated by comparing the interpoint distances in the similarity matrix with the corresponding interpoint distances on the 2-d plot. Perfect or near perfect matches are rare in field data, especially in the absence of a single overriding forcing factor such as an organic enrichment gradient. Stress values increase, not only with the reducing dimensionality (lack of clear forcing structure), but also with increasing quantity of data (it is a sum of the squares type regression coefficient). Clarke & Warwick (loc. cit.) have provided a classification of the reliability of MDS plots based on stress values, having compiled simulation studies of stress value behaviour and archived empirical data. This classification generally holds well for 2-d ordinations of the type used in this study. Their classification is given below:

 Stress value < 0.05: Excellent representation of the data with no prospect of misinterpretation.  Stress value < 0.10: Good representation, no real prospect of misinterpretation of overall structure, but very fine detail may be misleading in compact subgroups.  Stress value < 0.20: This provides a useful 2-d picture, but detail may be misinterpreted particularly nearing 0.20.  Stress value 0.20 to 0.30: This should be viewed with scepticism, particularly in the upper part of the range, and discarded for a small to moderate number of points such as < 50.  Stress values > 0.30: The data points are close to being randomly distributed in the 2-d ordination and not representative of the underlying similarity matrix.

9 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

Each stress value must be interpreted both in terms of its absolute value and the number of data points. In the case of this study, the moderate number of data points indicates that the stress value can be interpreted more or less directly. While the above classification is arbitrary, it does provide a framework that has proved effective in this type of analysis. The species, which are responsible for the grouping of samples in cluster and ordination analyses, were identified using the PRIMER programme SIMPER (Clarke & Warwick, 1994). This programme determined the percentage contribution of each species to the dissimilarity/similarity within and between each sample group.

3. Results

3.1. Fauna

The taxonomic identification of the benthic infauna across all 8 stations sampled at the Fenit disposal site yielded a total count of 55 taxa ascribed to 5 phyla. The 54 taxa consisted of 358 individuals. Of the 55 taxa identified, 39 were identified to species level. The remaining 16 could not be identified to species level as thery were juveniles or partial/damaged. Appendix 3 shows the faunal abundances from the Fenit disposal site.

Of the 55 taxa present, 1 was a nematode (round worm), 1 was a nemertean (ribbon worm), 28 were annelids (segmented worms), 14 were crustaceans (crabs, shrimps, prawns) and 11 were molluscs (mussels, cockles, snails etc.).

3.1.1. Univariate Analysis

Univariate statistical analyses were carried out on the combined station-by-station faunal data. The following parameters were calculated and can be seen in Table 3.1: taxon numbers, number of individuals, richness, evenness, Shannon-Weiner diversity and Simpson’s Diversity. Taxon numbers ranged from 4 (DS1) to 21 (S5). Number of individuals ranged from 7 (S7) to 117 (S5). Richness ranged from 1.17 (DS1) to 4.2 (S5). Evenness ranged from 0.47 (S5) to 0.98 (S7). Shannon-Weiner diversity ranged from 1.03 (DS1) to 2.46 (S4). Simpson’s diversity ranged from 0.52 (S5) to 0.95 (S7).

10 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

Table 3.1: Univariate measures of community structure.

Station No. Taxa No. Individuals Richness Evenness Shannon-Weiner Simpson's Diversity Diversity DS1 4 13 1.17 0.74 1.03 0.60 DS2 12 34 3.12 0.82 2.03 0.83 DS3 8 14 2.65 0.90 1.87 0.87 S4 15 44 3.70 0.91 2.46 0.92 S5 21 117 4.20 0.47 1.44 0.52 S6 15 56 3.48 0.63 1.71 0.65 S7 6 7 2.57 0.98 1.75 0.95 S8 15 73 3.26 0.61 1.67 0.64

3.1.2. Multivariate Analysis

The same data set used above for the univariate analyses was also used for the multivariate analyses. The dendrogramme and the MDS plot can be seen in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 respectively. SIMPROF analysis revealed 2 statistically significant groupings between the 8 stations (the samples connected by red lines cannot be significantly differentiated). The stress level on the MDS plot indicates an excellent representation of the data with no real prospect of misinterpretation of overall structure.

