Sutton to Sandycove

Cycleway & Footway

Interim Works

Bull Wall (Wooden Bridge)

To Causeway Road

Habitats Directive Assessment – Screening Report

FINAL ISSUE

APRIL 2013

Client Consulting Engineer Dublin City Council Roughan & O'Donovan Civic Offices Arena House Wood Quay Arena Road Dublin 8 Sandyford Dublin 18 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

Sutton to Sandycove Cycleway & Footway Interim Works Bull Road to Causeway Road

Habitats Directive Assessment – Screening Report

Document No:…………..12135.24 / HDA

Made:…………………….Andrew Warwick

Checked:……………..….Barry Corrigan

Approved:……………….Seamus MacGearailt

Document Rev Status Made Checked Approved Date No.

12135.24 / - Draft 16/11/2012 HDA 12135.24 / 1 Draft 05/12/2012 HDA

12135.24 / 2 FINAL 10/12/2012 HDA 12135.24 / 3 FINAL 10/04/2013 HDA

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page i Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

Sutton to Sandycove Cycleway & Footway Interim Works Bull Road to Causeway Road

Habitats Directive Assessment – Screening Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 The Requirement for an Assessment under Article 6 ...... 1 1.3 The Aim of this Report ...... 1 2.0 BACKGROUND ...... 2 2.1 Sutton to Sandycove Cycleway and Promenade ...... 2 2.2 Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) ...... 2 2.3 North City Arterial Watermain ...... 2 2.4 Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Evolution ...... 3 3.0 THE APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...... 3 3.1 Guidance ...... 3 3.2 Stages of Article 6 Assessment ...... 4 3.3 Report Format ...... 5 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ...... 5 4.1 Scheme Location and Project Objectives ...... 5 4.2 Cycle Track Layout...... 6 4.3 Road Layout ...... 6 4.4 Junctions and Crossing Facilities ...... 7 4.5 Pavement ...... 7 4.5.1 Road Pavement ...... 7 4.5.2 Cycle Track Pavement ...... 7 4.6 Sea Walls and Flood Defence ...... 7 4.6.1 Slipways...... 8 4.6.2 Steps ...... 8 4.7 Water Pumping Station ...... 8 4.8 Proposed Watermain ...... 9 5.0 NATURA 2000 SITES ...... 10 5.1 Designated Sites in the Vicinity of the Project ...... 10 5.2 Characteristics of the Designated Sites ...... 10 6.0 ASSESSMENT OF LIKELY EFFECTS – SCREENING METHODOLOGY ...... 14 6.1 Consideration of Significance ...... 14 6.2 Likelihood and Significance of Effects ...... 14 6.3 Ecological Survey and Consultation ...... 15 7.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ...... 15 7.1 Introduction ...... 15 7.2 North Dublin Bay SAC ...... 16 7.3 North Bull Island SPA ...... 17

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page i Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

7.4 South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA ...... 18 7.5 Potential Residual Impacts ...... 18 7.6 Consideration of Potential Cumulative Impacts ...... 19 8.0 SPECIFIC MITIGATION / CONTROL MEASURES ...... 20 9.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 22 10.0 REFERENCES ...... 22

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Drawings

APPENDIX B Dollymount Promenade & Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment (Natura Impact Statement)

APPENDIX C North City Arterial Watermain (Screening Report)

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page ii Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction Roughan & O’Donovan Consulting Engineers (ROD) was appointed by Dublin City Council (DCC) to undertake the options study, preliminary design and detailed design of the Sutton to Sandycove (S2S) Cycleway and Footway, Interim Works between Bull Road (Wooden Bridge) and Causeway Road. This report has been prepared to determine the potential effects, if any, of the proposed scheme on nearby sites with European conservation designations (i.e Natura 2000 sites). The purpose of this assessment is to determine the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the proposal in the context of the conservation status of such sites.

The proposed Sutton to Sandycove Cycleway and Footway Interim Works : Bull Road to Wooden Bridge is a 2km cycle track which will provide the missing link in an overall 8km cycle track around North Dublin Bay. This is an Interim Scheme comprising of elements of two projects, the Dollymount Promenade & Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) and the North City Arterial Watermain (NCAM), both of which have planning approval from An Bord Pleanála. Both projects were also separately assessed in terms of the EU Habitats Directive and were concluded to have no significant effects on the Natura 2000 Sites and were assessed as having no adverse effect on the integrity of any of the Natura 2000 sites.

1.2 The Requirement for an Assessment under Article 6 The requirement for Appropriate Assessment is set out in the EU Habitats Directive (92/34/EEC) in Article 6.3 which states:

“Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the [Natura 2000] site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans and projects, shall be subjected to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives.”

The Habitats Directive is transposed in Ireland by the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations, 2011 (consolidating the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997 to 2005 and the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) (Control of Recreational Activities) Regulations 2010, as well as addressing transposition failures identified in recent CJEU Judgements) (hereafter referred to as the Habitats Regulations) and the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act, 2010

1.3 The Aim of this Report This Screening for Appropriate Assessment (Stage 1) has been prepared in accordance with current guidance and provides an ecological impact assessment for the proposed scheme.

The Screening provides the information required in order to establish whether or not the proposed development is likely to have a significant impact on the Natura sites in the context of their conservation objectives and specifically on the habitats and species for which the Natura 2000 sites have been designated.

By undertaking the ecological impact assessment in a step by step manner in relation to the habitats and species of the Natura 2000 sites, this report seeks to inform the

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 1 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

screening process required as the first stage of the process pursuant to Article 6.3 of the EU Habitats Directive.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Sutton to Sandycove Cycleway and Promenade The Dublin Regional Authority (DRA) undertook studies into the possibility of developing a single cycleway and promenade along the coast of Dublin Bay from Sutton to Sandycove. A number of studies were undertaken by various bodies and consultants and this culminated in the preparation of a Preliminary Design and Environmental Study Report for the overall Sutton to Sandycove Promenade and Cycleway Project which was published in January 2006 on behalf of the DRA.

This initial report identified an optimum route and an overall design approach for the cycleway and promenade whilst also proposing a separate design approach for each of the 16 sections from Sutton to Sandycove. The total length of the proposed promenade and cycle track will be approximately 22km in length from Sutton to Sandycove. The scheme proposes to upgrade and join up various existing sections of the promenade and cycle track to form a continuous route along the seafront of Dublin Bay. In the northern section of the development much of the facility already exists and simply either requires upgrade, improvement or to be joined together by “missing gaps”.

2.2 Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) In 2006, leading directly from the DRA commissioned reports, Dublin City Council and Dun Laoghaire – Rathdown County Council appointed consultants to progress parts of the overall Sutton to Sandycove (S2S) Scheme in two phases. Phase 1 considered one of the “missing gaps” on the northern section of Dublin Bay.

This proposal consisted of approximately 1.9km of promenade / cycle track on the seaward side of James Larkin Road and Clontarf Road from the North Bull Island Causeway to the Wooden Bridge. The project also involved coastal protection and flood defence works along this length of promenade.

Following a number of environmental assessments and consultation with National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) an Appropriate Assessment (Natura Impact Statement) and Environmental Impact Assessment for the Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) were published in June 2009 and approval was received from An Bord Pleanála on 23rd December 2011. The Natura Impact Statement concluded that with the recommended mitigation measures enacted there would be no adverse effects on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites. These findings were accepted by NPWS and An Bord Pleanála.

2.3 North City Arterial Watermain The North City Arterial Waterman (NCAM) will involve the laying of approximately 9.7km of 400mm to 600mm diameter trunk main which will be laid underground from Fairview Park to Bayside Boulevard South. All construction works are temporary in nature and the site will be reinstated in full upon completion of the scheme. Dublin City Council published and submitted an Environmental Impact Statement for the North City Arterial Watermain and Clontarf Flood Defence to An Bord Pleanála in December 2007 and the scheme was approved by An Bord Pleanála in July 2008. An Appropriate Assessment Screening Report was completed for the North City

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 2 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

Arterial Waterman which was prepared in consultation with NPWS. The Screening Report concluded "that the proposed development will have no adverse effect on the integrity of either of the Natura 2000 sites listed and as such this report returns a conclusion that there is no potential for significant effects on the Natura 2000 sites."

2.4 Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Evolution The NTA have identified a limited amount of funding to develop the Sutton to Sandycove Cycleway and Footway between the Wooden Bridge and Causeway Road. This funding is insufficient to develop all five of the project phases/sections outlined in the DPFPP EIS.

The most ecologically sensitive phases of the works are also the most expensive elements of the DPFPP, Phases 1, 3 and 4 which all involved piling within the lagoon. This interim scheme proposes to construct Phase 2 and Phase 5 of the approved scheme which are elements that are built out on the lagoon on infill areas. These works will therefore have no permanent footprint in the South Bull Lagoon.

In addition Dublin City Council has identified that it would be appropriate from an environmental, social and economic perspective to lay the pipe for this 2km section of the NCAM while the road is being reconstructed as part of the Cycleway Scheme. Combining the two projects would have the following benefits:  reduce the construction impacts of 2 separate contracts on the residents of the Clontarf area;  make significant savings in the costs of reconstruction of the road, traffic management costs, site supervision costs; etc.; and  reduce the duration of the works and potential disturbance to the Birds of the South Bull Lagoon.

Although the DPFPP was assessed and the EIS prepared on the basis of phased construction as the Interim Works solution proposed will affect some existing on road parking it is proposed to apply for a Part VIII Planning Approval in order to give the public an opportunity to raise any concerns with the application. This Habitats Directive Screening Report has been prepared in support of this Part VIII application and makes reference to the above projects and reports.

3.0 THE APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

3.1 Guidance Article 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) defines the requirement for Appropriate Assessment of certain plans and projects. In order to inform the requirements of this Screening Report the following guidance documents have been referred to:  Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland - Guidance for Planning Authorities. (Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 2010 revision);  Appropriate Assessment under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive: Guidance for Planning Authorities. Circular NPWS 1/10 & PSSP 2/10;  Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 sites: Methodological Guidance on the Provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC;

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 3 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

 Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The Provisions of Article 6 of the Habitat’s Directive 92/43/EEC (EC Environment Directorate-General, 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 European Commission (European Commission, January 2007).’

3.2 Stages of Article 6 Assessment The European Commission’s guidance promotes a staged process, as set out below, the need for each being dependent upon the outcomes of the proceeding stage. (1) Screening

(2) Appropriate Assessment

(3) Assessment of Alternative Solutions

(4) Assessment where no alternative solutions remain and where adverse impacts remain.  The “IROPI test” (Imperative Reasons of Over-riding Public Interest) and compensatory measures.

The Habitats Directive promotes a hierarchy of avoidance, mitigation and compensatory measures.

Stage 1 of the process is intended to identify whether the project is ‘likely to have a significant effect’ upon a European site, referred to as ‘Screening for Appropriate Assessment’.

If the screening process identifies effects to be significant, potentially significant or uncertain, or if the screening process becomes overly complicated, then the process must proceed to Stage 2 (AA). Screening is undertaken without the inclusion of mitigation, unless potential impacts clearly can be avoided though the modification or redesign of the plan or project, in which case the screening process is repeated on the altered plan. The greatest level of evidence and justification will be needed in circumstances when the process ends at screening stage on grounds of no impact.

Section 177U of the Planning and Development Act 2010 states that the competent authority shall determine that an appropriate assessment of the proposed development is not required if it can be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that the proposed development, individually or in combination with other plans or projects, will not have a significant effect on a European site.

Stage two of the process considers any potential impacts in greater detail including whether further mitigation measures are required. If an adverse impact upon the site’s integrity cannot be ruled out then Stage 3 will need to be undertaken to assess whether alternative solutions exist. If no alternatives exist that have a lesser effect upon the Natura 2000 site/s in question, the project can only be implemented if there are ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’, as detailed in Article 6(4). In essence, the work at Stage 1 will determine whether further stages of the process are required.

This report includes the testing required under Stage One Screening for Appropriate Assessment.

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 4 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

3.3 Report Format This Screening Report includes the assessment and testing required under Stage One – the Screening Process. In complying with the obligations under Article 6(3) and to be consistent with the Guidance for Planning Authorities, this report has been structured as follows:  Description of the Plan/Project;  Identification of Natura 2000 sites, and the associated Conservation Objectives, which may be potentially affected;  Identification and description of individual and cumulative impacts likely to result from the Plan/Project;  Assessment of the significance of the impacts identified above on site integrity. Exclusion of site where it can be objectively concluded that there will be no significant effects.

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

4.1 Scheme Location and Project Objectives The proposed S2S Cycleway and Footway Interim Works is approximately 2km in length, extending from Bull Road (Wooden Bridge) to Causeway Road linking existing cycle and walking routes at either end. Refer Drawing 0001 in Appendix A.

The primary objective of the Sutton to Sandycove (S2S) Cycleway and Footway Interim Works is to provide a promenade and cycle track connecting existing sections of cycle track and footpath along Clontarf and James Larkin Road Promenades.

It is also an objective to provide, or cater for improvements in, flood defence between Wooden Bridge / Bull Road and Causeway Road for residences along Clontarf Road and James Larkin Road.

Photograph 4.1: Clontarf Road looking south west

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 5 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

4.2 Cycle Track Layout The scheme involves the construction of a raised cycle track on the seaward side of the road while the existing footpath on the seaward side of the road will generally be retained.

The typical cross section includes the following:  Retain the existing footpath on the landward side of the road;  2m wide parking bay at locations shown;  2 x 3m wide traffic lanes;  3 - 3.5m wide two way cycle track utilising part of the existing carriageway; and  Retain the existing footpath on the seaward side of the road.

At the northern end of the scheme the cycle track will depart the carriageway and utilise the grassed area to the north of the Nanniken Stream. Through this section the cycle track will be located in on its current alignment on the landward side of a new flood bund with a Level of 4.25m OD. The proposed bund will merge into an existing earthen bund on the approach to the Causeway Road. The cycle track will be taken across the Causeway Road on the alignment of the existing crossing. (See Drawings 1001-1004 in Appendix A)

Photograph 4.2: Existing Cycle track at northern end of scheme

4.3 Road Layout Traffic lane widths over the length of the scheme will generally be reduced to a width of 2 no. 3 metre traffic lanes.

Build outs are also provided at regular intervals along the northbound traffic lane for traffic calming purposes and also to protect parked cars. These build outs have been positioned where possible to coincide with the bus stops on the north bound traffic lane.

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 6 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

4.4 Junctions and Crossing Facilities A number of pedestrian and cyclist crossing facilities are to be provided across Clontarf Road / James Larkin Road to provide safe and convenient access to the proposed cycle track on the seaward side of the road.

4.5 Pavement 4.5.1 Road Pavement It is proposed to complete a full pavement overlay of the existing carriageway to reduce traffic noise thereby improving the experience for cyclists and other users of the facility, particularly where the existing pavement is of concrete construction.

The surfacing is to be undertaken using a thin surface course system, which will provide an optimum noise reduction surfacing and is quicker and requires less traffic management compared to a HRA surface. This will also provide a much improved road surface for users.

4.5.2 Cycle Track Pavement The cycle track will be constructed using Clause 912 asphalt laid in accordance with Series 700 of the DMRB.

4.6 Sea Walls and Flood Defence The scheme also includes the provision of flood defence measures. This includes repair and raising of the existing seawall and the construction of a new sea wall to replace the existing low wall within the grassed area adjacent to the tram shelter between approx. chainage 0+275 and 0+600. This will utilise the parts of the grassed area as proposed in the Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (See Photo 4.3).

Along this section from chainage 0+360 and chainage 0+550 the footpath will be brought closer to the lagoon than the existing footpath. As this is an interim scheme the opaque wave reduction barrier proposed in the DPFPP design will not be constructed and in order to provide some visual barrier between the pedestrians and the over wintering birds the level of the footpath will be lowered by up to 600mm. The footpath along this 190m section commencing at chainage 0+360 and finishing at chainage 0+550 will be lowered to enable the flood defence wall provide a max. height above footpath level of 900mm thus separating the footpath from the lagoon and providing the required screening. This 900mm visual barrier would reduce at either end as the gradient of the proposed footpath rises to meet the level of the path at chainage 0+360 and chainage 0+550.

Necessary repairs will be undertaken to the existing sea walls as detailed in the report Sea Wall Assessment October 2012. As part of these wall repairs the two existing slipways will be permanently decommissioned and a replacement slipway will be provided off the Causeway Road as per the DPFPP approved scheme.

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 7 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

Photo 4.3 View of existing low wall and the grassed area adjacent to the pumping station 4.6.1 Slipways In the current scenario there are two existing slipways, one in use at Chainage 0+380 and a disused one at Chainage 1+230. In the proposed design both of these will be permanently closed.

4.6.2 Steps There are currently four existing steps accessing the lagoon. Two of these steps will be permanently closed by the S2S Interim Scheme while the remaining two at Chainage 0+675 close to Dollymount Avenue and at Chainage 1+055 at the bottom of Mount Prospect Avenue will be maintained with seasonal access to the lagoon. From 15th September to 31st March these steps will be gated and locked during the overwintering season of the SPA bird populations. During the remainder of the year when the overwintering birds are not present in the lagoon, the steps will be open to the public with flood gates to be put in place when required.

4.7 Water Pumping Station An existing Dublin City Council (DCC) wastewater pumping station at approx. chainage 0+590m (Photo 4.3 above) adjacent to the tram shelter is to be relocated underground to provide additional space for the cycle track at what is a particular pinch point along the route. Similar works have previously been undertaken at such locations as Kilbarrack.

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 8 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

Photo 4.4 Slipway at Chainage 0+380m

Photo 4.5 Disused Slipway at Chainage 1+230m

4.8 Proposed Watermain It is proposed to construct a 400mm to 600mm diameter trunk watermain along the length of the scheme. This water main is part of the North City Arterial Watermain. Reference should be made to the Preliminary Design Report for further details of this water main.

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 9 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

5.0 NATURA 2000 SITES

5.1 Designated Sites in the Vicinity of the Project Section 3.2.3 of the Guidance for Planning Authorities states that the approach to screening can be different for different plans and projects and will depend on the scale and the likely effects of the project. As the proposed cycle track is primarily to be constructed on existing roadway, for the purpose of this screening exercise the likely zone of impact is considered to be the zone immediately around the construction site. For the purpose of this assessment this is taken as 250m.

A review of the National Parks and Wildlife Service database has identified North Dublin Bay SAC, North Bull Island SPA and South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA as being in proximity to the works (refer to Plate 5.1, below)

The proposed cycle track will primarily be constructed on the seaward side of the Clontarf Road / James Larkin Road. The shoreline and lagoon adjacent to the road is all included within North Dublin Bay SAC and North Bull Island SPA. South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA includes the shoreline and open water to the south west of the Bull Road/Wooden Bridge.

5.2 Characteristics of the Designated Sites North Dublin Bay SAC The site covers the inner part of Dublin Bay, the seaward boundary extending from the Bull Wall lighthouse across the Martello Tower at Howth. The site is an excellent example of a coastal site with all the main habitats represented. It holds good examples of 10 habitats that are listed on Annex I of the E.U. Habitats Directive; one of which has priority status. Several of the wintering bird species have populations of international importance, while some of the invertebrates are of national importance. The site contains a number of rare and scarce plants including some, which are legally protected.

The Conservation objectives for North Dublin Bay are as follows:

To maintain or restore the favourable conservation condition of the Annex I habitats(s) and/or the Annex II species for which the SAC has been selected:  Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide;  Annual vegetation and other annuals colonizing mud and sand;  Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand;  Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco Puccinellietalia maritimae);  Petalophyllum ralfsii;  Mediterranean salt meadows;  Embryonic shifting dunes;  Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria;  Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation;  Humid dune slacks.

Favourable conservation status of a habitat is achieved when:  its natural range, and area it covers within that range, is stable or increasing; and

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 10 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

 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.

North Bull Island SPA The North Bull Island SPA is an excellent example of an estuarine complex and is one of the top sites in Ireland for wintering waterfowl. It is of international importance on account of both the total number of waterfowl and the individual populations of Light-bellied Brent Goose, Black-tailed Godwit and Bar-tailed Godwit that use it. Also of significance is the regular presence of several species that are listed on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive, notably Golden Plover and Bar-tailed Godwit, but also Ruff and Short-eared Owl.

Objective: To maintain or restore the favourable conservation condition of the bird species listed as Special Conservation Interests for this SPA:  [wintering] Branta bernicla hrota  [wintering] Tadorna tadorna  [wintering] Anas crecca  [wintering] Anas acuta  [wintering] Anas clypeata  [wintering] Haematopus ostralegus  [wintering] Pluvialis squatarola  [wintering] Calidris canutus  [wintering] Calidris alba  [wintering] Limosa limosa  [wintering] Limosa lapponica  [wintering] Numenius arquata  [wintering] Tringa totanus  [wintering] Arenaria interpres  Wetlands & Waterbirds

South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA The South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA comprises a substantial part o Dublin Bay. It includes the intertidal area between the River Liffey and Dun Laoghaire, and the estuary of the River Tolka to the north of the River Liffey, as well as Booterstown Marsh. A portion of the shallow marine waters of the bay is also included.

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, Oystercatcher, Ringed Plover, Golden Plover, Grey Plover, Knot, Sanderling, Dunlin, Bar-tailed Godwit, Redshank, Black-headed Gull, Roseate Tern, Common Tern and Arctic Tern. The E.U. Birds Directive pays particular attention to wetlands, and as these form part of the SPA, the site and its associated waterbirds are of special conservation interest for Wetland & Waterbirds.

Objective: To maintain or restore the favourable conservation condition of the bird species listed as Special Conservation Interests for this SPA:

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 11 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

 Branta bernicla hrota [wintering]  Haematopus ostralegus [wintering]  Charadrius hiaticula [wintering]  Pluvialis squatarola [wintering]  Calidris canutus [wintering]  Calidris alba [wintering]  Calidris alpina [wintering]  Limosa lapponica [wintering]  Tringa totanus [wintering]  Chroicocephalus ridibundus [wintering]  Sterna dougallii [passage]  Sterna hirundo [breeding + passage ]  Sterna paradisaea [passage]  Wetlands

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.

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 12 Roughan & O’Donovan Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin city Council

Plate 5.1 Designated Sites in North Dublin Bay

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 13 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF LIKELY EFFECTS – SCREENING METHODOLOGY

6.1 Consideration of Significance In terms of significance, the NPWS Guidance quotes an EC definition “any element of a plan or project that has the potential to affect the conservation objectives of a Natura 2000 site, including its structure and function, should be considered significant (EC, 2006)”.