Group a contained 3 stations, DS2, S6 and S8 and had a within group similarity of 44.86%. Stations DS2 and S8 joined at a 54.22% similarity and S6 joined at a 40.18% similarity level. This group contained 28 taxa comprising 163 individuals. Of the 28 species, 17 were present twice or less. Three species accounted for just over 68% of the faunal abundance of this group: the bivalve spisula subtruncata (53.99% abundance, 88 individuals) and the polychaetes Magelona johnstoni (8.59% abundance, 14 individuals) and Nephtys sp. (5.52% abundance, 9 individuals). SIMPER analysis revealed that S. subtruncata, Nephtys sp., Magelona filiformis and Chaetozone christiei were the characterising species of the group. Table 3.2 shows the full SIMPER results. Richness and diversity values were above average for this group. The sediment type at these stations consisted of a fine sand, very fine sand and gravelly sand with organic carbon levels between 1.19 and 2.37%.

Group b contains 5 stations, DS1, DS3, S4, S5 and S7 and had a within group similarity of 25.66%. Stations DS1 and DS3 joined at a 43.25% similarity level and stations S4 and S5 at a 41.79% similarity level, with all four stations joining at a 25.88% similarity level and S7 joining at 17.2% similarity. This group contained 34 taxa comprising 195 individuals. Of the 34 species, 20 were present twice or less. Three species accounted for just over 62% of the faunal abundance of this group: Nematoda (41.54%

11 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

abundance, 81 individuals) and the polychaetes Pisione remota (10.26% abundance, 20 individuals) and Syllis pontxioi (10.26% abundance, 20 individuals). SIMPER analysis revealed that P. remota and S. pontxioi were the characterising species of the group. Table 3.2 shows the full SIMPER results. Richness and diversity values were below average for this group.

The habitat in the area of the dumpsite can be described (according to Fossitt, 2000) as SS1 Infralittoral gravels and sands. All species recorded are typical of the sandy/gravelly sediments found in the area.

12 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

Figure 3.1: Dendrogram produced from Cluster analysis.

13 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

Figure 3.2: MDS plot.

14 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

Table 3.2: SIMPER Results

Group a Average similarity: 44.86% Species Av.Abund Av.Sim Sim/SD Contrib% Cum.% Spisula subtruncata 2.27 11.94 12.11 26.62 26.62 Nephtys sp. 1.32 7.76 15.03 17.29 43.92 Magelona filiformis 1.06 5.89 15.03 13.14 57.06 Chaetozone christiei 1.06 5.89 15.03 13.14 70.19 Magelona johnstoni 1.08 3.27 0.58 7.29 77.48 0.79 2.39 0.58 5.33 82.81 Nephtys cirrosa 0.67 2.07 0.58 4.61 87.42 Nephtys hombergii 0.73 2.01 0.58 4.48 91.9 Group b Average similarity: 25.66% Species Av.Abund Av.Sim Sim/SD Contrib% Cum.% Syllis pontxioi 1.32 10.05 2.52 39.16 39.16 Pisione remota 1.14 5.66 1 22.04 61.2 Capitella sp. complex 0.6 2.7 0.55 10.52 71.72 Glycera sp. 0.6 1.9 0.6 7.41 79.13 Polynoidae 0.54 0.86 0.32 3.36 82.49 Nephtys sp. 0.4 0.8 0.32 3.13 85.62 Pista sp. 0.46 0.73 0.32 2.83 88.45 0.44 0.59 0.32 2.3 90.75

15 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

3.1.3. Sediment

3.1.3.1. GRANULOMETRY

Table 3.3 shows the granulometric data from the 8 stations sampled as part of the faunal survey. Fine gravel ranged from 0% (DS1, S6, S7 and S8) to 26.1% (DS3). Very fine gravel ranged from 0 (S6) to 16.7% (DS3). Very coarse sand ranged from 0.3% (S6 and S8) to 24.2% (S4). Coarse sand ranged from 0.6% (S8) to 43.2% (DS2). Medium sand ranged from 2.6% (S8) to 48.1% (DS1). Fine sand ranged from 0.2% (DS3) to 44.6% (S6). Very fine sand ranged from 0% (S4) to 79% (S8) and silt-clay ranged from 1.4 (S5) to 9.2% (S8). Sediment classification according to Folk (1954) consisted of sand, gravelly sand and sandy gravel. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 shows grain size distribution and Folk (1954) classification respectively

16 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

Table 3.3: Granulometric data from the faunal survey.

Station Fine Gravel Very Fine Very Coarse Coarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand Very Fine Sand Silt-Clay Folk (1954) (4-8mm) Gravel (2-4mm) Sand (1-2mm) (0.5-1mm) (0.25-0.5mm) (125-250mm) (62.5-125mm) (<63mm) DS1 0.0 0.6 5.8 33.2 48.1 10.1 0.1 1.9 Sand DS2 5.1 7.8 22.2 43.2 17.1 2.5 0.2 1.9 Gravelly sand DS3 26.1 16.7 12.7 30.5 11.3 0.2 0.5 1.9 Sandy gravel S4 21.0 13.5 24.2 22.6 15.2 1.9 0.0 1.6 Sandy gravel S5 9.0 8.6 22.9 41.3 15.4 1.3 0.1 1.4 Gravelly sand S6 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.1 19.1 44.6 25.9 7.0 Sand S7 0.0 0.4 4.5 15.5 43.4 32.8 1.4 1.9 Sand S8 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 2.6 8.2 79.0 9.2 Sand

17 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

3.1.3.2. ORGANIC CARBON

Table 3.4 shows the organic carbon results for the 8 stations sampled during the faunal survey. Organic matter values by Loss on Ignition ranged from 1.19% at Station S8 to 2.94% at Station DS1.

Table 3.4: Organic carbon results for the faunal stations

Station Organic Carbon DS1 2.94 DS2 2.37 DS3 1.73 S4 2.74 S5 2.12 S6 1.67 S7 1.63 S8 1.19

18 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

Figure 3.3: A breakdown of sediment type at each faunal station.

19 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

Figure 3.4: Folk (1954) classification.

20 JN1454

Fenit – Marine Benthic Study Malachy Walsh and Partners Dredging & Disposal Operations January 2018

4. Discussion

The sediment type in the disposal site consisted of fine/medium sand, coarse/medium sand and gravelly coarse sand and sandy gravel. Areas of hard ground were encountered in the western half. Very fine sand dominated just over 1km south of the dumpsite. Fine/very fine sand dominated to the east of the dumpsite and a gravelly coarse/very coarse sand dominated to the north. All sediments were classified as sand, gravelly sand or sandy gravel by Folk (1954). Silt-clay fractions were low throughout (<10%). Depths within the dumpsite ranged between 16.4 and 19.6m and outside the dumpsite they ranged from 13.7 to 19.1m.

The faunal assemblage of the dumpsite and surrounding areas can be classified by Fossitt (2000) as SS1 Infralittoral gravels and sands. Variations in the community type and dominating species between the stations was evident. These local variations are common in the natural environment. All species observed are typically of the gravelly/sandy habitat in the area. Some of the main dominants of the assemblage include the bivalve Spisula subtruncata and the polychaetes Magelona johnstoni, Nephtys sp. and Syllis pontxioi.