In order to assess the likely impacts and ascertain whether a significant impact on the integrity of the Natura sites is likely to occur as a result of the proposed development, it is necessary to consider what constitutes the integrity of a site as referred to in Article 6 (3) of the Habitats Directive. The document Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The Provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC gives clear guidance in this regard and states:

“The integrity of the site involves its ecological functions. The decision as to whether it is adversely affected should focus on and be limited to the site’s conservation objectives.”

6.2 Likelihood and Significance of Effects The EC guidance documentation includes a list of criteria that should be used to assess the significance of impacts, as listed below. For example, will the proposed development:  cause delays in progress towards achieving the conservation objectives of the site?  interrupt progress towards achieving the conservation objectives of the site?  disrupt those factors that help to maintain the favourable conditions of the site?  interfere with the balance, distribution and density of key species that are the indicators of the favourable condition of the site?  cause changes to the vital defining aspects (e.g. nutrient balance) that determine how the site functions as a habitat or ecosystem?  change the dynamics of the relationships (between, for example, soil and water or plants and animals) that define the structure and/or function of the site?  interfere with predicted or expected natural changes to the site (such as water dynamics or chemical composition)?  reduce the area of key habitats?  reduce the population of key species?  change the balance between key species?  reduce diversity of the site?  result in disturbance that could affect population size or density or the balance between key species?  result in fragmentation?  result in loss or reduction of key features (e.g. tree cover, tidal exposure, annual flooding, etc.)?

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 14 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

As stated in Section 3.2 above, the initial assessment of significance should be carried out without the consideration of mitigation unless potential impacts can clearly be avoided though the modification or redesign of the plan or project, in which case the screening process is repeated on the altered plan/project.

6.3 Ecological Survey and Consultation Ecological Survey Extensive surveys were undertaken as part of the DPFPP environmental impact assessment. These included detailed ornithological assessment of the overwintering bird usage of the South Bull Lagoon and a marine biotope habitat survey and impact assessment of the shoreline adjacent to the project. This information is presented in Appendix B.

Consultation During the development of DPFPP extensive consultation was undertaken with the relevant local and district staff of the National Park and Wildlife Service (NPWS) such that they agreed to the findings, conclusions and mitigation measures of the Natura Impact Statement. NPWS staff consulted during the project included Dr Linda Patton, Dr. David Tierney and Mr Maurice Eakin.

Similarly the approach to and the findings and conclusions of the NCAM Habitats Directive Screening Report were agreed with the relevant local and district staff of NPWS. In this instance the NPWS staff consulted were Dr Linda Patton, Dr David Tierney and Mr Niall Harmey.

The approach to this Habitats Directive Screening exercise was discussed with NPWS and presented at a meeting on 7th April 2013. During these discussions it was agreed that the findings of the NIS for DPFPP and the Screening Report for NCAM were relevant and pertinent in this instance and at the April 2013 meeting NPWS confirmed that they were satisfied with the S2S Interim Scheme design solutions.

7.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS

7.1 Introduction This section considers the potential impacts of the proposed Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycle Track (S2S Interim Scheme) upon the qualifying features of the Natura 2000 sites, as identified in Section 5.

As it has been confirmed that the findings of the assessments of the associated projects are relevant it is worth providing a brief summary of the findings and conclusions from these reports which equally apply to this project:

DPFPP NIS (See Appendix B) This NIS concludes that with the recommended mitigation measures in place there will be no significant impact on either the SAC or SPA. The mitigation measures of relevance to this project include the requirement to undertake as much of the heavy construction work within the lagoon as is feasible during the period May to July to avoid any potential disturbance of the SPA overwintering bird populations; to minimise the extent of works required to take place from the shore; to minimise the extent of compaction of the littoral mudflat habitat and to undertake any such works

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 15 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

during low tide only. These measures are relevant to the flood defence works between chainages 0+275 and 0+600 and other seawall repairs. NCAM Screening Report (See Appendix C) The assessment undertaken for this project concludes that it will not have any impact, can be screened out and does not require a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment. The use of visual screening (2.5m timber hoarding) along the seawall during the construction prevents disturbance of the bird populations and is the principal design measure which allows the scheme to be screened out at Stage 1.

7.2 North Dublin Bay SAC North Dublin Bay is designated for a number of coastal and intertidal habitats. The Site Synopsis states that the main vulnerabilities to the Site are in the form of recreational pressures, rabbit grazing, activities that may impact on the water table and disturbance to birds from commercial bate digging. The intertidal areas of the site are known to receive polluted water though there are no apparent significant impacts on the associated flora and fauna.

The marine ecological impact assessment completed for DPFPP EIS (See Appendix B) identified fourteen marine biotopes within the South Bull Lagoon. Within the vicinity of the proposed works these are dominated by littoral muds, littoral muddy sands and sheltered littoral rock. With reference to the precautionary principle all inter-tidal habitats which will be impacted are considered as possessing qualifying interest under the Habitats Directive and the habitat present is considered to be the qualifying habitat Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide. There is no feasible link which could connect or cause to be impacted the other qualifying habitats and species for which the SAC is designated and it is concluded that neither the construction nor operation of the scheme will have any impact on these.

There will be no loss of intertidal habitat as a consequence of the construction or operation of the scheme. In fact the construction of the new seawall between chainage 0+275 and 0+600 will actually return an area of 307m2 to tidal and estuarine influence (See Drawing 1001 in Appendix A) and it is assumed that overtime this will revert to the above littoral mud and sand habitat.

The construction and repair of the seawall (flood defence measures) will require, at least in part, to be undertaken from the shoreline. This will result in the presence of machinery and personnel on the seashore. This will disturb this intertidal habitat and cause a degree of compaction. However this is a short-term and temporary impact and the intertidal habitat is expected to recover and revert to its previous condition. These works will be undertaken in the main summer period (preferably between May and July or as a minimum between April and August) to avoid the potential for any impact on the SPA bird populations. Should works be carried out during the winter period, these will be confined to restricted areas at any one time so as to confine potential disturbance. In addition vehicle movements within the Lagoon will be kept to the minimum required and will follow the same tracks each time to minimise the area of compaction.

The works over the intertidal area may also result in a temporary increase in suspended solids (increased turbidity) in the water body. There is no potential for this to have any impact on the SAC qualifying habitats or species nor on the SPA bird populations (by reason of timing of works).

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 16 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

Industry best practice pollution prevention measures (refer Section 8.0) will be enforced to prevent the possible occurrence of a pollution event. These include, amongst others, the measures specified in the NCAM planning consent and Habitats Directive Screening report. These ensure that there is no significant risk to the water quality of South Bull Lagoon as a consequence of the construction of the scheme.

7.3 North Bull Island SPA North Bull Island SPA is designated for a number of overwintering wildfowl and wader species. It is of international importance for waterfowl on the basis that it regularly supports in excess of 20,000 waterfowl. It also qualifies for international importance as the numbers of three species exceed the international threshold, namely Pale-bellied Brent Goose, Black-tailed Godwit and Bar-tailed Godwit.

While wintering waterfowl in Dublin Bay are relatively habituated to traffic noise and movement as well as pedestrian and cyclist use of footpaths and cycle tracks that adjoin intertidal habitats, relatively static human activity does cause disturbance and waterfowl move away from it. Waterfowl using intertidal habitats are therefore likely to be displaced from the immediate area of construction works by disturbance. Displacement impacts during the winter season are assessed as potentially significant in the South Bull Lagoon because internationally important numbers of Brent geese and Black-tailed godwit, and nationally important numbers of shelduck, teal, knot, dunlin, redshank and turnstone occur within the area liable to disturbance along the base of the sea wall.

The following construction mitigation measures were included Habitats Directive Screening and planning consent for NCAM and are deemed appropriate in this instance:  Visual screening will be applied to the side of any construction compound which faces towards the South Bull Lagoon or Tolka Basin, to minimise the potential for disturbance impacts from human activity within the compound. Visual screening will also be provided along the sea wall for each section of the scheme under construction. It is envisaged that a 2.5m high timber hoarding will be used.  An ecologist will be made available to the site supervisory staff as required for consultation during construction phase, to liaise with and advise on potential impacts and mitigation measures and to assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

In addition the flood defence works which are required to take place from the shore shall be completed during the main summer period (preferably between May and July or as a maximum between April and August) to avoid the potential for any impact on the SPA bird populations. Should works be carried out during the winter period, these will be confined to restricted areas at any one time so as to confine potential disturbance.

As stated for the SAC, industry best practice measures (refer Section 8.0) will be enforced to prevent the possible occurrence of a pollution event. These ensure that there is no significant risk to the water quality of South Bull Lagoon as a consequence of the construction of the scheme.

With all of the above measures in place it is considered that the construction of the scheme will have no impact on the SPA, its bird populations or conservation objectives.

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 17 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

At operation it is considered that the use of the cycle track will not disturb the bird populations using the Lagoon as they are currently habituated to a high level of traffic noise and pedestrian and cyclist activity. In addition the closure of the two slipways on Clontarf / James Larkin Road will reduce to some extent access onto the Lagoon by residents and bait diggers and should have some beneficial impact. It is considered that the replacement of the two existing slipways with one slipway off Causeway Road will result in an overall reduction of physical disturbance on the Lagoon.

Furthermore the permanent closure of two existing steps and the seasonal closure of the remaining two steps between 15th September and 31st March will also reduce physical disturbance on overwintering birds within the lagoon.

7.4 South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA The scheme originates 75m to the south west of Bull Road / Wooden Bridge. The boundary of South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA runs along the Bull Road. The site is also important for a range of overwintering waterfowl as well as Black-headed Gull, Roseate, Common and Arctic Tern.

The 75m origins of the scheme are already significantly set back from the shore. With the measures specified above there will be no impact on this SPA, its qualifying habitats and species or conservation objectives.

7.5 Potential Residual Impacts With the successful adherence to the control measures detailed above and reiterated in Section 8.0 no residual impacts are expected. This is demonstrated by re- examining the project against the EC documentation criteria as detailed below.

Does the project have the potential to: Yes or No Details cause delays in progress towards achieving the No No significant residual conservation objectives of the site? negative impacts interrupt progress towards achieving the No No significant residual conservation objectives of the site? negative impacts disrupt those factors that help to maintain the No No significant residual favourable conditions of the site? negative impacts interfere with the balance, distribution and density No No significant residual of key species that are the indicators of the negative impacts favourable condition of the site? cause changes to the vital defining aspects (e.g. No No significant residual nutrient balance) that determine how the site negative impacts functions as a habitat or ecosystem? change the dynamics of the relationships (between, No No significant residual for example, soil and water or plants and animals) negative impacts that define the structure and/or function of the site? interfere with predicted or expected natural No No significant residual changes to the site (such as water dynamics or negative impacts chemical composition)? reduce the area of key habitats? No No significant residual negative impacts reduce the population of key species? No No significant residual negative impacts change the balance between key species? No No significant residual

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 18 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

Does the project have the potential to: Yes or No Details negative impacts reduce diversity of the site? No No significant residual negative impacts result in disturbance that could affect population No No significant residual size or density or the balance between key negative impacts species? result in fragmentation? No No significant residual negative impacts result in loss or reduction of key features (e.g. tree No No significant residual cover, tidal exposure, annual flooding, etc.)? negative impacts

7.6 Consideration of Potential Cumulative Impacts The Habitats Directive requires that the potential cumulative impacts on Natura 2000 sites be assessed in combination with other significant projects in the vicinity. It is considered that the proposed scheme will have no significant impact on any of the Natura 2000 sites listed and as such it can be concluded that there will be no ‘in- combination effects’ as a consequence of the construction or operation of this scheme.

However for completeness the DPFPP NIS was reviewed in this regard. The DPFPP NIS considered the following significant projects which have the potential to impact the designated sites within the wider Dublin Bay area:  Dublin Eastern Bypass  Dublin Gateway Project  Dublin Port Tunnel  Poolbeg Planning Scheme  Sutton-to-Sandycove : Phase 2 Sean Moore Park to East Pier Dun Laoghaire  Sutton-to-Sandycove : East Pier to Sandycove

Following a review of these projects the DPFPP NIS concludes that:

‘the Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Project would not add significantly to the potential adverse cumulative impact on the interests of the Dublin Bay Natura 2000 sites’.

The reasons given for this conclusion include the fact there will be a net gain in mudflat habitat as a result of the construction of DPFPP, that disturbance of the overwintering bird populations can be avoided through timing and that at operation the disturbance levels will remain similar to the current condition.

Based on this conclusion, which has been accepted by NPWS and An Bord Pleanála, it is reasonable and logical to conclude that the proposed project, which is a smaller and less impactive scheme, comprising Phases 2 and 5 of the broader DPFPP which will have no permanent footprint in the lagoon, will have no ‘in-combination effects’ or cumulative impacts.

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 19 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

8.0 SPECIFIC MITIGATION / CONTROL MEASURES

As stated in Section 3.2 above the initial assessment of significance which is undertaken during the screening exercise must be carried out without the consideration of mitigation. However where potential impacts can clearly be avoided through the modification or re-design of the project then these measures can be included within the assessment; an example of this could be timing the construction programme to avoid disturbing overwintering birds, i.e. a design control measure has been applied to avoid any potential impact.

In addition in this instance it has been agreed with NPWS that the findings of both the DPFPP NIS and the NCAM Screening report are relevant and pertinent. As such the following mitigation and control measures, which are taken directly from the documents supporting these schemes, are considered as inherent to the design of the scheme and can be included within the Stage 1: Screening assessment.

Timing of Construction Works  The flood defence works which are required to take place from the shore shall be completed during the main summer period (preferably between May and July or as a minimum between April and August) to avoid the potential for any impact on the SPA bird populations. Should works be carried out during the winter period, these will be confined to restricted areas at any one time so as to confine potential disturbance.

Visual Screening  Visual screening will be applied to the side of any construction compound which faces towards the South Bull Lagoon or Tolka Basin to minimise the potential for disturbance impacts from human activity within the compound.  Visual screening will also be provided along the sea wall for each section of the scheme under construction. It is envisaged that a 2.5m high timber hoarding will be used.

Appointment of Project Ecologist An ecologist shall be employed during the construction phase of the project. The ecologist shall:  monitor all construction works within the Lagoon;  liaise with the contractor in regard to restrictions on works in terms of time, duration and location of such works;  Advise in regard to the implementation of associated mitigation measures;  Advise on the duration, scale and extent of any vehicular movements, deemed necessary for construction purposes only, which may be permitted across the mudflats of the lagoon. Where vehicle ingress onto the mudflats is unavoidable for purposes of construction the manner and route of such ingress shall be determined by the ecologist;  Liaise with the National Parks and Wildlife Service on an ongoing basis during the construction phase.

Protection of Intertidal Habitat  Where possible construction will be approached from the landward side;

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 20 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

 Where works must take place from within the lagoon these will be kept to the absolute minimum required;  Vehicular movements over the mudflats shall be kept to the absolute minimum required;  Vehicular movements over the mudflats shall follow the same tracks as far as is practicable; and  All works from within the Lagoon shall be undertaken at low tide only.

Best Practice Water Quality / Pollution Prevention Measures The following measures were included within the NCAM EIS and planning consent and are considered appropriate in this instance:  All material including oils, solvents and paints will be stored within temporary bunded areas or dedicated bunded containers;  Where possible refuelling will be take place in a designated bunded area away from surface water gullies, drains and water bodies, in the event of refuelling outside of this area fuel will be transported in a mobile double skinned tank;  All machinery and plant used will be regularly maintained and serviced and will comply with appropriate standards to ensure that leakage of diesel, oil and lubricants is minimised.  Spill kits and hydrocarbon absorbent packs will be available and trip trays will be used during refuelling;  All relevant personnel will be fully trained in the use of this equipment;  Where soil/made ground and subsoil stripping occurs, the resulting excavated soil fractions will be segregated into inert, non-hazardous and /or hazardous fractions (in accordance with Council Decision 2003/33/EC, the EPA water classification criteria at certain licensed landfills in Ireland);  The excavation and handling of inert material will be carefully managed in such a way as to prevent any potential negative impact on the receiving water environment;  The height of stored topsoil will not exceed 2m;  Where possible the excavated spoil would not be stored beyond the working day, however in the event that this is not practical appropriate precautions in relation to the material will be taken. These precautions will include appropriate storage and covering;  All associated hazardous construction waste will be stored within temporary bunded storage areas prior to removal by an appropriate EPA or Local Authority approved waste management contractor;  The guidelines provided by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, with respect to concrete wash waters, CIRIA, the UK Environment Agency and Environment and Heritage Service, the UK Department of the Environment and Inland Fisheries Ireland will be adhered to in order to ensure that there is a neutral impact on the water environment during the construction phase of the proposed development.

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 21 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

9.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The first stage of the Appropriate Assessment process, screening, has been completed in compliance with the relevant European Commission and national guidelines.

The potential impacts during the construction and operation of the proposed S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road and associated works have been considered in the context of the Natura 2000 sites, their Qualifying Interests and conservation objectives.

The evaluation undertaken has identified that there will be no significant impact on any of the Qualifying Habitats or Species, either alone or in-combination, of the North Dublin Bay SAC, North Bull Island SPA or South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA.

Therefore, as a result of the assessment carried out, it is considered that the conservation objectives for the Natura 2000 sites will not be compromised by the proposed development, nor will the proposed development have any significant impact on the designated sites or the habitats or species for which they been designated.

Conclusion As a result of the assessment carried out it is the considered view of the authors that the proposed development, with the implementation of the measures detailed at Section 8.0, will have no adverse effect on the integrity of any of the Natura 2000 sites listed and as such this report returns a conclusion that there is no potential for significant effects on the Natura 2000 sites. As such the project can be screened out under the Habitats Directive as not requiring a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment.

10.0 REFERENCES

DoEHLG (2010) Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland - Guidance for Planning Authorities (Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Rev Feb 2010) European Commission (2001) Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 sites: Methodological Guidance on the Provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (European Commission Environment Directorate-General,); European Commission (2000) Managing Natura 2000 sites: The Provisions of Article 6 of the Habitat’s Directive 92/43/EEC (EC Environment Directorate-General, 2000); hereinafter referred to as “MN2000” NPWS Circular NPW 1/10 & PSSP 2/10 Appropriate Assessment under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive: Guidance for Planning Authorities. (Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, March 2010);

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Page 22 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

APPENDIX A Drawings

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Appendix A Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

APPENDIX B Dollymount Promenade & Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment (Natura Impact Statement)

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Appendix B Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013

Dollymount Promenade and Flood

Protection Project

Appropriate Assessment

June 2009

Client: Consulting Engineer: Mr. Tom Leahy Roughan & O'Donovan Deputy City Engineer Arena House Environment & Engineering Department Arena Road Dublin City Council Sandyford Civic Offices, Wood Quay Dublin 18 Dublin 8

Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP)

Appropriate Assessment

Document No: ...... 08.159.10

Made: ...... Barry Corrigan / Brian Madden

Checked: ...... Paul Mitchell

Approved: ...... Tony Dempsey

Revision Description Made Checked Approved Date Brian Madden/ Paul Tony 15th January 01 Draft Barry Corrigan Mitchell Dempsey 2009 Brian Madden/ Paul Tony 23rd February 02 Draft Barry Corrigan Mitchell Dempsey 2009 Andrew 22nd May 2009 Barry Tony 03 Final Warwick / Corrigan Dempsey Brian Madden

Ref: (08.159) June 2009 Page i Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP)

Appropriate Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Regulatory Context ...... 1 1.2 European Court of Justice Ruling ...... 1 1.3 Stages of Article 6 Assessment ...... 2

2 STAGE 1 SCREENING ...... 3 2.1 Consultation ...... 3 2.1.1 Consultations during Feasibility and Preliminary Design ...... 3 2.1.2 Detailed Design and Environmental Assessment Stage...... 4 2.1.3 National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) ...... 4 2.1.4 Sites Identification ...... 4 2.1.5 Identification of potential impacts ...... 5 2.1.6 Assessment of effects on Natura sites ...... 6 2.1.7 Conclusion ...... 7 3 STAGE 2 APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT ...... 8 3.1 Stage 2A – Analysis of the sites and the reasons for the designations, and the underlying trends affecting them ...... 8 3.2 Stage 2B – Analysis of the project including its key components ...... 9 3.3 Stage 2C – Determining whether, in view of the site’s conservation objectives, the plan, “not in combination” with other plans and projects, would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites ...... 9 3.3.1 Construction Phase Impacts ...... 9 3.3.2 Operational Phase ...... 12 3.4 Stage 2D – Analysis of “in combination” effects ...... 16 3.5 Stage 2E – Impact Mitigation ...... 18 3.5.1 Mitigation Through Design ...... 18 3.5.2 Timing of construction works...... 18 3.5.3 Construction works ...... 18 3.5.4 Habitat Enhancement ...... 19 3.5.5 Monitoring ...... 20

Ref: (08.159) June 2009 Page i Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

1. INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared by Roughan & O’Donovan Consulting Engineers, in conjunction with Dr. Brian Madden of Biosphere Environmental Services, on behalf of Dublin City Council to determine the potential effects, if any, of the proposed Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) on nearby sites with European conservation designations (i.e. Natura 2000 sites). The purpose of this assessment is to determine the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the proposal in the context of the conservation status of such sites.

1.1 Regulatory Context The Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora better known as “The Habitats Directive” provides the framework for legal protection for habitats and species of European importance. Articles 3 to 9 provide the legislative means to protect habitats and species of Community interest through the establishment and conservation of an EU-wide network of sites known as Natura 2000. These are Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated under the Habitats Directive and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) designated under the Conservation of Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) (better known as “The Birds Directive”).

Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive set out the decision-making tests for plans and projects likely to affect Natura 2000 sites (Annex 1.1). Article 6(3) establishes the requirement for Appropriate Assessment:

“Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the [Natura 2000] site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans and projects, shall be subjected to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implication for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public”

1.2 European Court of Justice Ruling A recent European Court of Justice Ruling against Ireland (Case 418/04 EC Commission v Ireland) relates to Ireland’s transposition and implementation of the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC, as well as its implementation of relevant articles of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC.

The findings of the Court have major implications for the way in which Ireland protects areas important for birds, both designated and undesignated, and by implication, habitats requiring protection under EU law. The ruling requires a more robust and thorough application by all consent authorities, including planning authorities, of the requirement to do an appropriate assessment of the ecological implications of any plan or project, whether within or outside a designated site, which does not directly relate to the management of the site but may impact upon its conservation objectives.