5. References

Clarke, K.R. & R.M. Warwick. 2001. Changes in marine communities: An approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. 2nd Edition. Primer-E Ltd. Cronin, M., McGovern, E., McMahon, T. & R. Boelens. 2006. Guidelines for the assessment of dredge material for disposal in Irish waters. Marine Environmental and Health Series, No. 24, 2006. Folk, R.L. (1954). The distinction between grain size and mineral composition in sedimentary rock nomenclature. Journal of Geology 62 (4): 344-359. Fossitt, J. 2000. A guide to habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council. Margalef, D.R. 1958. Information theory in ecology. General Systems 3: 36-71. Pielou, E.C. (1977). Mathematical ecology. Wiley-Water science Publication, John Wiley and Sons. pp.385. Shannon, C.E. & W. Weaver. 1949. The mathematical throry of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163: 688.

21 JN1454

Appendix 1 Photographic Log

Station Photo DS1

DS2

DS3

S4

Station Photo S5

S6

S7

D8

Appendix 2 AQUAFACT Sediment Analysis Methodologies

Granulometry

1. Approximately 25g of dried sediment is weighed out and placed in a labelled 1L glass beaker to which 100 ml of a 6 percent hydrogen peroxide solution was then added. This was allowed to stand overnight in a fume hood. 2. The beaker is placed on a hot plate and heated gently. Small quantities of hydrogen peroxide are added to the beaker until there is no further reaction. This peroxide treatment removes any organic material from the sediment which can interfere with grain size determination. 3. The beaker is then emptied of sediment and rinsed into a. 63µm sieve. This is then washed with distilled water to remove any residual hydrogen peroxide. The sample retained on the sieve is then carefully washed back into the glass beaker up to a volume of approximately 250ml of distilled water. 4. 10ml of sodium hexametaphosphate solution is added to the beaker and this solution is stirred for ten minutes and then allowed to stand overnight. This treatment helps to dissociate the clay particles from one another. 5. The beaker with the sediment and sodium hexametaphosphate solution is washed and rinsed into a 63µm sieve. The retained sampled is carefully washed from the sieve into a labelled aluminium tray and placed in an oven for drying at 100ºC for 24 hours. 6. When dry this sediment is sieved through a series of graduated sieves ranging from 4 mm down to 63µm for 10 minutes using an automated column shaker. The fraction of sediment retained in each of the different sized sieves is weighed and recorded. 7. The silt/clay fraction is determined by subtracting all weighed fractions from the initial starting weight of sediment as the less than 63µm fraction was lost during the various washing stages.

Organic Content

1. The collected sediments should be transferred to aluminium trays, homogenised by hand and dried in an oven at 100º C for 24 hours. 2. A sample of dried sediment should be placed in a mortar and pestle and ground down to a fine powder. 3. 1g of this ground sediment should be weighed into a pre-weighed crucible and placed in a muffle furnace at 450ºC for a period of 6 hours. 4. The sediment samples should be then allowed to cool in a dessicator for 1 hour before being weighed again. 5. The organic content of the sample is determined by expressing as a percentage the weight of the sediment after ignition over the initial weight of the sediment.

Appendix 3 Faunal Abundance

Station AphiaID DS1-1 DS1-2 DS2-1 DS2-2 DS3-1 DS3-2 4-1 4-2 5-1 5-2 6-1 6-2 7-1 7-2 8-1 8-2 NEMATODA 799 Nematoda 799 44 37 NEMERTEA 152391 Nemertea (indet) 152391 1 ANNELIDA 882 POLYCHAETA 883 PHYLLODOCIDA 892 Polynoidae 939 Polynoidae 939 2 3 2 Pholoidae 941 Pholoe inornata 130601 1 1 Sigalionidae 943 Sigalion sp. 129594 3 Pisione remota 130707 8 1 8 2 1 Phyllodocidae 931 Phyllodoce rosea 334514 1 Glyceridae 952 Glycera sp. 129296 1 1 1 Glycera lapidum agg. 130123 2 2 1 1 Glycera oxycephala 130126 1 Glycera tridactyla 130130 2 1 Syllinae 152223 Syllis sp. 129680 1 Syllis pontxioi 196003 3 1 3 4 2 6 1 Sphaerosyllis bulbosa 131379 1 1 5 Nephtyidae 956 Nephtys sp. 129370 3 1 3 1 2 1 Nephtys cirrosa 130357 1 1 1 Nephtys hombergii 130359 1 2 EUNICIDA 895 Eunicidae 966 Lysidice unicornis 742232 1