The ruling among other things clarifies that Ireland has not correctly transposed Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC by not providing explicitly for appropriate assessment of land use plans, as opposed to projects.

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/1 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

1.3 Stages of Article 6 Assessment This Appropriate Assessment (AA) has been undertaken in accordance with the European Commission Methodological Guidance on the provision of Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC (EC 2001) and the European Commission Guidance ‘Managing Natura 2000 Sites’ .

In complying with the obligations under Article 6(3) and following the above Guidelines, this AA has been structured as a stage by stage approach as follows: (1) Screening stage • Description of the Plan/Project • Identification of Natura 2000 sites, and the associated Conservation Objectives, which may be potentially affected • Identification and description of individual and cumulative impacts likely to result from the Plan/Project • Assessment of the significance of the impacts identified above on site integrity. Exclusion of site where it can be objectively concluded that there will be no significant effects

(2) Appropriate Assessment Stage • Description of the Natura 2000 sites that will be considered further in the AA. • Description of significant impacts on the conservation feature of these sites likely to occur from the Plan/Project • Recommendations

(3) Assessment of Alternative Solutions • Examination of alternative solutions

(4) Assessment where no alternative solutions remain and where adverse impacts remain. • The “IROPI test” (Imperative Reasons of Over-riding Public Interest) and compensatory measures

The Habitats Directive promotes a hierarchy of avoidance, mitigation and compensatory measures. Firstly, the plan should aim to avoid any negative impacts on European sites by identifying possible impacts early in the plan making, and writing the plan in order to avoid such impacts. Secondly, mitigation measures should be applied, if necessary, during the AA process to the point, where no adverse impacts on the site(s) remain. If the plan is still likely to result in adverse effects, and no further practicable mitigation is possible, then, it is rejected. If no alternative solutions are identified and the plan is required for imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI test) under Article 6 (4) of the Habitats Directive, then compensation measures are required for any remaining adverse effect.

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/2 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

2. STAGE 1 SCREENING

2.1 Consultation There have been three types of consultation undertaken on the project to date and these are as follows: • Meetings and Workshops with stakeholders environmental and other • Scoping with Statutory and Non Statutory Consultees • Public Consultation

2.1.1 Consultations during Feasibility and Preliminary Design A list of the bodies consulted during the Feasibility Stage of the project is presented below: • Dublin City Council Parks Department • Dublin City Council Biodiversity Officer • Dublin City Council Planning Department • National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) • Eastern Regional Fisheries Board (ERFB) • Department of Communications Marine and Natural Resources (DCMNR) (now Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF)) • Office of Public Works (OPW) • Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI)

Although all of the above bodies were consulted, only the Dublin City Council representatives and the National Parks and Wildlife Service attended meetings with the Design Team. From the outset of this project the NPWS requirements were considered key to the successful design and construction of the proposed development due to the sensitivity of the receiving environment. A meeting was held with Dr Linda Patton (Divisional Ecologist), Dr Maurice Eakin (District Conservation Officer for Eastern Region) and Dr Karen Gaynor (NPWS Wildlife Inspector – Coastal Research and Protection) on 24th January 2007. Roughan & O'Donovan presented the proposed design options to NPWS and each of the options were discussed and the views of NPWS were taken on board. Correspondence was also received from the OPW and the DCMNR and further consultations took place.

A Risk Assessment Forum and Workshop was held on 5th March 2007 with Dublin City Council and the other significant stakeholders to identify and evaluate the risks associated with the design options under consideration.

The various statutory undertakers and other service providers were contacted in order to ascertain the location of their existing services in the immediate vicinity of the proposed scheme.

A Public Consultation event was held in May 2007 and opportunity was taken to specifically invite various groups that would be considered to have an interest in the ecology of the area, such as Coastwatch. This event was held in Raheny Library proved to be quite successful in enabling the Design Team to identify the issues which were most important to both locals and the ecological groups.

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/3 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

2.1.2 Detailed Design and Environmental Assessment Stage A Public Consultation event was held in September 2008. This involved an open evening at the Interpretative Centre on Bull Island where members of the design team presented details of the project to the public and provided a forum for locals to raise any concerns they may have with the design team. This event was well attended with approximately 30 members of the public attending and the response from the attendees was very positive both towards the concept and the design of the scheme. No written responses have been received to date.

A Scoping Document was sent to a list of 62 bodies over the period August and September 2008. The Scoping Document provided information on the proposed scheme and set out the proposed scope of environmental assessment. The document also requested that the consultee respond with any additional requirements which they would like included in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). A total of 17 different bodies submitted responses varying from merely acknowledging receipt of the document to detailed responses.

A meeting between NPWS, DCC and their consultants including the project ecologist Dr Brian Madden of Biosphere Environmental Services was held in April 2008 to discuss the European Court of Justice Ruling (DEHLG Circular Letter SEA 1/08 and NPWS 1/08) and its effect on the proposed project. This led to detailed discussions regarding the requirement for an Appropriate Assessment (AA) and views on how it should be approached.

A further meeting was arranged by Dublin City Council between the NPWS, DCC, Roughan and O’Donovan and Brian Madden on 4th November 2008. The purpose of this meeting was to explain the work that had taken place since the previous meeting in January 2007 and to request their views on the preparation of the Appropriate Assessment (AA) and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A final pre planning meeting with NPWS was held on 24th March 2009 where the design team presented the project, discussed the design, the draft Appropriate Assessment, the requirement for consultations with the European Union (was deemed unnecessary as there would not be a likely significant effect) and possible mitigation measures. Further consultations will be ongoing throughout the process right up to and during the construction of the proposed DPFPP.

2.1.3 National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) As can be seen from the sections above National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) have been the primary stakeholders throughout these consultations. During the course of the proposed design development process the following members of NPWS have been met by members of the design team: • Maurice Eakin • Linda Patton • Karen Gaynor • David Tierney • Terry Doherty • Jim Kelly

2.1.4 Sites Identification The Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project (DP&CPP) will be constructed largely within the south lagoon of the North Bull Island. The North Bull

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/4 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

Island is both a candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) and Special Protection Area (SPA), as well as a Ramsar site, as follows (Refer Figure 7.2.1 – Designated Ecological Areas): • North Dublin Bay candidate Special Area of Conservation (site code 000206) • North Bull Island Special Protection Area (site code 04006) • North BulI Island Ramsar Site

In addition, in accordance with the European Commission Methodological Guidance (EC2001), a list of all other Natura 2000 sites that can be potentially affected by the proposed scheme has been compiled. Adopting the precautionary principle in identifying these sites, it has been decided to include all cSAC and SPA/Ramsar sites within a 10km radius of the North Bull Island, as follows: • South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA (04024) • South Dublin Bay cSAC (0210) • Baldoyle Bay cSAC (0199) • Baldoyle Bay SPA (04016) • Broadmeadow/Swords Estuary SPA (04025) • Malahide Estuary cSAC (0205) • Rogerstown Estuary SPA (04015) • Rogerstown Estuary cSAC (0208) • Howth Head Coast SPA (04113) • Howth Head cSAC (0202) • Irelands Eye cSAC (02193) • Irelands Eye SPA (04117)

Following identification of potential environmental impacts by the proposed scheme (see below), an evaluation will be made of which, if any, of the above Natura sites could be affected (it is accepted that the North Bull Island Natura site will be affected). Sites identified as being potentially affected will be carried forward for appropriate assessment.

2.1.5 Identification of potential impacts Only those development features that have the potential to impact on the Qualifying Interests and Conservation Objectives of the identified Natura sites are considered. A number of factors were examined at this stage and dismissed or carried forward for appropriate assessment as relevant. The following areas were examined in relation to potential impacts from the proposed scheme on SACs/SPAs in the area: • Direct loss of habitats • Indirect loss of habitats • Disturbance to habitats • Water Quality • Disturbance to birds • Collision risk for birds • Hydrological changes

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/5 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

Direct loss of habitats There will be direct loss of habitat within the South Lagoon as a result of the plan.

Alteration of habitats There will be potential alteration of habitats (by shading) within the South Lagoon as a result of the plan.

Disturbance to habitats During the construction phase, there will be disturbance to habitats within the South Lagoon as a result of the plan.

Water Quality During the construction phase, there is potential for impacts on water quality within the South Lagoon and possibly other Natura 2000 sites.

Disturbance to birds The project is likely to cause some disturbance to birds during the construction phase and potentially during the operation phase.

Collision Risk for Birds The cable-stayed section of the proposed plan has potential to impact on bird flight paths to and from the South Lagoon.

Hydrological changes There is potential that the construction of the scheme may cause changes in water patterns along the upper shore, which could cause local changes to patterns of erosion and deposition.

2.1.6 Assessment of effects on Natura sites This section considered the list of sites identified in section 2.1.4. These sites were examined (see below) and in most cases excluded from future assessment on the basis that it can be demonstrated that the plan will have no adverse effects on the integrity of the site as defined by their status and conservation objectives.

The South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA includes the Tolka Basin and this Natura site is thus contigious with the North Bull Island Natura site. Bird populations move between the sites depending on tidal state, disturbance factors etc. Potential impacts on water quality within the Tolka Basin by the construction of the proposed DP&CPP are identified as a potential impact.

The greater part of the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA is the South Bay sector, which is separated from the South Lagoon of the Bull Island by the River Liffey and Dublin Port (distance of c.2 km). Whilst there may be some movements between bird populations in the South Lagoon and the southern part of the bay, recent studies have shown that the populations of most species in the south bay are fairly constant. It is considered unlikely that the construction and operation of the proposed DP&CPP could have any impacts on bird populations in south Dublin Bay.

The South Dublin Bay cSAC is separated from the South Lagoon of the Bull Island by the River Liffey and Dublin Port (distance of c.2 km). Whilst there may be some movements between bird populations in the South Lagoon and the southern part of the bay, recent studies have shown that the populations of most species in the south

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/6 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

bay are fairly constant. It is considered unlikely that the construction and operation of the proposed DP&CPP could have any impacts on conservation interests of the South Dublin Bay cSAC.

Whilst the Baldoyle Bay cSAC and Baldoyle Bay SPA sites are physically close to the North Bull Island, the two areas are separated by the Sutton isthmus and there are no direct links. Birds do commute to some extent between the two areas but there does not appear to be any regular movements and the populations associated with Baldoyle are fairly stable (I-WeBS). It is considered unlikely that the construction and operation of the proposed DP&CPP could have any impacts on conservation interests of the Baldoyle Bay Natura complex.

The Broadmeadow/Swords Estuary SPA, Malahide Estuary cSAC, Rogerstown Estuary SPA and Rogerstown Estuary cSAC are between 7 and 10 km from North Bull Island Natura site. Whilst there may be some inter-site movements of birds between these areas, there is no evidence to show regular movements (nor would regular movements be expected). It is therefore considered most unlikely that the construction and operation of the proposed DP&CPP could have any impacts on the conservation interests of the Broadmeadow/Malahide and Rogerstown Natura sites.

The Howth Head Coast SPA, Howth Head cSAC, Irelands Eye cSAC and Irelands Eye SPA are selected for coastal habitats and nesting seabirds. The construction and operation of the proposed DP&CPP could not have any impacts on the habitats or seabird interests of these Natura sites.

2.1.7 Conclusion From the above, it is considered that apart from the North Bull Island Natura sites the only other Natura site that could be affected in any way by the proposed DP&CPP is the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA.

On this basis, and following consultation with NPWS personnel, the screening stage concluded with the recommendation to proceed to Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment for these Natura sites.

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/7 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

3. STAGE 2 APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

3.1 Stage 2A – Analysis of the sites and the reasons for the designations, and the underlying trends affecting them In this section the Natura sites selected for appropriate assessment are described briefly and all the potential impacts resulting from the proposed scheme are discussed in relation to the conservation objectives of the sites. • North Dublin Bay candidate Special Area of Conservation (site code 000206) The site comprises the inner part of north Dublin Bay, the seaward boundary extending from the Bull Wall lighthouse across to the Martello Tower at Howth Head. The North Bull Island and the lagoons are the focal point of the site, with excellent examples of various sand dune and salt marsh habitats, as well as intertidal sand and mud flats. North Dublin Bay has been selected for a total of ten Annex I marine or marine-dependant habitats. Within the lagoon, and of relevance in this instance, are the habitats ‘mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide’, ‘Atlantic salt meadows’, ‘Mediterranean salt meadows’ and ‘Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand’. A detailed site description (Site Synopsis) and the draft Conservation Objectives (received from NPWS 21st May 2009) is provided in Appendix 1.

• North Bull Island Special Protection Area (SPA) (site code 04006) and Ramsar Site The reason for the SPA designation is that the North Bull Island is internationally important for a number of waterbird species, namely Pale-bellied Brent Geese, Bar-tailed Godwit and Black-tailed Godwit. In addition, at least 14 other waterbird species regularly exceed the qualifying thresholds for national importance – these are Shelduck, Teal, Pintail, Shoveler, Oystercatcher, Ringed Plover, Golden Plover Grey Plover, Knot, Sanderling, Dunlin, Curlew, Redshank and Turnstone. The site qualifies as an internationally important wetland for waterbirds under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance as it regularly supports over 20,000 individual waterbirds. A detailed site description (Site Synopsis) and the proposed Qualifying Interests (received from NPWS 21st May 2009) is provided in Appendix 2.

• South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA (04024) This site comprises virtually all of the intertidal area in the south bay, as well as much of the Tolka Estuary to the north of the River Liffey. A portion of the shallow bay waters is also included. The site is an important site for wintering waterfowl, being an integral part of the internationally important Dublin Bay complex. Although birds regularly commute between the south bay and the north bay, recent studies have shown that certain populations which occur in the south bay spend most of their time there. An internationally important population of Brent Geese occurs regularly and newly arrived birds in the autumn feed on the Eelgrass bed at Merrion. Supports important populations of a range of other species, notably Great Crested Grebe, Oystercatcher, Ringed Plover, Knot, Sanderling, Dunlin, Bar-tailed Godwit, Redshank and Turnstone. South Dublin Bay is an important site for wintering gulls, especially Black-headed Gull, Common Gull and Herring Gull. The south bay is an important tern roost in the autumn (mostly late July to September), with over 10,000 terns recorded in recent studies. A detailed description is given in the Site Synopsis attached in Appendix 3.

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/8 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

3.2 Stage 2B – Analysis of the project including its key components The recommended structures for the proposed promenade / cycleway vary at different locations along the length of the scheme (refer Figures 3.2 to 3.14 in Volume 2 of the Environmental Impact Statement). Three design options are make up the proposed DPFPP as follows: Option 1 Independent steel superstructure supported on steel driven piles. Option 2 Retaining wall and cantilevered deck option bearing directly on a suitable bearing strata or steel driven piles. Option 3 Independent cable-stayed superstructure consisting of an orthotropic box structure supported by cable-stays and a concrete pylon substructure and concrete base supported on driven piles.

The various options are varied to suit the location and topography of the proposed route. Chainage 0+000 to 0+260 – Option 1 runs approx. 7m into the Lagoon and parallel to the existing seawall. Chainage 0+260 to 0+550 – Option 2 runs inside the existing grass embankment and parallel to the existing footpath on a smooth curve around the existing tram shelter. Chainage 0+550 to 1+000 – Option 1 runs 7m into the Lagoon and parallel to the existing sea wall. Chainage 1+000 to 1+450 – Option 3 runs 7m into the Lagoon and parallel to the existing sea wall. Chainage 1+450 to 1+580 – Option 1 runs 7m into the Lagoon and parallel to the existing sea wall including across the Nanniken Stream. Chainage 1+580 to 1+900 – The existing promenade / cycleway will be upgraded.

The design of the alignment has been modified consistently over the duration of the detailed design to ensure that the all potential areas of land on the seaward side of the wall are used to minimise the disturbance to the lagoon. Another extremely important consideration of the scheme is to ensure that any development caters for improvements in coastal protection and flood defence. The proposed scheme is designed to withstand an appropriate set of tide and wave parameters and in doing so will provide an adequate level of protection against flooding. This will be done by the construction of a wave reduction barrier on the seaward side of the promenade deck which reduces the height of the flood defence wall on the inside of the promenade. The required flood defence level, when a wave reduction barrier is present in front of the new promenade, has been determined using the overtopping calculations as described above and resulted in a minimum required level of +4.25m ODM. This is more acceptable from a visual perspective when compared to the minimum required level of +4.6m ODM which would be required in the absence of a wave reduction barrier.

3.3 Stage 2C – Determining whether, in view of the site’s conservation objectives, the plan, “not in combination” with other plans and projects, would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites 3.3.1 Construction Phase Impacts Loss of Habitat The marine ecological impact assessment (Appendix 4) identified fourteen marine biotopes within the South Bull Island Lagoon. Within the vicinity of the proposed works these are dominated by littoral muds, littoral muddy sands and sheltered littoral

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/9 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

rock. One small eel grass (Zostera noltii) bed was also recorded but it is not thought that it will be impacted as it lies considerably outside the development site.

With reference to the precautionary principle all inter-tidal habitats which will be impacted by the scheme are considered as possessing qualifying interest under the Habitats Directive.

The appropriate application of the three design options will achieve minimal impact on or loss of shoreline habitats. This minimal impact has been maximised through the judicious use of the existing strips of marginal infill which is present in places along the upper shore. Total complete loss of habitat is calculated at 94.6 m2, mostly as a result of the support piles and the tower foundations for the cable stayed section. This is negligible (0.013%) in the context of the total area of intertidal mud and sand flats in the South Lagoon, which is calculated for this project at 699,520m2. (Note: The calculation of the total area of the lagoon (i.e. intertidal mudflats) is approximate, as in places there is a gradation between Salicornia/saltmarsh and intertidal mud. An earlier estimate made by Jeffrey et al. (1992) gave a figure of 72.4 ha).

However due to the design of the promenade at Section 2 by building a retaining wall behind the existing sea wall and removal of the old lower sea wall and fill material, an additional 481 m2 of mudflats will be created by the proposed promenade scheme. Overall, the proposed development will result in the creation of an additional 386.4m2 (net gain) mudflats.

In addition to actual loss of habitat, potential displacement of birds from the shaded area beneath the platform, resulting in the effective loss of feeding habitat, requires consideration. An area of 11,813m2 of intertidal mudflat will be directly under the platform. This is equivalent to 1.69% (approx) of the total area of intertidal mud and sand flats in the South Lagoon. The extension of the platform out onto the flats varies according to the design used between 2.5 to 7.4m. The average height of the platform is 2.5m above the mudflats.

The evaluation of this impact needs to be made in the context of the present usage of the extreme upper shoreline (reflecting biotopes present), the expected behaviour of the bird species involved and their likelihood to habituate. Further, shading will alter the animal and plant communities. An assessment of the latter has been made in the Marine Ecological Impact Assessment (Appendix 4), as follows:

“A reduction in the incident light on the macroalgal species may lead to a reduction in photosynthesis, and therefore a reduction in growth rates. The species composition may change to one more tolerant of reduced light levels, while the recolonisation of areas cleared during construction will be slowed down. A positive impact of the reduction in incident light is the reduction in the stress experienced by algae, and macroinvertebrates that use it as cover, due to desiccation caused by exposure during sunny periods’ (for examples of latter, see Jeffrey et al. 1992).”

It is noted that the walkway will have a SE aspect and therefore the substrate under it will not be shaded all the time, especially with 2.5m clearance. In fact, with low winter sunshine, it is expected to be largely unshaded from dawn to mid-day.

From the bird perspective, prey items will still occur beneath the promenade, with possible increases in some species of macroinvertebrates. Relatively few birds will be potentially affected due to the low usage of the extreme upper strip of the lagoon. Turnstone is the species considered most at risk as it occurs regularly on the fucoid

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/10 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

covered stony shore in zone A (north of Bull Wall) where the platform will be on piles. Turnstone, however, is a versatile species and often displays a willingness to forage beneath structures such as bridges and jetties and even cars (personal observations O. Merne) - it would be expected that birds would habituate to some extent and venture at least partly beneath the platform in search of prey items.

It is concluded that the construction of the scheme will not result in significant loss of cSAC habitat and will not reduce significantly the food resources potentially available to waterbirds in the South Lagoon.

Disturbance of Habitats During construction, machinery and personnel may disturb the surrounding seashore resulting in a change in habitat. However, this is a short-term impact and recovery is expected in the medium term. Further, if works are carried out during the early summer period there will be few birds present and any potential impact will thus be minimised. Mitigation to minimise this habitat disturbance, including a preference for works from the landward side, is discussed in Section 3.5.

Disturbance of Birds Disturbance would be caused to birds by the physical presence of people and machinery during the construction phase. The zone of disturbance would vary depending on the location and activity being undertaken, though could extend to at least the main channel within the lagoon (and certainly would when works are in progress in Zones E and F). Such disturbance, if occurring during the winter period (September to March inclusive) could be significant though temporary in duration. For works carried out in summer (May to July), this impact is likely to be Negligible or Minor. (See Appendix 5 ‘Ornithological Assessment’)

Increased Sedimentation and Suspended Solids There may be an increase in the turbidity of the water during the construction of the cycleway/promenade. This could result in increased siltation, smothering of organisms and a reduction of light for phytoplankton and seaweed. This is likely to be localised and restricted to the immediate area around the cycleway/promenade during the construction period and for a short time afterwards. The marine environment in South Bull Island Lagoon is primarily sedimentary with macrofaunal species that favour these conditions. Therefore, it is envisaged that any temporary increase in suspended solids is likely to have minimal impact. (Note: it is highly unlikely that any effects would be caused to the sediments and associated organisms in the adjoining Tolka Basin).

Fish species can, however, be susceptible to an increase in suspended solids. The function of the gills can be inhibited by excessive amounts of suspended solids in the water column. Vision can be impaired by turbidity (decreased transparency), thus reducing the fish's ability to capture prey items. The release of suspended solids can also result in a change of habitat on the seabed when particles settle out. This may alter the composition of invertebrate communities perhaps reducing those that are prey for fish. Suspended matter will eventually settle onto the seabed and fill the spaces between gravel and rocks where fish eggs are laid, which could result in a loss of spawning habitat.

While there is the potential for negative effects from high levels of suspended solids, the volume of suspended material is likely to be low and within the natural range of variation for the lagoon system. Fish are mobile species that will actively avoid unfavourable conditions. The suspended solids will not form a 'barrier' across the

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/11 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

lagoon and thus fish will be able to avoid affected areas and little or no damage is likely to their gill function. The likely volume of suspended material additional to prevailing conditions will be low and quickly dispersed; therefore it is unlikely to restrict the feeding activities of fish. If any area is affected it will be very small compared to the available unaffected feeding area. The type of sediment that could be suspended is very similar in composition to that occurring naturally in the lagoon and it is therefore unlikely that the habitat for invertebrate species will be altered significantly. There is no evidence of gravel spawning beds within South Bull Island Lagoon that will be impacted by the suspended material settling out.

Pollutants and Waste Contamination of the area due to accidental spillage of pollutants, waste, e.g. oil and other chemicals, or litter, may occur during the removal and construction phase. However, if suitable precautions are taken and best practice for the storage, handling and disposal of such material followed, impacts on the marine ecology and fish communities will be negligible.

Compacting of Littoral Sediments Construction of the cycleway/promenade should be approached from the landward side. However, should it be necessary for construction to occur on the seaward side of the site, vehicles movements on the mudflats will be kept to the minimum required and follow the same tracks as much as is practicable to minimise the area of compacting of intertidal sediments.

Conclusion of Construction Impacts The conclusion is that the impact on the marine environment, including the macro- invertebrate fauna, will be minor and temporary in nature providing mitigation measures as outlined in Section 3.5 are enacted. Similarly, it is considered that the impacts on birds would, at most, be minor and temporary.

3.3.2 Operational Phase Removal and Alteration of Habitats and Species The construction will impact on the seashore in the immediate footprint of the cycleway/promenade. The existing seashore supports a range of hard substrata communities that are not abundant in the Bull Island area. The loss of the habitat associated with the construction will be permanent and the species associated with it will be lost. The substratum on the upper shore was a mixture of boulders, cobbles and pebbles. Mixed substrata in the area support a greater range of species than the existing concrete and rock. The installation of the cycleway/promenade of the proposed design will result in the loss of some of these mixed substrata, but will also create new hard substratum for colonisation by algae, sessile organisms and related species. The proposed design, with the cycleway/promenade supported on piles, greatly reduces the impact of the loss of existing hard substrata as compared with the infill design used in the North Bull Island Lagoon.

Change in Hydrographic Conditions The construction of the cycleway/promenade may cause changes in water patterns along the upper shore. This may cause changes to patterns of erosion and deposition, changing the particle size distribution around the piles. The small area that would be affected by the installation of piles and any resulting changes to the hydrography is not likely to be significant.

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/12 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

Effect of Shading The effects of shading on the marine species of this area would be both negative and positive. A reduction in the incident light on the macroalgal species may lead to a reduction in photosynthesis, and therefore a reduction in growth rates. The species composition may change to one more tolerant of reduced light levels, while the recolonisation of areas cleared during construction will be slowed down. A positive impact of the reduction in incident light is the reduction in the stress experienced by algae, and macroinvertebrates that use it as cover, due to desiccation caused by exposure during sunny periods.

Currently, the most likely limiting factor for the growth of brown algae in the area is the lack of suitable substratum for attachment. Existing shaded areas on the seawall adjacent to the wooden bridge have good growths of brown algae owing to the suitability if the seawall here to support these species. The shading caused by the cycleway/promenade is unlikely to have a significant negative impact upon the existing marine flora and fauna in the lagoon

Impact by Disturbance from Users During the operation of the scheme disturbance to birds in the lagoon could be caused by the users (walkers, cyclists etc.).

The scheme will not increase access to the lagoon and will in fact make access along the route more difficult than it is at present as there will be a sheer drop of 2.5m (average) from the platform to the intertidal flats.

Consideration needs to be given as to whether the cable-stayed of the scheme poses any risk to waterbirds commuting from the lagoon to other locations.

Existing Disturbance During the field surveys, observations were made of incidents of disturbance to the birds within the lagoon.

Human disturbance occasionally affected the distribution of waterbirds in the study area. On one occasion a bait-digger was seen on the shore in Zone C, and no birds were recorded feeding within 70m of the bait-digger. On another occasion (25th January 2009) three bait diggers were in the centre of the lagoon for a prolonged period and led to substantial local disturbance. Bait digging was highlighted as a potential problem in the South Lagoon by Jeffrey et al. (1992). Two main problems may arise which affects birds - (i) pressure on the actual bait species (mainly Hediste diversicolor and Arenicola marina) and probably a particular age class of the animals, and (ii) disturbance to birds. Whilst this activity certainly has disturbance impacts on the bird populations of the lagoon, there does not appear to be quantitative data to demonstrate the significance of this.

Otherwise, very little human disturbance occurred during the survey visits. The North Bull Island has been a bird sanctuary since the 1930s, and generations of migratory waterbirds have enjoyed protection from hunting and other disturbing human activities. Consequently, they have become very confiding and habituated to various kinds of human activity at close proximity, e.g. walking, running/jogging, exercising dogs on leads, cycling, etc. They are also accustomed to heavy traffic (of cars, motorcycles, vans, HGVs and buses) constantly moving along the main road, and, to a much lesser extent, on the causeway and North Bull Wall.

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/13 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

However, it was noted during the 2008/09 visits that some species were prone to fly off a short distance whenever someone stopped on the footpath overlooking individual birds or flocks at close proximity (up to c.25m). Such occurrences were infrequent and of very short duration, and were considered not to be significant it terms of increased energy demands for the birds and reduction of foraging time.

It was also noted that waterbirds feeding on the upper shore, close to the main road and footpath tended to be disturbed more when they could see most or all of the human figures due to the low elevation of the sea wall in some places. Where the seawall was c.1m high, the disturbance appeared to be greatly reduced.

Potential Disturbance by the Proposed Scheme The design of the scheme includes a parapet along the entire length. The lower 90 cm will include an opaque screen, which will distort the human figure to birds on the intertidal flats below. Also, the screen will be above the height of most dogs.

Taking into account this design, and considering (i) the relatively low numbers of birds that use the intertidal flats between the road and the central channel (and critically the absence of high tide roosts), and (ii) the fact that the birds are long habituated to passing people and traffic, it is considered that the disturbance to birds from users of the promenade would not be of significance. Essentially the new conditions will be similar to those pertaining at present from the perspective of potential disturbance.

Lighting Lighting will be required along the promenade, though this will be focused away from the lagoon.

While artificial lighting is normally considered a negative impact on wildlife, in the case of the Bull Island there is already a high degree of street and background lighting and it seems that the birds within the lagoon are well adapted to it. In fact, birds may often be seen here night-feeding in the glare of the artificial lighting (BM personal observations).

Most waders will feed at night through necessity though it has been shown in a range of studies that daytime feeding is more productive (Hale 1980). Hale notes that ‘in areas where there is strong street-lighting, e.g. Morecambe, waders can often be seen feeding at night, but here the lighting itself may create an artificial situation’.

Collision Risk by Cable-stayed Section A section of the scheme (420m) along the northern end will be cable-stayed. Five pylons will carry a series of wire cables from a maximum height of 10.75m approximately above deck level. The cables will vary in distance apart from a maximum of 5m towards the base. The cable ropes will be approximately 30-50mm in diameter.

This section could pose a potential hazard to flighting birds, especially Brent Geese, moving between the South Lagoon and feeding grounds in St. Anne’s Park and other inland feeding areas in the hinterland. Hence, particular attention was given to this issue during the 2008/09 field surveys.

Inland feeding by Brent Geese has increased greatly over the last twenty-five years or so, as the overall population has increased and limited marine food resources have remained static. An MSc study being carried out by Lorraine Benson at UCD

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/14 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

during the 2008/09 winter has identified c.30 inland feeding sites in the Greater Dublin area. Observations of dawn and dusk flighting indicate that the great majority of the Brent Geese wintering in Dublin Bay engage in inland feeding in mid- and late winter, and that the birds roost at night at the North Bull Island North and South Lagoons. They leave the lagoons for the inland feeding grounds at dawn, and return at dusk, and flocks feeding close to the North Bull Island during the day sometimes return to the lagoons when disturbed and/or to rest, bathe, preen, and socialise.

During the course of the 2008/09 season observations on Brent Goose flighting movements were carried out on a number of occasions at dawn and dusk, and also during the course of counting the waterbirds in the study area in the South Lagoon. In addition, valuable discussions on Brent Goose flighting movements were held with Lorraine Benson, and with Stewart Holohan, an experienced ornithologist who has been monitoring waterbirds at the North Bull Island at weekly intervals over a number of years.

The combined observations indicate that:- • The great majority of Brent Geese on the North Bull Island did not use the grass areas in St. Anne’s Park (adjacent to the South Lagoon) during winter 08/09, but flighted further afield to sites at Fairview and up to 10 km inland. An exception to this occurred in February, when up to 1,450 Brent Geese were observed first flighting to the South Lagoon about 30 minutes before sunset, and then flying into St. Anne’s Park where they grazed intensively before returning to the South Lagoon about ten minutes after sunset. This behaviour may have been triggered by the need to take on extra food during a period of prolonged cold weather, at a time when food resources in the feeding range were probably somewhat depleted. This large number of birds was seen to fly into and out of St. Anne’s Park at an altitude well clear of the proposed walkway pillars and suspension cables. • All flocks observed flighting between the South Lagoon and the inland feeding areas have been estimated to fly at altitudes of at least 25-30m above high buildings/structures, trees, powerlines, etc. • Brent Geese flying back to the North Bull Island during daytime and at dusk have been seen coming in over St. Anne’s Park well above the treeline beside James Larkin Road, over the road itself, and then descending steeply over the lagoon to land there. • When leaving the South Lagoon at dawn and during the day, flocks of Brent Geese have been observed gaining height over the lagoon before flying inland clear of the mature trees at St. Anne’s Park.

It is concluded that the support cables and pillars for the suspended sections of the S2S walkway will not present a hazard to flighting Brent Geese, particularly as (i) these structures are not higher than the existing lamp-posts along James Larkin Road (which are approximately 10m high), and (ii) are well below the level of the tallest trees at the edge of St. Anne’s Park. In the event that normal flighting behaviour and flight altitude are disrupted occasionally by very poor light and visibility conditions, perhaps causing Brent Geese to fly at a lower altitude, it is recommended that the proposed towers and support cables be painted a pale colour, to make them visible to flying birds and that the pillars are illuminated at night (see Stage 2E Impact Mitigation).

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/15 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

3.4 Stage 2D – Analysis of “in combination” Effects The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) requires competent authorities to make an appropriate assessment of any plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect alone or in combination with other plans and projects.

The consideration of in combination effects has been limited to the geographical extent of Dublin Bay, with focus on estuarine and marine habitats and associated bird populations.

Consultations with the relevant local authorities and a literature search has produced a list of projects that could have, or have had, impacts. These projects are at various stages of planning, some only at feasibility stage (and those advancing to planning would be subject to Appropriate Assessment).

The following projects or plans have been considered: • Dublin Eastern Bypass • Dublin Gateway Project • Dublin Port Tunnel • Poolbeg Planning Scheme • Sutton-to-Sandycove : Phase 2 Sean Moore Park to East Pier Dun Laoghaire • Sutton-to-Sandycove : East Pier to Sandycove

Dublin Eastern Bypass Project (DEBP) The DEBP project affects South Dublin Bay (the South Dublin Bay cSAC and SPA). This project could include a number of possible design solutions, including tunnel, cut and cover, and viaduct options. At the least, some estuarine and marine habitats would be lost. Substantial disturbance is likely to arise during the construction period. Bird populations would be affected to some extent by these impacts. Appropriate mitigation would be necessary to minimise impacts and there could be a need for the creation of compensatory habitats.

Dublin Gateway Project This proposed project would involve the loss of approximately 21 ha of intertidal mudflats (the majority of which is within the revised South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA). Substantial disturbance would be caused to adjoining areas both during construction and operation (from dredging). The EIS describes the affected benthic communities as typical of disturbed, fine and gravelly sediments and not of conservation value. The impact by the loss of such communities is predicted as a permanent minor negative impact.

Three key species of waders, oystercatcher, curlew and turnstone, are regular users of the area. The area is also used by the Annex I species Common Tern. The EIS considers that the loss of feeding habitat, although long-term, as a minor negative impact. The provision of compensatory habitat has not been considered necessary.

Dublin Port Tunnel This project resulted in the loss of 2.2 ha of intertidal habitat from the South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA.

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/16 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

Poolbeg Planning Scheme The Appropriate Assessment carried out for this scheme concludes that no direct impacts on the Dublin Bay Natura 2000 sites are expected, provided that the mitigation policies and objectives set out are strictly adhered to. The loss of a minor area of artificial grassland within the draft planning scheme area for an access road will have indirect negative impacts for wintering Brent Geese which are a qualifying interest of the South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA. This will have negative impacts on the integrity of one of the existing Natura 2000 sites.

It was noted that there could be severe long term negative impacts on the designated areas of Dublin Bay, particularly if the southern boundary of the peninsula is altered in such a way as to alter the existing high tide line or in any way change the existing geomorphological and sedimentological situation that exists in the bay

Sutton-to-Sandycove: Phase 2 Sean Moore Park to East Pier Dun Laoghaire The S2S Phase 2 project would involve the loss of up to 4 ha of intertidal habitats along the upper shoreline (all within the South Dublin Bay cSAC and SPA). This would affect both feeding and roosting wetland birds. In particular, the internationally important roosting tern population could be adversely affected. Without adequate mitigation, the scheme could also cause disturbance to birds from users and also by facilitating access to areas used by birds.

Sutton-to-Sandycove: East Pier to Sandycove This project would involve the loss of some intertidal or marine habitats. The affected areas, however, are not within the Dublin Bay Natura 2000 sites.

Assessment of ‘in-combination’ Effects It is apparent that there are a number of substantial projects proposed or planned which could affect the Dublin Bay Natura 2000 sites.

Already, two hectares of intertidal habitat has been lost as a result of the Dublin Port Tunnel.

Should the other projects proceed, the Dublin Gateway Project would clearly have a substantial impact on the Tolka Estuary SPA in terms of the scale of habitat loss. Further, the Gateway Project could have effects on other Natura 2000 sites, including the North Bull Island SAC and SPA, through increased sedimentation etc.

In the South Bay, the proposed Sutton-to-Sandycove Phase 2 scheme would involve loss of habitat and, perhaps more importantly, potential significant disturbance to birds. The Eastern Bypass scheme is not advanced to the stage to determine the extent of habitat loss or disturbance but because of the scale of the project, this could be substantial.

If all the above projects were to proceed, there would be a minimum of 27 ha of intertidal habitat lost.

It is noted, of course, that all the individual projects would be subject to appropriate assessment and in some cases compensatory habitat could be required for the projects to proceed.

Even if all of the above projects were to proceed, it is considered that the Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Project would not add significantly to the potential adverse

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/17 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

cumulative impact on the interests of the Dublin Bay Natura 2000 sites, for the following main reasons: • Loss of habitat is negligible (94.6m2) • Creation of new mudflat is more than the area to be lost (481m2) • The area of intertidal habitats shaded by the platform (1.1ha) will still function as intertidal mudflats and will provide feeding for some bird species • Disturbance during construction can be mitigated, including seasonal constraints for wintering birds • Disturbance to birds during operation will not differ much from the existing situation (to which the birds are well habituated).

3.5 Stage 2E – Impact Mitigation 3.5.1 Mitigation Through Design The design of the scheme has been carried out in consultation with the project ecologist. The following measures are key to minimising impacts on the waterbirds and their habitats. • The three design approaches chosen, whereby the proposed promenade and cycleway is supported on a structure, have been selected principally in order to minimise loss of habitat for birds. Less expensive approaches such as infilling and use of rock armour have been rejected for this reason. • Maximum use has been made of existing infill areas between the lagoon and the existing path to reduce area of mudflats overhung and subject to shading. • The entire promenade will have an opaque screen of 90cm height to break the outline of users (walking or cyclists) and hide (most) dogs from the view of birds on the flats below. • Decking material used on the platform will be a thick deck plate with a Bridgemaster surfacing adhered directly to the top of the bridge deck – this will minimise the sound from walkers etc. • Lights on the promenade deck will be focused away from the lagoon. • The pylons of the cable-stayed section have been designed to ensure that they are of a height less than the existing street lamps and the treeline in St Anne’s so that the potential for collision is virtually eliminated. • The pylons and cables will be of a pale colour and lit at night so that they are always visible to approaching birds in poor weather conditions (when birds could be disorientated).

3.5.2 Timing of Construction Works As much of the heavy construction work as is feasible will be carried out during the main summer season (May to July inclusive) when the least number of birds are present so as to minimise potential disturbance. Virtually all of the key species, such as Brent Geese, Shoveler, Knot and Bar-tailed Godwits, are away on the breeding grounds for this period. This is especially relevant to works from within the lagoon.

Should works be carried out during the winter period, these should be confined to restricted areas at any one time so as to confine potential disturbance.

3.5.3 Construction Works To minimise the loss of the littoral mudflat habitat and species, the area of construction should be kept to the minimum required. Construction should be

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/18 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

approached where possible from the landward side to avoid disturbing neighbouring mudflats within the cSAC. In terms of the proposed construction techniques, this would involve avoiding the creation of a “haul road” along the mudflat, and rather conduct construction works from the James Larkin Road. The use of a pile- supported design has reduced the area of habitat that will be lost due to the construction of the cycleway/promenade and will provide new areas of hard substrata for colonisation by hard substrata species in the area. The various measures and recommendations as outlined will all help to minimise potential degradation / disturbance of habitats used by wintering waterbirds.

Increased Suspended Solids To minimise the amount of suspended solids released into the water column during construction, efforts should be made to minimise the area disturbed. Needless clearing and grading should be minimised and phased to limit exposure. Excavation should be carried out at low tide when the area is exposed and there is no water to carry away disturbed sediment.

Compacting of Littoral Sediments Construction of the cycleway/promenade should be approached from the landward side. However, should it be necessary for construction of the embankment wall to occur on the seaward side of the site, vehicles movements on the mudflats should be kept to the minimum required and follow the same tracks as much as is practicable to minimise the area of compacting of littoral sediments.

Pollutants and Waste To prevent chemical pollution during construction, all fuels or chemicals kept on the construction site should be stored in bunded containers. All refuelling and maintenance should be carried out away from the site. Oil interceptors should also be installed in appropriate locations. Equipment should be regularly maintained and leaks repaired immediately away from the site. Accidental spillages should be contained, cleaned up immediately and relevant Enforcement Authority informed. Appropriate oil-spill containment equipment and oil-absorbent material should be available on-site and staff trained in its proper use should be on-site at all times during construction operations.

During the construction phase, contained chemical portable toilets should be used and all sewage should be removed from the site to an authorised treatment works. No sewage should be discharged to the lagoon.

3.5.4 Possible Habitat Enhancement While it is considered that the proposed scheme will not have significant impacts on the birds of the South Lagoon or adjoining areas, it is considered appropriate to suggest that following post construction monitoring of the effect of the promenade on birds the infill area at the causeway may be managed so that it could be used for feeding by a suite of species, including some of the species that occur in the vicinity of the walkway (especially Brent Geese and Wigeon but also some waders). This would only be undertaken in consultation between National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and Dublin City Council Parks Department.

The grassland areas which occur either side of the causeway (mainland end) could be made more suitable as feeding areas by sward management. These areas had been used by Brent Geese, Oystercatchers and Black-tailed Godwits in the recent past when management was more appropriate. Management would include closer

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/19 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

mowing of the sward, particularly in early winter when numbers of birds are increasing and the green algal beds in the lagoons are dying back and being depleted. In addition to the above mentioned species, the areas could attract Wigeon, Redshank and even Turnstones. Cramp et al. (1983) note that Turnstones outside of the breeding season ‘will feed inland on pastures at high tide’, and indeed the Turnstone population at Greystones, Co. Wicklow, where intertidal flats are limited, feed for a high proportion of their time on the driving range inland of the railway (personal observations, B. Madden).

It is certain that such areas would be used by the birds – prime examples occur at Clontarf where birds readily feed on well-maintained grassland in close proximity to traffic and people, and also in areas which adjoin the Irishtown and Sandymount area of the South Bay.

Advice is readily available on how to maximise the value of such swards for grazing by geese and feeding by probing waders.

3.5.5 Monitoring Construction Phase Owing to the high conservation value of the North Bull system, a qualified ecologist should be on site as considered necessary when works are being undertaken within the lagoon to ensure that minimal disturbance is caused to the intertidal sand and mud flats.

It is essential that good liaison is established with the local NPWS management. In particular, NPWS should be kept informed of the planning timescale for the proposed scheme.

At the end of construction works, a site inspection will be carried out by the ecologist and a report will be prepared for the NPWS.

Operation Phase Following the completion of the works, it would be desirable that a series of surveys similar to those in the present study should take place over the course of at least one full winter. These would assess if the numbers of birds in the area are similar to the pre-construction baseline figures. The efficiency of the screening parapet can be assessed and if necessary a recommendation could be made to modify this.

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Page 7.2/20 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

Appendices

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

Appendix 1

North Dublin Bay cSAC – Site Synopsis and Conservation Objectives

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Appendix 1 SITE SYNOPSIS

SITE NAME : NORTH DUBLIN BAY

SITE CODE : 000206

This site covers the inner part of north Dublin Bay, the seaward boundary extending from the Bull Wall lighthouse across to the Martello Tower at Howth Head.

The North Bull Island is the focal point of this site. The island is a sandy spit which formed after the building of the South Wall and Bull Wall in the 18th and 19th centuries. It now extends for about 5 km in length and is up to 1 km wide in places. A well-developed and dynamic dune system stretches along the seaward side of the island. Various types of dunes occur, from fixed dune grassland to pioneer communities on foredunes. Marram Grass ( Ammophila arenaria ) is dominant on the outer dune ridges, with Lyme Grass ( Leymus arenarius ) and Sea Couchgrass ( Elymus farctus ) on the foredunes. Behind the first dune ridge, plant diversity increases with the appearance of such species as Wild Pansy ( Viola tricolor) , Kidney Vetch (Anthyllis vulneraria ), Bird's-foot Trefoil ( Lotus corniculatus ), Rest Harrow ( Ononis repens ), Yellow Rattle ( Rhinanthus minor ) and Pyramidal Orchid ( Anacamptis pyramidalis ). In these grassy areas and slacks, the scarce Bee Orchid ( Ophrys apifera ) occurs.