Station AphiaID DS1-1 DS1-2 DS2-1 DS2-2 DS3-1 DS3-2 4-1 4-2 5-1 5-2 6-1 6-2 7-1 7-2 8-1 8-2 SPIONIDA 889 Magelonidae 914 Magelona filiformis 130268 2 1 1 Magelona johnstoni 130269 7 6 1 CAPITELLIDA 890 Capitellidae 921 Capitella sp. complex 129211 1 1 1 4 Notomastus latericeus 129898 1 POLYCHAETA INCERTAE 155086 SEDIS Polygordiidae 993 Polygordius sp. 129472 1 1 TEREBELLIDA 900 Cirratulidae 919 Cirratulidae 919 1 Chaetozone setosa 129955 1 Chaetozone christiei 152217 2 1 1 Terebellidae 982 Terebellidae 982 2 3 1 Pista sp. 129708 1 3 Polycirrus sp. 129710 1 3 1 OLIGOCHAETA 2036 HAPLOTAXIDA 2118 Tubificidae 2040 Tubificoides benedii 137571 1 CRUSTACEA 1066 CIRRIPEDIA 1082 SESSILIA 106033 Balanidae 106057 Balanus crenatus 106215 1 COPEPODA 1080 HARPACTICOIDA 1102 Thalestridae 115181

Station AphiaID DS1-1 DS1-2 DS2-1 DS2-2 DS3-1 DS3-2 4-1 4-2 5-1 5-2 6-1 6-2 7-1 7-2 8-1 8-2 Thalestris longimana 116619 1 MALACOSTRACA 1071 AMPHIPODA 1135 Oedicerotidae 101400 Monoculodes carinatus 102882 1 2 Perioculodes 102915 2 longimanus Pontocrates arcticus 102917 2 Synchelidium 102928 1 maculatum Lysianassidae 101395 Lepidepecreum 102599 2 longicornis Pontoporeiidae 101406 Bathyporeia 103060 1 1 guilliamsoniana Bathyporeia nana 103064 1 Melphidippidae 101398 Megaluropus agilis 102783 1 Melitidae 101397 Melitidae 101397 1 1 1 CUMACEA 1137 Bodotriidae 110378 Vaunthompsonia 110467 1 cristata Iphinoe trispinosa 110462 2 Pseudocumatidae 110384 Pseudocuma 110627 1 (Pseudocuma) longicorne MOLLUSCA 51 101 382213

Station AphiaID DS1-1 DS1-2 DS2-1 DS2-2 DS3-1 DS3-2 4-1 4-2 5-1 5-2 6-1 6-2 7-1 7-2 8-1 8-2 126 trachea 138957 1 105 NUCULIDA 382247 Nuculidae 204 Nucula sp. 138262 2 2 Nucula nitidosa 140589 1 IMPARIDENTIA 869600 Mactridae 230 Spisula subtruncata 140302 1 11 1 1 33 19 34 9 869602 Tellinidae 235 Tellinidae 235 2 1 2 Arcopagia crassa 141577 1 Fabulina fabula 146907 1 2 Asbjornsenia pygmaea 879714 1 1 1 Psammobiidae 237 Gari tellinella 140873 1 217 243 Clausinella fasciata 141909 2 1 ANOMALODESMATA 254 Thraciidae 256 Thracia sp. 138549 1