About 1 km from the tip of the island, a large dune slack with a rich flora occurs, usually referred to as the 'Alder Marsh' because of the presence of Alder trees ( Alnus spp). The water table is very near the surface and is only slightly brackish. Saltmarsh Rush ( Juncus maritimus ) is the dominant species, with Meadow Sweet ( Filipendula ulmaria ) and Devil's-bit ( Succisa pratensis ) being frequent. The orchid flora is notable and includes Marsh Helleborine ( Epipactis palustris ), Common Twayblade (Listera ovata ), Autumn Lady's-tresses ( Spiranthes spiralis ) and Marsh orchids (Dactylorhiza spp.)

Saltmarsh extends along the length of the landward side of the island. The edge of the marsh is marked by an eroding edge which varies from 20 cm to 60 cm high. The marsh can be zoned into different levels according to the vegetation types present. On the lower marsh, Glasswort ( Salicornia europaea ), Saltmarsh Grass ( Puccinellia maritima ), Annual Sea-blite ( Suaeda maritima ) and Greater Sea-spurrey ( Spergularia media ) are the main species. Higher up in the middle marsh Sea Plantain ( Plantago maritima ), Sea Aster ( Aster tripolium ), Sea Arrowgrass ( Triglochin maritima ) and Sea Pink ( Armeria maritima ) appear. Above the mark of the normal high tide, species such as Scurvy Grass ( Cochlearia officinalis ) and Sea Milkwort ( Glaux maritima ) are found, while on the extreme upper marsh, Sea Rushes ( Juncus maritimus and J. gerardii ) are dominant. Towards the tip of the island, the saltmarsh grades naturally into fixed dune vegetation.

The island shelters two intertidal lagoons which are divided by a solid causeway. The sediments of the lagoons are mainly sands with a small and varying mixture of silt and clay. The north lagoon has an area known as the " Salicornia flat", which is dominated by Salicornia dolichostachya , a pioneer Glasswort species, and covers about 25 ha. Tassel Weed ( Ruppia maritima) occurs in this area, along with some Eelgrass (Zostera angustifolia ). Eelgrass ( Z. noltii ) also occurs in Sutton Creek. Cordgrass (Spartina anglica ) occurs in places but its growth is controlled by management. Green algal mats ( Enteromorpha spp., Ulva lactuca ) cover large areas of the flats during summer. These sediments have a rich macrofauna, with high densities of Lugworms ( Arenicola marina ) in parts of the north lagoon. Mussels ( Mytilus edulis ) occur in places, along with bivalves such as Cerastoderma edule , Macoma balthica and Scrobicularia plana . The small gastropod Hydrobia ulvae occurs in high densities in places, while the crustaceans Corophium volutator and Carcinus maenas are common. The sediments on the seaward side of North Bull Island are mostly sands. The site extends below the low spring tide mark to include an area of the sublittoral zone.

Three Rare plant species legally protected under the Flora Protection Order 1987 have been recorded on the North Bull Island. These are Lesser Centaury ( Centaurium pulchellum ), Hemp Nettle ( Galeopsis angustifolia ) and Meadow Saxifrage ( Saxifraga granulata ). Two further species listed as threatened in the Red Data Book, Wild Sage (Salvia verbenaca ) and Spring Vetch ( Vicia lathyroides ), have also been recorded. A rare liverwort, Petalophyllum ralfsii, was first recorded from the North Bull Island in 1874 and has recently been confirmed as being still present there. This species is of high conservation value as it is listed on Annex II of the E.U. Habitats Directive. The North Bull is the only known extant site for the species in Ireland away from the western seaboard.

North Dublin Bay is of international importance for waterfowl. During the 1994/95 to 1996/97 period the following species occurred in internationally important numbers (figures are average maxima): Brent Geese 2,333; Knot 4,423; Bar-tailed Godwit 1,586. A further 14 species occurred in nationally important concentrations - Shelduck 1505; Wigeon 1,166; Teal 1,512; Pintail 334; Shoveler 239; Oystercatcher 2,190; Ringed Plover 346; Grey Plover 816; Sanderling 357; Dunlin 6,238; Black- tailed Godwit 156; Curlew 1,193; Turnstone 197 and Redshank 1,175. Some of these species frequent South Dublin Bay and the River Tolka Estuary for feeding and/or roosting purposes (mostly Brent Goose, Oystercatcher, Ringed Plover, Sanderling, Dunlin).

The tip of the North Bull Island is a traditional nesting site for Little Tern. A high total of 88 pairs nested in 1987. However, nesting attempts have not been successful since the early 1990s. Ringed Plover, Shelduck, Mallard, Skylark, Meadow Pipit and Stonechat also nest. A well-known population of Irish Hare is resident on the island

The invertebrates of the North Bull Island have been studied and the island has been shown to contain at least seven species of regional or national importance in Ireland (Orders Diptera, Hymenoptera, Hemiptera).

The main landuses of this site are amenity activities and nature conservation. The North Bull Island is the main recreational beach in Co Dublin and is used throughout the year. Much of the land surface of the island is taken up by two golf courses. Two separate Statutory Nature Reserves cover much of the island east of the Bull Wall and the surrrounding intertidal flats. The site is used regularly for educational purposes. North Bull Island has been designated a Special Protection Area under the E.U. Birds Directive and it is also a statutory Wildfowl Sanctuary, a Ramsar Convention site, a Biogenetic Reserve, a Biosphere Reserve and a Special Area Amenity Order site.

This site is an excellent example of a coastal site with all the main habitats represented. The holds good examples of ten habitats that are listed on Annex I of the E.U. Habitats Directive; one of these is listed with priority status. Several of the wintering bird species have populations of international importance, while some of the invertebrates are of national importance. The site contains a numbers of rare and scarce plants including some which are legally protected. Its proximity to the capital city makes North Dublin Bay an excellent site for educational studies and research.

23.11.1999 Conservation Objectives European and national legislation places a collective obligation on Ireland and its citizens to maintain at favourable conservation status areas designated as candidate Special Areas of Conservation. The Government and its agencies are responsible for the implementation and enforcement of regulations that will ensure the ecological integrity of these sites. According to the EU Habitats Directive, 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 as defined below. 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.

Objective 1: To maintain the Annex I habitats for which the cSAC has been selected at favourable conservation status: Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide; Annual vegetation of drift lines; Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand; Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae); Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi); Embryonic shifting dunes; Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes); Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes); Humid dune slacks. Objective 2: To maintain the Annex II species for which the cSAC has been selected at favourable conservation status: Petalophyllum ralfsii. Objective 3: To maintain the extent, species richness and biodiversity of the entire site Objective 4: To establish effective liaison and co-operation with landowners, legal users and relevant authorities. Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

Appendix 2

North Bull Island SPA – Site Synopsis and Qualifying Interests

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Appendix 2 SITE SYNOPSIS

SITE NAME: NORTH BULL ISLAND SPA

SITE CODE: 004006

This site covers all of the inner part of north Dublin Bay, with the seaward boundary extending from the Bull Wall lighthouse across to Drumleck Point at Howth Head. The North Bull Island sand spit is a relatively recent depositional feature, formed as a result of improvements to Dublin Port during the 18 th and 19 th centuries. It is almost 5 km long and 1 km wide and runs parallel to the coast between Clontarf and Sutton. Part of the interior of the island has been converted to golf courses.

A well-developed and dynamic dune system stretches along the seaward side of the island. Various types of dunes occur, from fixed dune grassland to pioneer communities on foredunes. Marram Grass ( Ammophila arenaria ) is dominant on the outer dune ridges. Species of the fixed dunes include Wild Pansy ( Viola tricolor ), Kidney Vetch ( Anthyllis vulneraria ), Bird’s-foot Trefoil ( Lotus corniculatus ), Pyramidal Orchid ( Anacamptis pyramidalis ) and, in places, the scarce Bee Orchid (Ophrys apifera ). A feature of the dune system is a large dune slack with a rich flora, usually referred to as the ‘Alder Marsh’ because of the presence of Alder ( Alnus glutinosa ) trees. The water table is very near the surface and is only slightly brackish. Sea Rush ( Juncus maritimus ) is the dominant species, with Meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria ) and Devil’s-bit Scabious ( Succisa pratensis ) being frequent. The orchid flora is notably diverse in this area.

Saltmarsh extends along the length of the landward side of the island and provides the main roost site for wintering birds in Dublin Bay. On the lower marsh, Glasswort (Salicornia europaea ), Common Saltmarsh-grass ( Puccinellia maritima ), Annual Sea- blite ( Suaeda maritima ) and Greater Sea-spurrey ( Spergularia media ) are the main species. Higher up in the middle marsh Sea Plantain ( Plantago maritima ), Sea Aster (Aster tripolium ), Sea Arrowgrass ( Triglochin maritima ) and Thrift ( Armeria maritima ) appear. Above the mark of the normal high tide, species such as Common Scurvygrass ( Cochlearia officinalis ) and Sea Milkwort ( Glaux maritima ) are found, while on the extreme upper marsh, Sea Rush and Saltmarsh Rush ( Juncus gerardi ) are dominant.

The island shelters two intertidal lagoons which are divided by a solid causeway. These lagoons provide the main feeding grounds for the wintering waterfowl. The sediments of the lagoons are mainly sands with a small and varying mixture of silt and clay. Tasselweed ( Ruppia maritima ) and small amounts of Eelgrass ( Zostera spp.) are found in the lagoons. Common Cord-grass ( Spartina anglica ) occurs in places. Green algal mats ( Enteromorpha spp., Ulva lactuca ) are a feature of the flats during summer. These sediments have a rich macro-invertebrate fauna, with high densities of Lugworm ( Arenicola marina ) and Ragworm ( Hediste diversicolor ). Mussels (Mytilus edulis ) occur in places, along with bivalves such as Cerastoderma edule , Macoma balthica and Scrobicularia plana . The small gastropod Hydrobia ulvae occurs in high densities in places, while the crustaceans Corophium volutator and Carcinus maenas are common. The sediments on the seaward side of North Bull Island are mostly sands and support species such as Lugworm and the Sand Mason (Lanice conchilega ). The site includes a substantial area of the shallow marine bay waters.

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, Teal, Pintail, Shoveler, Oystercatcher, Ringed Plover, Golden Plover, Grey Plover, Knot, Sanderling, Dunlin, Black-tailed Godwit, Bar-tailed Godwit, Curlew, Redshank, Turnstone and Black-headed Gull. The site is also of special conservation interest for holding an assemblage of over 20,000 wintering waterbirds. 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.

The North Bull Island SPA is of international importance for waterfowl on the basis that it regularly supports in excess of 20,000 waterfowl. It also qualifies for international importance as the numbers of three species exceed the international threshold – Light-bellied Brent Goose (1,548), Black-tailed Godwit (367) and Bar- tailed Godwit (1,529) (all waterfowl figures given are average maxima for the five winters 1995/96 to 1999/00). The site is the top site in the country for both of these species. A further 14 species have populations of national importance – Shelduck (1,259), Teal (953), Pintail (233), Shoveler (141), Oystercatcher (1,784), Ringed Plover (139), Golden Plover (1,741), Grey Plover (517), Knot (2,623), Sanderling (141), Dunlin (3,926), Curlew (937), Redshank (1,431) and Turnstone (157). The populations of Pintail and Knot are of particular note as they comprise more than 10% of the respective national totals. Species such as Grey Heron, Cormorant, Wigeon, Goldeneye, Red-breasted Merganser and Greenshank are regular in winter in numbers of regional or local importance. Gulls are a feature of the site during winter, especially Black-headed Gull (2,196). Common Gull (332) and Herring Gull (331) also occur here. While some of the birds also frequent South Dublin Bay and the River Tolka Estuary for feeding and/or roosting purposes, the majority remain within the site for much of the winter. The wintering bird populations have been monitored more or less continuously since the late 1960s and the site is now surveyed each winter as part of the larger Dublin Bay complex.

The North Bull Island SPA is a regular site for passage waders, especially Ruff, Curlew Sandpiper and Spotted Redshank. These are mostly observed in single figures in autumn but occasionally in spring or winter.

The site formerly had an important colony of Little Tern but breeding has not occurred in recent years. Several pairs of Ringed Plover breed, along with Shelduck in some years. Breeding passerines include Skylark, Meadow Pipit, Stonechat and Reed Bunting. The island is a regular wintering site for Short-eared Owl, with up to 5 present in some winters.

The site has five Red Data Book vascular plant species, four rare bryophyte species, and is nationally important for three insect species. The rare liverwort, Petalophyllum ralfsii , was first recorded from the North Bull Island in 1874 and its presence here has recently been re-confirmed. This species is of high conservation value as it is listed on Annex II of the E.U. Habitats Directive. A well-known population of Irish Hare is resident on the island

The main landuses of this site are amenity activities and nature conservation. The North Bull Island is one of the main recreational beaches in Co. Dublin and is used throughout the year. Two separate Statutory Nature Reserves cover much of the island east of the Bull Wall and the surrounding intertidal flats. North Bull Island is also a Wildfowl Sanctuary, a Ramsar Convention site, a Biogenetic Reserve, a Biosphere Reserve and a Special Area Amenity Order site. Much of the SPA is also a candidate Special Area of Conservation. The site is used regularly for educational purposes and there is a manned interpretative centre on the island.

The North Bull Island SPA is an excellent example of an estuarine complex and is one of the top sites in Ireland for wintering waterfowl. It is of international importance on account of both the total number of waterfowl and the individual populations of Light- bellied Brent Goose, Black-tailed Godwit and Bar-tailed Godwit that use it. Also of significance is the regular presence of several species that are listed on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive, notably Golden Plover and Bar-tailed Godwit, but also Ruff and Short-eared Owl.

22.5.2008 Proposed Special Conservation Interests for North Bull Island SPA (4006)

Site is selected for: Light-bellied Brent Goose Shelduck Pintail Shoveler Oystercatcher Grey Plover Knot Dunlin Black-tailed Godwit Bar-tailed Godwit Redshank Turnstone 20,000 wintering waterbirds

Additional Special Conservation Interests Teal Ringed Plover Golden Plover Sanderling Curlew Black-headed Gull Wetland & Waterbirds

Main conservation objective: To maintain the special conservation interests for this SPA at favourable conservation status: Light-bellied Brent Goose, Shelduck, Pintail, Shoveler, Oystercatcher, Grey Plover, Knot, Dunlin, Black-tailed Godwit, Bar- tailed Godwit, Redshank, Turnstone, 20,000 wintering waterbirds, Teal, Ringed Plover, Golden Plover, Sanderling, Curlew, Black-headed Gull, Wetland & Waterbirds

Proposed Special Conservation Interests for South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA (4024)

Site is selected for: Light-bellied Brent Goose Knot Sanderling Bar-tailed Godwit Redshank Roseate Tern Common Tern Arctic Tern

Additional Special Conservation Interests Oystercatcher Ringed Plover Golden Plover Grey Plover Dunlin Black-headed Gull Wetland & Waterbirds

Main conservation objective: To maintain the special conservation interests for this SPA at favourable conservation status: Light-bellied Brent Goose, Knot, Sanderling, Bar-tailed Godwit, Redshank, Roseate Tern, Common Tern, Arctic Tern, Oystercatcher, Ringed Plover, Golden Plover, Grey Plover, Dunlin, Black-headed Gull, Wetland & Waterbirds

May 2009 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

Appendix 3

South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA Site Synopsis

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Appendix 3 SITE SYNOPSIS

SITE NAME: SOUTH DUBLIN BAY AND RIVER TOLKA ESTUARY SPA

SITE CODE: 004024

The South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA comprises a substantial part of Dublin Bay. It includes the intertidal area between the River Liffey and Dun Laoghaire, and the estuary of the River Tolka to the north of the River Liffey, as well as Booterstown Marsh. A portion of the shallow marine waters of the bay is also included.

In the south bay, the intertidal flats extend for almost 3 km at their widest. The sediments are predominantly well-aerated sands. Several permanent channels exist, the largest being Cockle Lake. A small sandy beach occurs at Merrion Gates, while some bedrock shore occurs near Dun Laoghaire. The landward boundary is now almost entirely artificially embanked. There is a bed of Dwarf Eelgrass (Zostera noltii ) below Merrion Gates which is the largest stand on the east coast. Green algae (Enteromorpha spp. and Ulva lactuca ) are distributed throughout the area at a low density. The macro-invertebrate fauna is well-developed, and is characterised by annelids such as Lugworm ( Arenicola marina ), Nephthys spp. and Sand Mason (Lanice conchilega ), and bivalves, especially Cockle ( Cerastoderma edule ) and Baltic Tellin ( Macoma balthica ). The small gastropod Spire Shell ( Hydrobia ulvae ) occurs on the muddy sands off Merrion Gates, along with the crustacean Corophium volutator . Sediments in the Tolka Estuary vary from soft thixotrophic muds with a high organic content in the inner estuary to exposed, well-aerated sands off the Bull Wall. The site includes Booterstown Marsh, an enclosed area of saltmarsh and muds that is cut off from the sea by the Dublin/Wexford railway line, being linked only by a channel to the east, the Nutley stream. Sea water incursions into the marsh occur along this stream at high tide. An area of grassland at Poolbeg, north of Irishtown Nature Park, is also included in 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, Oystercatcher, Ringed Plover, Golden Plover, Grey Plover, Knot, Sanderling, Dunlin, Bar-tailed Godwit, Redshank, Black-headed Gull, Roseate Tern, Common Tern and Arctic Tern. The E.U. Birds Directive pays particular attention to wetlands, and as these form part of the SPA, the site and its associated waterbirds are of special conservation interest for Wetland & Waterbirds.

The site is an important site for wintering waterfowl, being an integral part of the internationally important Dublin Bay complex – all counts for wintering waterbirds are mean peaks for the five year period 1995/96-99/2000. Although birds regularly commute between the south bay and the north bay, recent studies have shown that certain populations which occur in the south bay spend most of their time there. An internationally important population of Light-bellied Brent Goose (525) occurs regularly and newly arrived birds in the autumn feed on the Eelgrass bed at Merrion. Light-bellied Brent Goose is also known to feed on the grassland at Poolbeg. The site supports nationally important numbers of a further nine species: Oystercatcher (1,263), Ringed Plover (161), Golden Plover (1,452), Grey Plover (183), Knot (1,151), Sanderling (349), Dunlin (2,753), Bar-tailed Godwit (866) and Redshank (713). Other species occurring in smaller numbers include Great Crested Grebe (21), Curlew (397) and Turnstone (75).

South Dublin Bay is a significant site for wintering gulls, especially Black-headed Gull (3,040), but also Common Gull (330) and Herring Gull (348). Mediterranean Gull is also recorded from here, occurring through much of the year, but especially in late winter/spring and again in late summer into winter.

Both Common Tern and Arctic Tern breed in Dublin Docks, on a man-made mooring structure known as the E.S.B. dolphin – this is included within the site. Small numbers of Common Tern and Arctic Tern were recorded nesting on this dolphin in the 1980s. A survey of the dolphin in 1999 recorded Common Tern nesting here in nationally important numbers (194 pairs). This increase was largely due to the ongoing management of the site for breeding terns. More recent data highlights this site as one of the most important Common Tern sites in the country with over 400 pairs recorded here in 2007.

The south bay is an important tern roost in the autumn (mostly late July to September). Birds also use the Dalkey Islands to the south. The origin of many of the birds is likely to be the Dublin breeding sites (Rockabill and the Dublin Docks) though numbers suggest that the site is also used by birds from other sites, perhaps outside the state. More than 10,000 terns have been recorded, consisting of Common, Arctic and Roseate terns.

The wintering birds within this site are now well-monitored. More survey, however, is required on the wintering gulls and the autumn terns.

Booterstown Marsh supports an important population of Borrer’s Saltmarsh-grass (Puccinellia fasciculata ), a rare, Red Data Book species that is listed on the Flora (Protection) Order, 1999.

The South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA is of international importance for Light-bellied Brent Goose and of national importance for nine other waterfowl species. As an autumn tern roost, it is also of international importance. Furthermore, the site supports a nationally important colony of Common Tern. All of the tern species using the site are listed on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive, as are Bar- tailed Godwit and Mediterranean Gull.

1.5.2008 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

Appendix 4

Marine Ecological Impact Assessment

See Chapter 7.3 of EIS

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Appendix 4 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

Marine Ecological Impact Assessment

Introduction Ecological Consultancy Services Ltd (EcoServe) was contracted by Roughan & O’Donovan Ltd to prepare a marine ecological impact assessment for proposed Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project (DP&CPP) section in the South Bull Island Lagoon extending from the Bull Island causeway, along the western shore of the South Bull Island Lagoon, to the Bull Wall and to provide recommendations and mitigation measures to minimise any associated impact.

The South Bull Island Lagoon is an area of high conservation importance. The lagoon is located within the North Dublin Bay Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (site code 000206) designated under the European Union Habitats Directive (93/42/EEC). The North Dublin Bay SAC has been selected for a number of marine and marine-dependant habitats listed on Annex I of the Directive including Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide, Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand, Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco- Puccinellietalia maritimae), Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi), Annual vegetation of drift lines, Embryonic shifting dunes, Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes), Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes), Humid dune slacks and Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae). The liverwort Petalophyllum ralfsii, which is listed under Annex II of the Directive, has also been recorded at this site.

The South Bull Island Lagoon is also designated a Special Protection Area (SPA) for birds, and as a proposed Natural Heritage Area (pNHA). The birds feed on the marine invertebrate fauna and flora and the importance of this resource in sustaining the bird populations is clear. It is therefore essential to fully understand the likely impacts of the development on the marine fauna and flora to fully assess the impacts on the bird populations.

To this end, a field survey, to map the extent of the biotopes (habitats and species) in the area was conducted to provide up-to-date data. A brief literature review of existing information on the marine fauna and flora was carried out. Based on these results and taking into account the likely impacts on the marine fauna and flora during the construction of the cycleway/promenade, a full assessment of the potential impacts was carried out.

Study Area The study area extended from the top of the shore to 30 m down the shore, along the entire length of the South Bull Island Lagoon. The study area was limited to the area below the high water mark, although on hard substrata areas maritime lichens were examined in the supralittoral (splash zone).

Methodology A field survey of the intertidal marine habitats, fauna and flora of the area between the Bull Island Causeway and the Bull Wall was completed on the 13th October 2004.

A broad-scale mapping survey of the marine biotopes (flora, fauna and habitat) was completed, following procedures detailed by Davies et al. (2001) and Emblow et al. (1998). The survey area was walked and biotopes identified and mapped in the field. Where biotopes could not be identified species were collected and returned to the laboratory for identification. This data was combined with existing information from previous studies to produce biotope maps of the survey area.

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/1 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

Specimen Collection and Identification Faunal species that could not be identified in situ were preserved in 70% Industrial Methylated Spirits (IMS) and returned to the laboratory for identification. Algal species were kept in seawater and returned to the laboratory where they were pressed, dried and identified.

Specimens were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level possible using for mysid crustaceans (Makings, 1977), crabs (Crothers & Crothers, 1988), shrimps and prawns (Smaldon, 1993, Barnes, 1994, Hayward & Ryland, 1995), for marine molluscs (Graham 1988, Picton & Morrow, 1994), and (Wheeler, 1978) for marine fish. A voucher collection of representative specimens was made. Biotopes were identified following (Connor et al., 1997).

Existing Environment Fourteen biotopes were recorded from the survey area (refer Table 1, Appendix 4.1 and Figures 1 and 2, Appendix 4.2).

The causeway on the South Bull Island Lagoon side supported a similar suite of rocky shore species to those on the north side of the causeway, with an additional lower shore species, the bladder wrack Fucus vesiculosus (Plate 1, Appendix 7.3.3). This seaweed occurred on stones on the sediment along the base of the causeway wall. The seashore below the causeway was firm, muddy sand supporting sparse bivalves, Macoma baltica and abundant gastropods, Hydrobia sp. The surface had a dense cover of the green ephemeral algae Ulva spp. The mud was cut through by a number of creeks which flowed south-west from the salt marsh and formed the main channel which eventually passed under the wooden bridge at the Bull Wall. One of the creeks supported a very small bed of the sea grass Zostera noltii (Plate 2, Appendix 4.3). To the west, the Naniken Stream entered the lagoon which joined the main channel. Between this stream and the Causeway the substratum was particularly muddy and supported a very dense growth of Ulva spp. and other filamentous green algae. The mud itself supported the occasional cockle, Cerastoderma edule. At the top of the shore, where the Naniken Stream enters the lagoon, the channel sides were coarser with sand and stony gravel (Plate 3, Appendix 4.3). The extreme upper shore supported a small area of developing saltmarsh with rushes and patches of Salicornia sp. (Plates 5 and 6, Appendix 4.3). Bait digging was apparent south of the Naniken Stream (Plate 4, Appendix 4.3).

The western shore of the lagoon, along which will run the cycle path, was backed by a stone wall along much of its length. Consequently the shore at this point, although muddy sand, was more mixed with patches of large cobbles, pebble and gravel. The wall itself supported a very sparse zone of yellow and grey maritime lichens with a narrow band of the spiralled wrack, Fucus spiralis below (Figures 1 – 3, Appendix 4.4 and Plates 7 – 8, Appendix 4.3). Further west, there were patches of the knotted wrack Ascophyllum nodosum and just east of the bridge the ‘hard’ shore was quite extensive and supported the serrated wrack, Fucus serratus (Plates 9 to 12, Appendix 4.3). Further down the shore the substratum was predominantly muddy sand supporting a dense growth of green algae (Ulva spp.). A dense bed of mussels, Mytilus edulis occurred on mixed gravel and cobbles on the lower shore at this point. On the lower shore towards the channel this area was extensively dug over by bait diggers (Plate 13, Appendix 4.3).

Discussion All the species recorded are typical of marine environments and have been widely recorded around Ireland (Picton & Costello, 1998, EcoServe unpublished data). However, the habitats

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/2 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

present within the lagoon do fall within those listed as qualifying interests under the Habitats Directive. Of particular interest is the eelgrass Zostera noltii.

Zostera noltii is included in a Habitat Action Plan under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (MarLIN, 2004). Eelgrass beds are highly productive ecosystems, and are an important food source for Brent geese and widgeon. Although intertidal beds have a lower species diversity than subtidal beds, these intertidal eelgrass beds support a diverse epifauna, epiflora and infauna. They act as important sediment traps, stabilizing the sediment, reducing wave energy and may act as a natural coastal defence (MarLIN, 2004). However, there was only a small patch of Z. noltii, which was located outside the direct line of impact of the proposed cycle path. It is unlikely that this small eelgrass bed will be impacted upon.

The majority of the South Bull Island Lagoon is sedimentary with hard substrata restricted to the margins of the lagoon, particularly along the proposed survey area, generally in the form of sea walls. Although the communities and biotopes present within the survey area would not be considered good examples of hard substrata communities, they do contribute to the diversity of biotopes, species and communities present in the lagoon.

Fucoid algae characterised the upper rocky areas of the survey area occurring only on bridge supports and other restricted areas of hard substrata in the lagoon.

Previous Studies Dublin Bay and the Bull Island lagoons have been the focus of many biological studies over the years. Wilson (1982) carried out the most complete investigation of the intertidal invertebrates. He surveyed a total of 313 sites in Dublin Bay using a quadrat size of 0.25 m2, to a depth of 25 cm. In the South Bull Island Lagoon over 13 sites were examined. Over 74 species or higher taxa were recorded from the whole of Dublin Bay. The South Bull Island Lagoon was characterised by the bivalves Scrobicularia plana that was restricted to the muddier areas, Macoma balthica that occurred in the less muddy areas and cockle Cerastoderma edule that occurred throughout the bay. The gastropod Hydrobia ulvae and crustacean Corophium volutator were locally abundant. The polychaete fauna was characterised by Hediste diversicolor and Nephtys spp.

Jeffrey et al. (1978) examined 100 sites along 20 transects in the North and South Bull Island Lagoons. Samples were analysed for grain size and loss on ignition in an attempt to understand the existing environment of north Dublin Bay. No examination of the biology was made. The sediment analysis revealed that the highest silt and clay fractions occurred in the south of the North Bull lagoon and decreased at sites to the north and south of the causeway. Higher gravel fractions were recorded in the South Bull Island Lagoon. Concentrations of organic matter examined through loss of ignition techniques showed no real trends throughout the lagoon system.

Previous studies have also been focused on the saltmarsh fauna of Bull Island (Healy 1975) and identified species from the strandline and saltmarsh channels. The fauna from the strandline amongst the decaying saltmarsh vegetation and Ulva spp. was characterised by arthropods particularly the dipteran fly Scatophaga litorea. Creek fauna was predominantly characterised by brackish or low salinity tolerant species such as the shore crab Carcinus maenas, and polychaetes Hediste diversicolor, Eteone longa, Arenicola marina and Tubifex costata.

In July 2000 EcoServe carried out a baseline study of the North and South Bull Island in order to assess the proposed impact of the removal of the causeway and to assess the impact of the same proposed cycle path. The results are incorporated into this report. Fourteen stations located throughout the South Bull Island Lagoon were sampled (Table 2,

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/3 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

Appendix 4..1) Sites were selected at locations that were representative of the different types of habitat present, taking into account substratum type and height from low water. At each site four 6.5 cm diameter (0.2 m2) cores were taken (to a depth of 20 cm) and passed through a 0.5 mm mesh sieve. Other non-quantitative samples (digs) were also taken in the vicinity of each of the sites in order to sample additional invertebrates that may not have been present in the core samples. All specimens were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level. Species nomenclature follows Howson & Picton (1997).

Nineteen species or higher taxa were recorded in total from the South Bull Island Lagoon (Table 3, Appendix 7.3.1). Thirteen biotopes or higher biotopes (habitats and species) were recorded from the littoral survey (Table 1, Appendix 4.1) of which five were sediment shore and eight were rocky shore biotopes.

In addition EcoServe carried out a baseline study of the fish populations in the lagoons (Table 4, Appendix 4.1). Five sites were examined in the South Bull Island Lagoon, four in the salt marsh creek south of the causeway and one in the main channel near Bull Island Bridge. Sampling was carried out during the ebb tide to facilitate sampling in the main channel. A hand trawl was deployed in the centre of the channel or salt marsh creek and dragged for 5-8 minutes by two surveyors one on either side. The hand net was used in the salt marsh creeks only using sweep sampling techniques. The resulting catches were transferred into buckets and returned to the laboratory for sorting and counting. Fish and invertebrate species were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible and counted. Eleven species or higher taxa were recorded, from the South Bull Island Lagoon (six invertebrate species and five fish species) (Table 4, Appendix 4.1). The most numerically abundant species was the brown shrimp Crangon crangon, which occurred in very high numbers in the main channel and salt marsh creeks of South Bull Island Lagoon. The most abundant fish species were the common and sand gobies (Pomatoschistus microps and P. minutus). Juvenile flounder were caught at all the sites but one. Several small mullet, Chelon labrosus were caught in the South Bull Island Lagoon.

Little other work has been focused on the fisheries within the South Bull Island Lagoon. Records exist from the 1920s and 1930s (O’ Mahony 1928; 1933a, b and c).

One of the notable features of South Bull Island Lagoon is the dense mats of green algae which occur during the summer months and provide an important food source for visiting birds. Jeffrey et al. (1992; 1995) attempted to understand the nutrient sources of marine macroalgae, particularly Ulva spp. (previously Enteromorpha spp.), in Dublin Bay including sites in the South Bull Island Lagoon. It was noted that the algae had a discrete distribution in the lagoon both seasonally and spatially. However the time of peak biomass varied from season to season but generally occurred during early summer. It was concluded that a third of nutrient inputs into Dublin Bay was from particulates that originated from sewage discharge and that these nutrients were the major sources available for intertidal growth of green algae. They also concluded that the intertidal sediments could also be a major source of nitrogen for algal growth in some areas although the discrete temporal and spatial distribution of algae within the lagoon system cannot be fully explained.

Potential Impacts The potential impact of the proposed development on the marine ecology of the South Bull Island Lagoon can be separated into those associated with the construction phase and those associate with the operation phase.

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/4 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

Construction Phase Increased Sedimentation and Suspended Solids There may be an increase in the turbidity of the water during the construction of the cycleway/promenade. This could result in increased siltation, smothering of organisms and a reduction of light for phytoplankton and seaweed. This is likely to be localised and restricted to the immediate area around the cycleway/promenade during the construction period and for a short time afterwards. The marine environment in South Bull Island Lagoon is primarily sedimentary with macrofaunal species that favour these conditions. Therefore, it is envisaged that any temporary increase in suspended solids is likely to have minimal impact.

Fish species can, however, be susceptible to an increase in suspended solids. The function of the gills can be inhibited by excessive amounts of suspended solids in the water column. Vision can be impaired by turbidity (decreased transparency), thus reducing the fish's ability to capture prey items. The release of suspended solids can also result in a change of habitat on the seabed when particles settle out. This may alter the composition of invertebrate communities perhaps reducing those that are prey for fish. Suspended matter will eventually settle onto the seabed and fill the spaces between gravel and rocks where fish eggs are laid, which could result in a loss of spawning habitat.

While there is the potential for negative effects from high levels of suspended solids, the volume of suspended material is likely to be low and within the natural range of variation for the lagoon system. Fish are mobile species that will actively avoid unfavourable conditions. The suspended solids will not form a 'barrier' across the lagoon and thus fish will be able to avoid affected areas and little or no damage is likely to their gill function. The likely volume of suspended material additional to prevailing conditions will be low and quickly dispersed; therefore it is unlikely to restrict the feeding activities of fish. If any area is affected it will be very small compared to the available unaffected feeding area. The type of sediment that could be suspended is very similar in composition to that occurring naturally in the lagoon and it is therefore unlikely that the habitat for invertebrate species will be altered significantly. There is no evidence of gravel spawning beds within South Bull Island Lagoon that will be impacted by the suspended material settling out.

Pollutants and Waste Contamination of the area due to accidental spillage of pollutants, waste, e.g. oil and other chemicals, or litter, may occur during the removal and construction phase. However, if suitable precautions are taken and best practice for the storage, handling and disposal of such material followed, impacts on the marine ecology and fish communities should be minimal.

Removal and Alteration of Habitats and Species During construction, habitats and species will be removed from the seashore around the construction site. In addition construction machinery and personnel will disturb the surrounding seashore resulting in a change in habitat and species loss. If the area disturbed is kept to a minimum, the impact is likely to be short-term and not significant.

The area of habitat unavailable to fish species during construction is likely to be negligible compared to the total area of the lagoon system.

Compacting of Littoral Sediments Construction of the cycleway/promenade should be approached from the landward side. However, should it be necessary for construction to occur on the seaward side of the site, vehicles movements on the mudflats should be kept to the minimum required and follow the

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/5 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report same tracks as much as is practicable to minimise the area of compacting of intertidal sediments.

Operational Phase Removal and Alteration of Habitats and Species The construction will impact on the seashore in the immediate footprint of the cycleway/promenade. The existing seashore supports a range of hard substrata communities that are not abundant in the Bull Island area. The loss of the habitat associated with the construction will be permanent and the species associated with it will be lost. The substratum on the upper shore was a mixture of boulders, cobbles and pebbles. Mixed substrata in the area support a greater range of species than the existing concrete and rock. The installation of the cycleway/promenade of the proposed design will result in the loss of some of these mixed substrata, but will also create new hard substratum for colonisation by algae, sessile organisms and related species. The proposed design, with the cycleway/promenade supported on piles, greatly reduces the impact of the loss of existing hard substrata as compared with the infill design used in the North Bull Island Lagoon.

Change in Hydrographic Conditions The construction of the cycleway/promenade may cause changes in water patterns along the upper shore. This may cause changes to patterns of erosion and deposition, changing the particle size distribution around the piles. The small area that would be affected by the installation of piles and any resulting changes to the hydrography is not likely to be significant.

Effect of Shading The effects of shading on the marine species of this area would be both negative and positive. A reduction in the incident light on the macroalgal species may lead to a reduction in photosynthesis, and therefore a reduction in growth rates. The species composition may change to one more tolerant of reduced light levels, while the recolonisation of areas cleared during construction will be slowed down. A positive impact of the reduction in incident light is the reduction in the stress experienced by algae, and macroinvertebrates that use it as cover, due to desiccation caused by exposure during sunny periods.

Currently, the most likely limiting factor for the growth of brown algae in the area is the lack of suitable substratum for attachment. Existing shaded areas on the seawall adjacent to the wooden bridge have good growths of brown algae owing to the suitability if the seawall here to support these species. The shading caused by the cycleway/promenade is unlikely to have a significant negative impact upon the existing marine flora and fauna in the lagoon.

Recommendations and Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Loss or Alteration of Habitat and Species To minimise the loss of the littoral mudflat habitat and species, the area of construction should be kept to the minimum required. Construction should be approached where possible from the landward side to avoid disturbing neighbouring mudflats within the cSAC. In terms of the proposed construction techniques, this would involve avoiding the creation of a “haul road” along the mudflat, and rather conduct construction works from the James Larkin Road.

The use of a pile-supported design has reduced the area of habitat that will be lost due to the construction of the cycleway/promenade and will provide new areas of hard substrata for colonisation by hard substrata species in the area.

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/6 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

Increased Suspended Solids To minimise the amount of suspended solids released into the water column during construction, efforts should be made to minimise the area disturbed. Needless clearing and grading should be minimised and phased to limit exposure. Excavation should be carried out at low tide when the area is exposed and there is no water to carry away disturbed sediment.

Compacting of Littoral Sediments Construction of the cycleway/promenade should be approached from the landward side. However, should it be necessary for construction of the embankment wall to occur on the seaward side of the site, vehicles movements on the mudflats should be kept to the minimum required and follow the same tracks as much as is practicable to minimise the area of compacting of littoral sediments.

Pollutants and Waste To prevent chemical pollution during construction, all fuels or chemicals kept on the construction site should be stored in bunded containers. All refuelling and maintenance should be carried out away from the site. Oil interceptors should also be installed in appropriate locations. Equipment should be regularly maintained and leaks repaired immediately away from the site. Accidental spillages should be contained and cleaned up immediately. Appropriate oil-spill containment equipment and oil-absorbent material should be available on-site and staff trained in its proper use should be on-site at all times during construction operations.

During the construction phase, contained chemical portable toilets should be used and all sewage should be removed from the site to an authorised treatment works. No sewage should be discharged to the lagoon.

Operational Phase All impacts to the marine intertidal environment can only be mitigated during the design and construction phase of the development.

Residual Impacts If the recommended mitigation measures are implemented and best practise followed in terms of carrying out works in an ecologically sensitive manner, it is expected that the effect of the construction and operation of the proposed cycleway/promenade will be moderate in the short-term and slight for the permanent impact of loss of habitat under the footprint of the development. The principle impact will be in terms of the loss of a small area of mudflat; however the area lost is not considered to be very significant when compared with the area and quality of mudflat that will remain undisturbed.

Worst Case Scenario The worst case scenario related to this development would be the release of large volumes of pollutants such as oil into the marine habitat. This would have significant lethal and sublethal effects on the species of the lagoon and, given the sheltered nature of the lagoon, this pollution would persist in the sediment resulting in long-term negative effects.

Do Nothing Scenario In the do nothing scenario, should the development not proceed, and in the absence of any new impact, there will be no change to the habitats and species of the South Bull Island Lagoon other than those caused by natural or existing trends.

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/7 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

Reinstatement Should large quantities of sediment and natural rock be removed from the lagoon in the course of the construction of the cycleway/promenade, it should be stockpiled away from the shore and reinstated following construction. This will speed up re-colonisation of the disturbed habitats by species from surrounding undisturbed habitats.

Monitoring Construction Phase Given the conservation importance of the sites as evidenced by is designation as and SAC and an SPA, regular site visits by a qualified ecological consultant should be carried out during the construction phase to check that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented and adhered to and to provide on-going advice to the construction contractor in relation to the protection of marine habitats.

In addition, a pre-construction survey should be conducted to establish monitoring points within the lagoon and to provide up-to-date baseline data prior to the commencement of construction activities. This will allow any changes in the habitats and species of the area attributable to the construction to be detected and allow an appropriate response to be prepared.

Operational Phase A repeat of the littoral survey one year from the completion of construction activities would be recommended to determine any changes in the habitats and species that may be attributable to the development.

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/8 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

REFERENCES

Barnes, R. S. K. (1994). The Brackish-Water Fauna of Northwestern Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Connor, D. W., Brazier, D. P., Hill, T. O. and Northen, K. O. (1997). Marine Nature Conservation Review: marine biotope classification for Britain and Ireland. Volume 1. Littoral biotopes. Version 97.06. 229. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Crothers, J. and Crothers, M. (1988). A key to the crabs and crab-like animals of British inshore waters. Reprinted (1988) with minor alterations from Field Studies 5 (1983) 753-806. Davies, J., Bradley, M., Connor, D., Khan, J., Murray, E., Sanderson, W., Turnbull C. and Vincent, M. (2001). Marine Monitoring Handbook. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Emblow, C. S., Costello, M. J. and Wyn, G. (1998). Methods for mapping seashore and seabed biotopes in Wales and Ireland - INTERREG SensMap project. In: Emergency response planning: saving the environment: 51-58. Graham, A. (1988). Molluscs: Prosobranch and Pyramidellid gastropods. Keys and notes for the identification of the species. E. J. Brill / Dr W. Backhuys, London. Hayward, P. J. and Ryland, J. S., (Eds). (1995). Handbook of the marine fauna of north-west Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Healy, B. (1975). Fauna of the saltmarsh of North Bull Island, Dublin. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 75B, 225-244. Howson, C. M. and Picton, B. E., (Eds). (1997). The species directory of the marine fauna and flora of the British Isles and surrounding seas. The Ulster Museum & The Marine Conservation Society, Belfast & Ross-on-Wye. Jeffrey, D. W., Brennan, M. T., Jennings, E., Madden, B. and Wilson, J. G. (1995). Nutrient sources for in-shore nuisance macroalgae: the Dublin Bay case. Ophelia 42: 147-161. Jeffrey, D. W., Madden, B., Rafferty, B., Dwyer, R., Wilson, J. & Allott, N. (1992). Dublin Bay Water Quality Management Plan. Technical Report No. 7. Algal growths and foreshore quality. Environmental Research Unit, Dublin. Jeffrey, D. W., Pitkin, P.H. and West, A.B. (1978). Intertidal environment of Northern Dublin Bay. Estuaries and Coastal Marine Science. 7, 163-171 Makings, P. (1977). A guide to the British coastal Mysidacea. Field Studies 4: 575-595. Picton, B. E. and Costello, M .J. (1998). BioMar biotope viewer: a guide to marine habitats, fauna and flora of Britain and Ireland. Environmental Sciences Unit, Trinity College, Dublin. Picton, B. E. and Morrow, C. C. (1994). A field guide to the nudibranchs of the British Isles. IMMEL publishing. Smaldon, G. (1993). Coastal shrimps and prawns. Keys and notes for the identification of the species. Field Studies Council, Shrewsbury. Wheeler, A. (1978). Key to the fishes of Northern Europe. Frederick Warne and Co. Ltd, London. Wilson, J. G. (1982). The littoral fauna of Dublin Bay. Irish Fisheries Investigations. Series B (Marine) 26: 1-19.

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/9 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

APPENDIX 4.1 - TABLES

Table 1. List of biotopes recorded from the current survey and from the EcoServe survey in July 2000. Full biotope descriptions are given in Appendix 4.3.

Biotope code Current EcoServe Biotope name survey 2000

LGS   Littoral gravels and sands LMS.   Littoral muddy sands LMU.   Littoral muds LMU.NVCSM8   Salicornia spp. LMX.   Littoral mixed sediments LR.YG   Yellow and grey lichens on supralittoral rock MXD.   Mixed biotopes SLR.   Sheltered littoral rock SLR.Asc   Ascophyllum nodosum on very sheltered mid eulittoral rock SLR.Asc.Asc   Ascophyllum nodosum on full salinity mid eulittoral rock SLR.AscX   Ascophyllum nodosum on mid eulittoral mixed substrata SLR.Fser   SLR.FserX   Fucus vesiculosus on mid eulittoral mixed substrata SLR.Fspi   Fucus spiralis on moderately exposed to very sheltered upper eulittoral rock SLR.Fves   Fucus serratus on moderately exposed lower eulittoral rock SLR.FvesX   Fucus vesiculosus on mid eulittoral mixed substrata SLR.MytX   Mytilus edulis beds on eulittoral mixed substrata

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/10 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

Table 2. List of site locations in South Bull Island Lagoon (S1 – S14) recorded from the Ecological Consultancy Services Limited (EcoServe) survey in 2000 (EcoServe, unpublished data). Notes on substratum and species recorded in the general ‘dig’ are also listed.

Sites Latitude & Substratum Species recorded in situ longitude

S1 53.372N Muddy sand, black layer present. Macoma balthica, Hydrobia sp. on 6.161W surface S2 53.371N Very thick Ulva sp. layer on surface Cerastoderma edule present 6.163W with 2 inches of standing water, black layer present, coarse underneath. S3 53.37N 6.162W Muddy sand, very coarse at 20 cm Arenicola marina, Scrobicularia deep, anoxic black layer. plana, Corophium sp. S4 53.369N Sandy, organic matter, no black layer. Arenicola marina, Corophium sp. 6.167W Scrobicularia plana S5 53.367N Sandy, Ulva sp. on surface, no black Hydrobia sp. on surface, Hediste 6.171W layer. diversicolor S6 53.367N Very sandy, no black layer. Hediste diversicolor, Macoma 6.171W balthica S7 53.367N Muddy, no black layer. Hediste diversicolor, Hydrobia sp. 6.169W S8 53.364N Very muddy, black layer present Scattered Ulva sp. 6.175W (sample taken < 20 cm deep, max. 10 cm). S9 53.363N Sandy shell, no black anoxic layer. Hediste diversicolor, Cerastoderma 6.174W edule S10 53.363N Very sandy, no black anoxic layer. Scrobicularia plana, Hediste 6.172W diversicolor S11 53.361N Sandy mud, no black layer. Corophium sp., Venerupis sp., 6.178W Cerastoderma edule S12 53.36N 6.177W Very sandy, no black layer. Arenicola marina, Nephtys sp. S13 53.359N Compact sand. Scrobicularia plana, Corophium sp. 6.175W S14 53.361N Sandy, black sand underneath. - 6.173W

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/11 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

Table 3. List of species or higher taxa recorded during the intertidal survey of South Bull Island Lagoon, July 2000 (S1 – S14).

South Bull Island Lagoon Species S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14

Annelids (worms) Polychaeta indet. - - - 1 ------Hediste diversicolor - - - - 1 1 4 - 7 3 - - 17 - Nephtys sp. - - 1 ------1 - - Arenicola marina - - 1 1 - 2 - - - - - 1 - - Oligochaeta indet 1 - - - 5 - - - 1 - - - - 10

Crustaceans (crabs, shrimps) Mysidacea indet. ------1 Amphipoda indet. - - - - 19 ------Corophium sp. - - 32 4 32 - 72 - 12 - 3 - 5 - Crangon crangon - - 1 ------Liocarcinus arcuatus - - 1 ------Carcinus maenas - - - - 1 ------Chironomidae indet. - - - - 2 ------

Molluscs (snails, bivalves) Littorina littorea ------Hydrobia ulvae 13 - - - 76 - 33 - - - - - 2 - Cerastoderma edule - 1 - - - 1 - - 3 - - - - - Macoma balthica 1 - - - 1 1 ------Scrobicularia plana - - 1 2 - - - - - 6 - - 1 - Venerupis sp. ------1 - - -

Chlorophyta (green seaweed) Ulva sp. - - - - P - - P ------

Total number of species or 3 1 6 4 8 4 3 0 4 2 2 2 4 2 higher taxa

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/12 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

Table 4. List of fish and invertebrate species caught using the hand trawl (T) and hand net (H) in South Bull Island Lagoon, July 2000.

Species name Common name 1 2 3 4 5 Habitat Creek Channel T H T H T Crustaceans Crabs and shrimps Mysidacea indet. Mysid shrimp - - - - 1 Neomysis integer Mysid shrimp - 26 - - - Palaemonetes varians Prawn 135 7 - - - Crangon crangon Brown shrimp 885 34 - 267 14535 Liocarcinus arcuatus Crab 21 2 9 - - Carcinus maenas Shore crab - - 21 - -

Pisces Fish Gadidae indet. - - 3 - - Chelon labrosus Mullet 7 - - - - Pomatoschistus Common goby - - 33 2 63 microps Pomatoschistus Sand goby - - 6 - 16 minutus Platichthys flesus Flounder 9 - 16 3 9

Total number of taxa 5 4 6 3 5

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/13 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

APPENDIX 4.2

Biotope Descriptions

List of biotopes recorded during the current and previous 2000 intertidal survey. Descriptions are from Connor et al. (1997).

Sediment

LGS Littoral gravels and sands Clean gravel and/or sand in the littoral zone (the area between high and low tides) with a particle diameter range from 16 mm to 0.063 mm; shingle shores comprising mobile cobbles, pebbles and coarse gravel are also included. The shore and substratum type can range from steep mobile shores that are typically of coarse material (gravel and coarse sand), through less steep shores of coarse, medium or fine sand to level sandflats of fine sand that remain water-saturated throughout the tidal cycle. Mud (particle diameter less than 0.063 mm) does not exceed 10%, and is usually totally absent.

LMS Littoral muddy sands Shores of muddy sand, typically consisting of particles less than 4 mm in diameter, where the mud fraction (less than 0.063 mm diameter particles) makes up between 10% and 30% of the sediment. Typically, the sand fraction is medium (particle diameter 0.25-1 mm) or fine (particle diameter 0.063-0.25 mm) sand. Muddy sand usually forms gently sloping flats that remain water-saturated throughout the tidal cycle. They support communities predominantly of polychaetes and bivalves, including the lugworm Arenicola marina, the cockle Cerastoderma edule and the Baltic tellin Macoma balthica, but may also have seagrass Zostera noltii beds (LMS.Znol).

LMU Littoral muds Shores of fine particulate sediment with a particle size less than 0.063 mm in diameter that typically forms extensive mudflats. Dry compacted mud can form steep and even vertical structures, particularly at the top of the shore adjacent to saltmarshes. Also included in this higher division are sandy muds which have between 20% and 70% sand, the remainder being made up of mud with a particle size less than 0.063 mm. Small amounts of gravel or pebbles may be found within mud, having little effect upon the structure of the associated communities. Littoral muds support communities characterised by polychaetes, certain bivalves and oligochaetes. The ragworm Hediste (Nereis) diversicolor, the Baltic tellin Macoma balthica and the furrow shell Scrobicularia plana are conspicuous members of muddy shore communities.

LMU.NVC SM8 Salicornia spp. Mud, often consolidated with coarse sand or gravel, on the extreme upper shore with Salicornia spp. plants forming a pioneer saltmarsh community. This habitat typically occurs in very sheltered estuarine conditions. Usually a reduced marine fauna is present which may include the amphipod Corophium volutator, the ragworm Hediste diversicolor and often the mud snail Hydrobia ulvae. The fucoid alga Pelvetia canaliculata may be found on hard substrata, consolidated mud or lying unattached.

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/14 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

LMX Littoral mixed sediments Shores of mixed sediment, comprising predominantly sediment material less than 64 mm in diameter. Often, cobbles and pebbles may also be present which may support epibiota such as fucoids and green seaweeds. By definition, mixed sediments are poorly sorted, consisting of an admixture of pebbles, gravel, sand and mud grades. Few communities are currently defined here; shores with moderate quantities of seaweeds attached to surface stones may be classified under SLR.FX.

Rock

LR.YG Yellow and grey lichens on supralittoral rock Rock in the supralittoral is typically characterised by a maritime community of yellow and grey lichens, such as Xanthoria parietina and Caloplaca marina. This band of lichens is usually found immediately above a zone of Verrucaria maura (Ver), a black lichen which is also present in this zone, though typically less than common. Littorinid molluscs and acarid mites occasionally occupy damp pits and crevices. In sheltered areas the transition from this biotope to Verrucaria maura (Ver.Ver) is often indistinct and a mixed zone of YG and Ver.Ver may occur. With increasing wave exposure both zones become wider and more distinct. In estuaries this biotope is often restricted to artificial substrata such as sea defences.

SLR Sheltered littoral rock Sheltered rocky shores, of bedrock or stable boulders and cobbles, are typically characterised by a dense cover of fucoid algae which form distinct zones (channelled wrack Pelvetia canaliculata on the upper shore through to the serrated wrack Fucus serratus on the lower shore). Where salinity is reduced (such as at the head of a sealoch or where streams run across the shore) Fucus ceranoides may occur. Fucoids also occur on less stable, mixed substrata (cobbles and pebbles on sediment) although in less abundance and with fewer associated epifaunal species; beds of mussels Mytilus edulis are also common. In summer months, dense blankets of ephemeral green and red seaweeds can dominate these mixed shores.

SLR.Asc Ascophyllum nodosum on very sheltered mid eulittoral rock Sheltered to very sheltered mid eulittoral rock with the knotted wrack Ascophyllum nodosum. Several variants of this biotope are described. These are: full salinity (Asc.Asc), tide-swept (Asc.T) and variable salinity (Asc.VS).

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/15 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

SLR.Asc.Asc Ascophyllum nodosum on full salinity mid eulittoral rock Bedrock, or stable boulders and cobbles, in the mid-eulittoral zone of sheltered to very sheltered shores, typically in fully marine or near fully marine conditions, are characterised by a dense canopy of Ascophyllum nodosum. Fucus vesiculosus also occurs and in some places may co-dominate the canopy. Such mixed canopies occur when clearings are formed in the Ascophyllum, since F. vesiculosus is able to colonise such clearings more rapidly. Ascophyllum (which may live for up to 25 years) will, however, eventually out- compete any F. vesiculosus. Such changes in the overlying canopy have little effect on the under-storey species. Beneath the canopy, filamentous and foliose red algae, including Mastocarpus stellatus and Chondrus crispus, and the green alga Cladophora rupestris, occur in moderate to low densities. The Ascophyllum is generally epiphytised by Polysiphonia lanosa (compare with Asc.VS). Very steep and vertical surfaces are often characterised by barnacles and limpets (BPat.Sem), but by small fucoids in areas of extreme shelter. Large numbers of the winkle Littorina obtusata may be present. This biotope usually lies between the Fucus spiralis (Fspi) and Fucus serratus (Fser) zones, although on some shores a narrow zone of Fucus vesiculosus (Fves) may occur immediately above the Ascophyllum. With increasing wave exposure the Ascophyllum canopy is replaced by F. vesiculosus (Fves). Asc.Asc may also occur on moderately exposed shores, where there is localised shelter.

SLR.AscX Ascophyllum nodosum on mid eulittoral mixed substrata Very sheltered mixed substrata (cobbles, boulders and pebbles on sediment) in full or near fully marine conditions may be characterised by an Ascophyllum nodosum canopy. Like the Ascophyllum community that occurs on bedrock (Asc), Fucus vesiculosus may be co- dominant. In addition, however, this community also contains a selection of infaunal species, such as Arenicola marina, which occur in the sediment between the cobbles. Large mussels Mytilus edulis commonly occur in clumps, and provide further suitable substrata for the attachment of fucoids and barnacles. Littorina littorea is the most commonly occurring littorinid, and at some sites it may reach high densities. The spaces between cobbles and boulders provide a refuge for crustaceans, especially Carcinus maenas. On shores with a smaller proportion of cobbles and boulders, the large Ascophyllum nodosum plants become uncommon (presumably since they lack a suitable substrata for attachment) and Fucus vesiculosus dominates the canopy (FvesX). F. vesiculosus also tends to replace Ascophyllum in areas with greater freshwater influence.

SLR.Fser Fucus serratus on moderately exposed lower eulittoral rock Lower eulittoral bedrock and stable boulders with a canopy of the serrated wrack Fucus serratus. Several variants of this biotope are described. These are Fucus serratus with red seaweeds (Fser.R), dense F. serratus (Fser.Fser), F. serratus with under-boulder communities (Fser.Fser.Bo) and F. serratus and piddocks on soft rock (Fser.Pid). Dense Fucus serratus also occurs on more sheltered shores (Fserr).

SLR.FserX Fucus vesiculosus on mid eulittoral mixed substrata Sheltered and very sheltered mid eulittoral pebbles and cobbles lying on sediment are typically characterised by Fucus vesiculosus. FvesX is usually subject to some variability in salinity from riverine input or, in more marine conditions, the habitat consists predominantly of smaller stones which are too unstable for Ascophyllum nodosum to colonise to any great extent (compare with AscX). This biotope typically differs from Fves in having a less dense canopy and reduced richness of epifaunal species, presumably as a result of the increased siltation, variable salinity and lack of stable substrata. In addition, the sediment between patches of hard substrata often contains the lugworm Arenicola marina, cockles Cerastoderma edule or the ragworm Hediste diversicolor. Littorinids, particularly Littorina littorea, commonly graze on the algae. Ephemeral algae such as Enteromorpha spp. are often present, especially on any more mobile pebbles during the summer. Limpets are less common than in AscX, because of the limited availability of larger rocks.

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/16 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

SLR.Fspi Fucus spiralis on moderately exposed to very sheltered upper eulittoral rock Moderately exposed to very sheltered upper eulittoral bedrock and boulders are typically characterised by a band of the spiral wrack Fucus spiralis overlying the black lichens Verrucaria maura and V. mucosa. Limpets Patella vulgata, winkles Littorina spp. and barnacles Semibalanus balanoides are usually present under the fucoid fronds and on open rock. During the summer months ephemeral green algae such as Enteromorpha spp. and Ulva lactuca may also be present. This zone usually lies below a Pelvetia canaliculata zone (Pel or PelB); occasional clumps of Pelvetia may be present (usually less than common) amongst the F. spiralis. In areas of extreme shelter, such as in Scottish sealochs, the Pelvetia and F. spiralis zones often merge together forming a very narrow band. Fspi occurs above the Ascophyllum nodosum (Asc) and/or Fucus vesiculosus (Fves) zones and these two fucoids may also occur, although Fucus spiralis always dominates. Vertical surfaces in this zone, especially on moderately exposed shores, often lack the fucoids and are characterised by a barnacle-Patella community (BPat.Sem).

SLR.Fves Fucus vesiculosus on sheltered mid eulittoral rock Moderately exposed to sheltered mid eulittoral rock characterised by a dense canopy of large Fucus vesiculosus plants (typically abundant to superabundant). Beneath the algal canopy the rock surface has a sparse covering of barnacles (typically rare-frequent) and limpets, with mussels confined to pits and crevices. Littorina littorea and Nucella lapillus are also found beneath the algae, whilst Littorina obtusata and Littorina mariae graze on the fucoid fronds. The fronds may be epiphytised by the filamentous brown alga Elachista fucicola and the small calcareous tubeworm Spirorbis spirorbis. In areas of localised shelter, Ascophyllum nodosum may also occur, though never at high abundance (typically rare to occasional) - (compare with Asc). Damp cracks and crevices often contain patches of the red seaweeds Osmundea (Laurencia) pinnatifida, Mastocarpus stellatus and encrusting coralline algae. This biotope usually occurs between the Fucus spiralis (Fspi) and the Fucus serratus (Fser) zones; both of these fucoids may be present in this biotope, though never at high abundance (typically less than frequent). In some sheltered areas Fucus vesiculosus forms a narrow zone above the A. nodosum zone (Asc). Where freshwater runoff occurs on more gradually sloping shores F. vesiculosus may be replaced by Fucus ceranoides (Fcer).

SLR.FvesX Fucus vesiculosus on mid eulittoral mixed substrata Sheltered and very sheltered mid eulittoral pebbles and cobbles lying on sediment are typically characterised by Fucus vesiculosus. FvesX is usually subject to some variability in salinity from riverine input or, in more marine conditions, the habitat consists predominantly of smaller stones which are too unstable for Ascophyllum nodosum to colonise to any great extent (compare with AscX). This biotope typically differs from Fves in having a less dense canopy and reduced richness of epifaunal species, presumably as a result of the increased siltation, variable salinity and lack of stable substrata. In addition, the sediment between patches of hard substrata often contains the lugworm Arenicola marina, cockles Cerastoderma edule or the ragworm Hediste diversicolor. Littorinids, particularly Littorina littorea, commonly graze on the algae. Ephemeral algae such as Enteromorpha spp. are often present, especially on any more mobile pebbles during the summer. Limpets are less common than in AscX, because of the limited availability of larger rocks.

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/17 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

SLR.MytX Mytilus edulis beds on eulittoral mixed substrata Moderately exposed to very sheltered mid and lower eulittoral mixed substrata (mainly cobbles and pebbles on muddy sediments) with dense aggregations of the mussel Mytilus edulis. In high densities the mussels bind the substratum and provide a habitat for many species more commonly found on rocky shores. Fucus vesiculosus is often found attached to either the mussels or the cobbles and it frequently occurs at high abundance. The mussels are usually encrusted with the barnacle Semibalanus balanoides (and/ or Elminius modestus in areas of reduced salinity). Littorina littorea and small Carcinus maenas are common amongst the mussels, whilst areas of sediment may contain Arenicola marina, Lanice conchilega, Cerastoderma edule and other infaunal species. In contrast with the mussel beds found on rocky shores (MLR.MF) this biotope contains few limpets or red algae. This biotope is also found in lower shore tide-swept areas, such as in the tidal narrows of Scottish sealochs.

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/18 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

Appendix 4.3 Photographs

Plate 1. South side of the Bull Island Plate 2. Small sea grass bed (Zostera noltii) causeway showing barren boulders with a in creek bed. zone of scattered Fucus vesiculosus below leading down to algae covered mud.

Plate 3. Muddy sand with shell material on Plate 4. Area of bait digging south of the the bank of the Naniken Stream. Naniken Stream. The substratum was mixed sandy mud with stones.

Plate 5. Inflow of the Naniken Stream with Plate 6. View south along the road showing small areas of saltmarsh and Salicornia sp. saltmarsh communities. either side of the culvert.

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/19 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

Plate 7. View north along the wall showing Plate 8. View south along the wall where the narrow band of stones and mixed substratum rock zone was more extensive and supporting sparse Fucus vesiculosus. supporting dense growths of algae.

Plate 9. Detail of the rocky zone at the top of Plate 10. View north of mixed gravel and the shore of mixed rock, gravel and mud with mud with boulders supporting sparse algae. algae

Plate 11. Dense growths of green algae Plate 12. Concrete outfall pipe supporting (Ulva spp.) on sandy mud in the mid and dense Ascophyllum nodosum. Such hard upper shore structures provide an important habitat for algae.

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/20 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

Plate 13. Area of intense baiting digging just Plate 14. View north across the extensive north of the wooden bridge across to Bull area of gravel and mud. Island.

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/21 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

Appendix 4.4 Figures

Figure 1. Location of intertidal biotopes in the north of the South Bull Island Lagoon. Descriptions of these biotopes are in Appendix 4.3. Boundaries between each biotope are not definitive; however they do represent a close approximation of the biotopes present.

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/22 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

LMX. LGS. 00 100100 SLR.MytX metresmetres metresmetres LMU.

LMS.

SLR.FvesX

LMU. SLR.FserX LMS.

SLR.Fspi LGS.

SLR.AscX LMU.

LMS.

Figure 2. Location of intertidal biotopes in the south of the South Bull Island Lagoon. Descriptions of these biotopes are in Appendix 4.3. Boundaries between each biotope are not definitive; however they do represent a close approximation of the biotopes present.

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/23 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Coastal Protection Project Marine Ecology Report

Figure 3. Location of photographs taken within the South Bull Island Lagoon.

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/24 Dublin City Council Sutton to Sandycove Phase 1 Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 4. Location of intertidal sampling locations in the South Bull Island Lagoon survey during the Ecological Consultancy Services Limited (EcoServe) survey in 2000 (EcoServe, unpublished data). Core sampling for infauna and granulometric sampling stations are in red. Fish sampling stations are in blue.

Ref: (08.159) Draft – May 2009 Appendix 4/25 Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

Appendix 5

Ornithological Assessment See Chapter 7.2 of EIS

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Appendix 5 DATE 30/08/04 TIME 14.00 - 18.00 WEATHER SW, F 2-3, 6/8, MAINLY DRY HIGH TIDES 11.40 - 23.36 LOW TIDES 05.00 - 17.09 TIDAL STATE FALLING - FULL OUT % WATER 0% COVER

ZONE A 27 Redshank, 37 Turnstone, 38 Blk-H. Gulls, 3 Common Gulls - feeding

ZONE B 3 Redshank, 28 Turnstone - feeding

ZONE C 2 Ringed Plover, 1 Knot - feeding

ZONE D 1 Blk-tailed Godwit, 1 Curlew - feeding

ZONE E NO BIRDS

ZONE F NO BIRDS

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 06/09/04 TIME 14.50 - 17.40 WEATHER NE, F 1-2, 1/8, HAZY HIGH TIDES 03.55 - 16.31 LOW TIDES 09.55 - 22.25 TIDAL STATE RISING - FULL IN % WATER 0% - 100% COVER

ZONE A 21 Turnstone - feeding. 63 Blk-H. Gulls - feeding

ZONE B 6 Blk-H. Gulls - feeding

ZONE C NO BIRDS

ZONE D 2 Redshank - feeding

ZONE E 1 Oystercatcher - feeding

ZONE F 4 Oystercatcher - feeding

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 20/09/04 TIME 13.25-17.30 WEATHER SW, F 2-3, 3/8, DRY HIGH TIDES 02.42 - 15.10 LOW TIDES 08.35 - 20.52 TIDAL STATE FULL IN - FALLING % WATER 100% - 90% COVER

ZONE A 3 Redshanks, 7 Blk-H. Gulls, 1 Turnstone - feeding

ZONE B 1 Com Gull, 3 Blk-H. Gulls, 6 Redshank, 2 Oystercatcher, 1 Dunlin, 1 Curlew, 147 Turnstones - feeding

ZONE C 4 Redshank, 10 Turnstone, 1 Blk-tailed Godwit - feeding. 1 Ringed Plover - feeding on algae mats.

ZONE D 1 Redshank - roosting. 1 Blk-H. Gull - loafing.

ZONE E 2 Blk-H. Gulls - loafing. 1 Turnstone - feeding.

ZONE F 4 Blk-H. Gulls - loafing. 1 Redshank - roosting.

ZONE G 3 Blk-H. Gulls - loafing. 2 Oystercatcher, 8 Turnstone - feeding. 3 Redshank - feeding & roosting. DATE 24/09/04 TIME 12.30 - 16.10 WEATHER SW, F 2-3, 5/8 HIGH TIDES 07.59 - 20.12 LOW TIDES 01.02 - 13.40 TIDAL STATE FALLING - FULL OUT % WATER 0% COVER

ZONE A NO BIRDS

ZONE B 3 Oystercatchers - feeding

ZONE C NO BIRDS

ZONE D NO BIRDS

ZONE E 1 Oystercatcher - feeding

ZONE F NO BIRDS

ZONE G 1 Redshank, 5 Turnstone - roosting in vegetation near wall DATE 21/10/04 TIME 13.00 - 16.55 WEATHER SW, F 5-6, 3/8, BRIGHT, CLEAR HIGH TIDES 04.57 - 17.15 LOW TIDES 10.38 - 23.24 TIDAL STATE RISING % WATER 0% - 10% COVER

ZONE A 1 Redshank, 5 Turnstone - feeding

ZONE B 5 Turnstone - feeding

ZONE C 1 Oystercatcher, 1 Redshank, 5 Turnstone - feeding

ZONE D 1 Oystercatcher, 1 Turnstone, 1 Curlew - feeding

ZONE E 12 Turnstone - feeding

ZONE F 2 Oystercatchers, 3 Turnstone - feeding

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 31/10/04 TIME 14.10 - 17.30 WEATHER N, F 0-1, 4/8 - 8/8, HAZY / FOG, NO RAIN. HIGH TIDES 00.44 - 13.06 LOW TIDES 06.33 - 18.57 TIDAL STATE FULL IN - FALLING % WATER 100% - 0% COVER

ZONE A 2 Turnstone - feeding at high tide. No birds when tide out.

ZONE B NO BIRDS

ZONE C NO BIRDS

ZONE D NO BIRDS

ZONE E 1 Redshank - roosting at high tide. 1 Oystercatcher - feeding when tide out

ZONE F 1 Redshank - roosting at high tide

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 08/11/04 TIME 14.15 - 17.10 WEATHER W - NW, F 2-3, 8/8, HIGH TIDES 08.28 - 20.31 LOW TIDES 01.44 - 14.03 TIDAL STATE FULL OUT - RISING % WATER 0% COVER

ZONE A 6 Oystercatchers - feeding. 4 Blk-H. Gulls - feeding at outlet

ZONE B NO BIRDS

ZONE C NO BIRDS

ZONE D NO BIRDS

ZONE E NO BIRDS

ZONE F NO BIRDS

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 12/11/04 TIME 15.00 - 17.00 WEATHER NW, F 3, 6/8, MAINLY DRY, COOL. HIGH TIDES 10.47 - 23.03 LOW TIDES 04.14 - 16.28 TIDAL STATE FULL OUT % WATER 0% COVER

ZONE A 3 Redshanks, 5 Dunlin - feeding

ZONE B 2 Redshank, 1 Oystercatcher - feeding

ZONE C NO BIRDS

ZONE D NO BIRDS

ZONE E 1 Oystercatcher - feeding

ZONE F NO BIRDS

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 23/11/04 TIME 14.50 - 17.00 WEATHER SW, F 0-1, 8/8 HIGH TIDES 09.19 - 21.23 LOW TIDES 02.29 - 14.44 TIDAL STATE FULL OUT % WATER 0% COVER

ZONE A 1 Redshank - feeding

ZONE B NO BIRDS

ZONE C NO BIRDS

ZONE D NO BIRDS

ZONE E 1 Redshank - feeding

ZONE F 1 Oystercatcher - feeding

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 28/11/04 TIME 13.30 - 15.00 WEATHER NE, F 2-3, 1/8. DRY HIGH TIDES 12.13 LOW TIDES 05.42 - 18.06 TIDAL STATE IN - FALLING % WATER 100% - 0% COVER

ZONE A 2 Blk-H. Gulls - loafing . 20 Turnstone - roosting. 80% water

ZONE B 47 Turnstone, 3 Redshank, 1 Dunlin - feeding (80% water)

ZONE C 1 Redshank - feeding (50% water)

ZONE D 3 Redshank - feeding (0% water)

ZONE E 2 Blk-H. Gulls - loafing (100% water)

ZONE F 2 Blk-H. Gulls - loafing (100% water)

ZONE G 2 Redshank - roosting (0% water) DATE 04/12/04 TIME 11.30 - 12.40 WEATHER SW, F 2-3, 7/8 HIGH TIDES 04.22 - 16.35 LOW TIDES 09.58 - 22.46 TIDAL STATE RISING % WATER 0% - 100% COVER

ZONE A 8 Wigeon, 1 Teal, 18 Turnstone, 2 Redshank, 1 Dunlin - feeding / roosting

ZONE B 24 Turnstone, 1 Oystercatcher, 2 RedshankS - feeding. 1 Blk-H. Gull - loafing (0% water)

ZONE C 29 Turnstone, 2 Redshank, 1 Oystercatcher, 1 Blk-H. Gull - feeding (0% water)

ZONE D 4 Redshank, 6 Turnstone, 1 Oystercatcher, 3 Brent, 2 Dunlin - feeding (20% water)

ZONE E 9 Teal, 1 Curlew, 4 Redshank, 9 Turnstone - feeding (20% water)

ZONE F 9 Teal, 3 Redshank, 2 Oystercatcher, 2 Turnstone - feeding (0% water)

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 05/12/04 TIME 12.30 - 14.15 WEATHER SW, F 1-3, 8/8, COLD, DRY HIGH TIDES 05.27 - 17.35 LOW TIDES 11.05 - 23.46 TIDAL STATE RISING % WATER 0% COVER

ZONE A 1 Turnstone - feeding

ZONE B 1 Redshank - feeding

ZONE C NO BIRDS

ZONE D NO BIRDS

ZONE E 1 Curlew - feeding

ZONE F NO BIRDS

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 11/12/04 TIME 13.50 - 15.00 WEATHER S, F 0-1, 8/8, HIGH TIDES 10.25 - 22.49 LOW TIDES 03.51 - 16.10 TIDAL STATE FALLING % WATER 0% COVER

ZONE A NO BIRDS

ZONE B NO BIRDS

ZONE C 1 Turnstone - feeding

ZONE D NO BIRDS

ZONE E 1 Oystercatcher, 2 Redshank - feeding

ZONE F 2 Oystercatcher - feeding

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 23/12/04 TIME 15.00 - 16.30 WEATHER W, F 3-4, 4/8, LIGHT RAIN, COLD HIGH TIDES 09.32 - 21.45 LOW TIDES 02.51 - 15.10 TIDAL STATE FULL OUT % WATER 0% COVER

ZONE A 2 Redshank, 1 Turnstone - feeding

ZONE B NO BIRDS

ZONE C NO BIRDS

ZONE D NO BIRDS

ZONE E NO BIRDS

ZONE F NO BIRDS

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 30/12/04 TIME 14.00 - 15.30 WEATHER SW, F 2-3, 8/8 HIGH TIDES 01.27 - 13.41 LOW TIDES 07.01 - 19.40 TIDAL STATE FULL IN - FALLING % WATER 100% - 0% COVER

ZONE A 16 Wigeon, 16 Turnstone, 2 Redshank, 1 Dunlin - feeding (50% water)

ZONE B 11 Turnstone, 1 Redshank - feeding ()% water)

ZONE C 3 Turnstone - feeding (0% water) NB: 15 Turnstone also roosting on concrete pier

ZONE D 5 Turnstone, 3 Redshank - feeding (80% water)

ZONE E 11 Redshank, 1 Blk-H. Gull - roosting (100% water)

ZONE F NO BIRDS

ZONE G 18 Turnstone, 1 Greenshank - roosting. 6 Redshank - feeding (100% water) DATE 06/01/05 TIME 14.50 - 16.00 WEATHER W, F 4-5, 8/8 HIGH TIDES 07.28 - 19.45 LOW TIDES 00.43 - 13.07 TIDAL STATE OUT - RISING % WATER 0% - 50% COVER

ZONE A NO BIRDS (50% water)

ZONE B 2 Turnstone, 1 Redshank - feeding (50% water)

ZONE C NO BIRDS (0% water)

ZONE D NO BIRDS (0% water)

ZONE E NO BIRDS

ZONE F NO BIRDS

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 13/01/05 TIME 15.30 - 17.00 WEATHER SW, F 2-3, 4/8 HIGH TIDES 01.13 - 13.22 LOW TIDES 06.42 - 19.19 TIDAL STATE FALLING - OUT % WATER 0% COVER

ZONE A NO BIRDS

ZONE B NO BIRDS

ZONE C NO BIRDS

ZONE D 1 Oystercatcher, 1 Bar-T. Godwit - feeding

ZONE E 1 Redshank, 1 Oystercatcher - feeding

ZONE F NO BIRDS

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 26/01/05 TIME 15.40 - 17.00 WEATHER NE, F 0-1, 6/8, CALM, COOL HIGH TIDES 12.10 LOW TIDES 05.40 - 18.08 TIDAL STATE OUT % WATER 0% COVER

ZONE A NO BIRDS

ZONE B NO BIRDS

ZONE C NO BIRDS

ZONE D NO BIRDS

ZONE E NO BIRDS

ZONE F NO BIRDS

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 09/02/05 TIME 15.00 - 16.45 WEATHER SW, F 3, 7/8, COLD HIGH TIDES 11.33 LOW TIDES 05.03 - 17.32 TIDAL STATE FALLING - OUT % WATER 0% COVER

ZONE A NO BIRDS

ZONE B NO BIRDS

ZONE C 1 Turnstone - feeding

ZONE D NO BIRDS

ZONE E 1 Oystercatcher - feeding

ZONE F NO BIRDS

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 12/02/05 TIME 14.30 - 16.30 WEATHER SW, F 3, 3/8-5/8, HIGH TIDES 01.37 - 13.46 LOW TIDES 07.07 - 19.42 TIDAL STATE IN - FALLING % WATER 100% - 25% COVER

ZONE A 10 Wigeon, 2 Redshank, 4 Turnstone, 3 Dunlin - feeding (50% water)

ZONE B 63 Turnstone, 2 Redshank, 5 Knot - feeding (50% water)

ZONE C 25 Turnstone, 2 Knot, 1 Dunlin - feeding (25% water)

ZONE D NO BIRDS (100% water)

ZONE E NO BIRDS (100% water)

ZONE F NO BIRDS (100% water)

ZONE G 20 Brent, 24 Turnstone - feeding (50% water) DATE 17/02/05 TIME 16.00 - 18.00 WEATHER NE, F 2, 3/8, DRY HIGH TIDES 06.06 - 18.37 LOW TIDES 11.45 TIDAL STATE RISING % WATER 0% - 50% COVER

ZONE A 9 Wigeon, 2 Redshank, 1 Turnstone - feeding

ZONE B NO BIRDS

ZONE C NO BIRDS

ZONE D NO BIRDS

ZONE E NO BIRDS

ZONE F 1 Redshank - feeding

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 24/02/05 TIME 15.30 - 16.30 WEATHER NE, F 2, 8/8, RAIN, SLEET, COLD HIGH TIDES 11.45 LOW TIDES 05.17 - 17.39 TIDAL STATE FALLING - FULL OUT % WATER 0% COVER

ZONE A NO BIRDS

ZONE B NO BIRDS

ZONE C NO BIRDS

ZONE D 2 Redshank - feeding

ZONE E 3 Teal, 1 Wigeon, 1 Oystercatcher - feeding

ZONE F 1 Teal - feeding

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 01/03/05 TIME 15.00 - 16.15 WEATHER NW, F 2-3, 2/8, MAINLY DRY HIGH TIDES 02.19 - 14.43 LOW TIDES 07.54 - 20.29 TIDAL STATE FULL IN - SLACK % WATER 100% COVER

ZONE A 1 Redshank, 2 Turnstones - feeding

ZONE B 1 Redshank, 34 Turnstone, 1 Knot - feeding. 4 Blk-H. Gulls - loafing

ZONE C 15 Turnstone - feeding

ZONE D 1 Redshank - roosting along wall

ZONE E 3 Blk-H. Gulls - loafing

ZONE F 2 Brent - feeding

ZONE G 5 Teal, 2 Redshank - roosting DATE 07/03/05 TIME 15.30 - 16.45 WEATHER NW, F 2, 5/8, HIGH TIDES 08.53 - 21.40 LOW TIDES 02.24 - 14.57 TIDAL STATE FULL OUT % WATER 0% COVER

ZONE A NO BIRDS

ZONE B NO BIRDS

ZONE C NO BIRDS

ZONE D NO BIRDS

ZONE E 3 Teal, 1 Wigeon - feeding

ZONE F NO BIRDS

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 12/03/05 TIME 11.30 - 12.30 WEATHER NW, F 2-4, 0/8-4/8, DRY, SUNNY HIGH TIDES 00.31 - 12.39 LOW TIDES 06.04 - 18.33 TIDAL STATE RISING - IN % WATER 0% COVER

ZONE A NO BIRDS

ZONE B NO BIRDS

ZONE C NO BIRDS

ZONE D NO BIRDS

ZONE E NO BIRDS

ZONE F NO BIRDS

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 24/03/05 TIME 16.00 - 17.30 WEATHER SE, F 1, 5/8, DRY HIGH TIDES 10.50 - 23.07 LOW TIDES 04.22 - 16.39 TIDAL STATE FULL OUT % WATER 0% COVER

ZONE A NO BIRDS

ZONE B NO BIRDS

ZONE C NO BIRDS

ZONE D NO BIRDS

ZONE E NO BIRDS

ZONE F NO BIRDS

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 06/04/05 TIME 18.15 - 19.30 WEATHER W, F 4, 4/8-6/8, COOL, BLUSTERY HIGH TIDES 09.36 - 22.20 LOW TIDES 03.06 - 15.35 TIDAL STATE OUT - RISING % WATER 0% COVER

ZONE A NO BIRDS

ZONE B NO BIRDS

ZONE C NO BIRDS

ZONE D NO BIRDS

ZONE E 2 Brent - feeding

ZONE F NO BIRDS

ZONE G NO BIRDS DATE 27/04/05 TIME 16.10 - 17.30 WEATHER S, F 4, 7/8 HIGH TIDES 00.43 - 13.18 LOW TIDES 06.28 - 18.56 TIDAL STATE FALLING - OUT % WATER 0% COVER

ZONE A NO BIRDS

ZONE B NO BIRDS

ZONE C NO BIRDS

ZONE D NO BIRDS

ZONE E NO BIRDS

ZONE F NO BIRDS

ZONE G NO BIRDS Table 1. Waterbirds recorded in S2S "footprint" on upper shore (first column in each Section) and in middle/lower shore (second colum in brackets) in Sections A to G at North Bull Island South Lagoon study area, September 2008 - February 2009.

Date: 03.09.08 High tide: 14.40 hrs (3.9 m) Count time: 16.55-17.52 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 2 (0) Grey Heron 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 4 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 4 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (0) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Wigeon 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Teal 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Oystercatcher 5 (0) 3 (0) 2 (0) 5 (0) 5 (0) 9 (0) 10 (0) 39 (0) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 6 (0) 0 (0) 7 (0) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) Curlew 3 (0) 2 (0) 2 (0) 3 (0) 2 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 13 (0) Redshank 18 (0) 10 (0) 7 (0) 33 (0) 10 (0) 20 (0) 4 (0) 102 (0) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) Turnstone 25 (0) 18 (0) 17 (0) 24 (0) 10 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 94 (0) Black-headed Gull 0 (138) 2 (0) 4 (0) 11 (0) 3 (0) 3 (0) 0 (0) 23 (138) Common Gull 0 (1) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (1) Herring Gull 0 (13) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (13) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4)

Totals 56 (156) 36 (0) 33 (0) 80 (0) 36 (0) 39 (0) 19 (0) 299 (156) Date: 14.09.08 High tide: 11.53 hrs (3.8 m) Count time: 09.25-10.15 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 2 (0) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) Mute Swan 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) Brent Goose 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Wigeon 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Teal 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Oystercatcher 0 (0) 7 (0) 4 (0) 6 (0) 0 (0) 4 (0) 2 (0) 23 (0) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 1 (0) 4 (0) 3 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 10 (0) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) Curlew 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 4 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 8 (0) Redshank 4 (0) 14 (0) 3 (0) 20 (0) 1 (0) 4 (0) 0 (0) 46 (0) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Turnstone 15 (0) 28 (0) 16 (0) 12 (0) 0 (0) 10 (0) 0 (0) 81 (0) Black-headed Gull 12 (0) 6 (0) 3 (0) 10 (0) 2 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 35 (0) Common Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Herring Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 32 (2) 59 (0) 31 (0) 56 (0) 3 (0) 23 (0) 6 (0) 210 (2) Date: 29.09.08 High tide: 12.33 hrs (3.9 m) Count time: 14.40-15.35 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 3 (0) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Wigeon 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (0) Teal 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 12 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 12 (0) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Oystercatcher 1 (28) 0 (0) 3 (0) 6 (0) 8 (0) 6 (0) 0 (0) 24 (28) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) Curlew 2 (2) 1 (0) 1 (0) 3 (0) 1 (0) 4 (0) 0 (0) 12 (2) Redshank 7 (105) 4 (0) 4 (0) 9 (0) 26 (0) 18 (0) 0 (0) 68 (105) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Turnstone 33 (6) 7 (0) 13 (0) 13 (0) 6 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 72 (6) Black-headed Gull 3 (105) 1 (0) 3 (0) 8 (0) 2 (0) 3 (0) 0 (0) 20 (105) Common Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Herring Gull 4 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 (0) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 50 (246) 16 (0) 24 (0) 41 (0) 62 (0) 31 (0) 2 (0) 226 (246) Date: 13.10.08 High tide: 11.20 hrs (3.9 m) Count time: 13.10-14.00 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (127) 0 (0) 14 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) 0 (16) 17 (143) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Wigeon 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (0) 0 (69) 5 (69) Teal 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0) 6 (0) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Oystercatcher 0 (4) 0 (0) 2 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 7 (0) 0 (0) 10 (4) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 3 (2) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Curlew 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (0) Redshank 0 (43) 7 (0) 4 (0) 8 (0) 4 (0) 10 (0) 0 (26) 33 (69) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Turnstone 7 (0) 22 (0) 5 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 34 (0) Black-headed Gull 0 (41) 2 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 3 (0) 3 (0) 0 (0) 10 (41) Common Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Herring Gull 0 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 3 (4) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 7 (219) 33 (0) 26 (0) 13 (0) 13 (0) 31 (0) 2 (113) 125 (332) Date: 13.10.08 High tide: 11.20 hrs (3.9 m) Count time: 14.10-15.15 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (3) 0 (6) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Brent Goose 0 (208) 0 (9) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (5) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (223) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (6) 0 (6) Wigeon 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (202) 0 (204) Teal 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (30) 0 (0) 0 (298) 0 (328) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (12) 0 (12) Oystercatcher 0 (153) 0 (7) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (9) 0 (1) 0 (6) 0 (177) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (2) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (4) 0 (3) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (11) Curlew 0 (7) 0 (0) 2 (0) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (9) Redshank 0 (88) 0 (0) 12 (0) 0 (27) 0 (74) 0 (6) 0 (0) 12 (195) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (2) Turnstone 7 (0) 16 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 27 (0) Black-headed Gull 0 (58) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (1) 0 (3) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (64) Common Gull 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) Herring Gull 0 (5) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (7) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 7 (526) 16 (21) 14 (6) 0 (31) 4 (126) 1 (11) 0 (529) 42 (1250) Date: 27.10.08 High tide: 11.36 hrs (3.9m) Count time: 12.00-12.56 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (312) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (15) 17 (0) 0 (0) 0 (171) 17 (498) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Wigeon 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (68) 0 (68) Teal 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (14) 0 (14) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (6) 0 (6) Oystercatcher 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (2) 4 (5) 2 (0) 5 (0) 0 (0) 11 (8) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 2 (0) 2 (1) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (4) Curlew 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0) Redshank 0 (64) 6 (0) 0 (1) 8 (3) 5 (0) 4 (0) 6 (0) 29 (68) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Turnstone 3 (0) 20 (13) 16 (1) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 39 (15) Black-headed Gull 0 (43) 1 (1) 1 (0) 0 (7) 0 (2) 1 (0) 2 (0) 5 (53) Common Gull 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) Herring Gull 0 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (5) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 3 (425) 27 (16) 17 (5) 12 (34) 25 (3) 10 (0) 11 (259) 105 (742) Date: 27.10.08 High tide: 11.36 hrs ((3.9 m) Count time: 13.05-14.13 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (3) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (1) 1 (0) 1 (7) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (346) 0 (20) 0 (0) 0 (122) 0 (18) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (506) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Wigeon 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Teal 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Oystercatcher 0 (126) 0 (14) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (3) 0 (0) 0 (145) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (6) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (42) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (42) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (3) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (15) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (16) Curlew 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (4) Redshank 0 (71) 0 (6) 0 (12) 0 (38) 2 (19) 0 (6) 0 (0) 2 (152) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) Turnstone 3 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (3) 36 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 39 (4) Black-headed Gull 0 (46) 0 (37) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (83) Common Gull 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) Herring Gull 0 (18) 0 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (21) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1)

Totals 3 (612) 0 (104) 0 (55) 0 (170) 39 (42) 3 (10) 1 (0) 46 (993) Date: 08.11.08 High tide: 07.34 hrs (3.3 m) Count time: 09.45-10.30 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (20) 0 (66) 0 (0) 84 (0) 39 (0) 15 (21) 0 (130) 138 (237) Shelduck 9 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (10) 9 (10) Wigeon 0 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (5) 3 (0) 0 (8) 0 (295) 3 (312) Teal 0 (0) 3 (0) 2 (0) 18 (0) 11 (0) 5 (0) 4 (2) 43 (2) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (20) 0 (20) Oystercatcher 8 (20) 15 (0) 0 (0) 9 (0) 6 (0) 0 (9) 0 (0) 38 (29) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (5) 3 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (5) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 1 (2) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (2) Curlew 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 1 (0) 0 (2) 0 (0) 3 (3) Redshank 3 (24) 10 (0) 20 (0) 11 (0) 10 (0) 6 (5) 2 (0) 62 (29) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) Turnstone 10 (4) 9 (0) 12 (0) 4 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 37 (4) Black-headed Gull 0 (28) 1 (0) 1 (0) 0 (3) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 3 (33) Common Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Herring Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 30 (101) 38 (66) 37 (0) 130 (15) 79 (0) 26 (45) 8 (461) 348 (688) Date: 08.11.08 High tide: 07.34 hrs (3.3 m) Count time: 10.30-11.15 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 2 (1) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 3 (109) 0 (56) 0 (103) 7 (81) 0 (3) 4 (32) 0 (95) 14 (479) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Wigeon 0 (12) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (12) 0 (1) 0 (4) 0 (30) Teal 0 (4) 0 (0) 0 (25) 0 (8) 0 (10) 1 (0) 0 (16) 1 (63) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (18) 0 (18) Oystercatcher 3 (157) 0 (5) 0 (7) 0 (4) 9 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 13 (173) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (16) 0 (8) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (24) Dunlin 0 (11) 0 (3) 0 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (20) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (14) 0 (19) 0 (5) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (39) Curlew 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) Redshank 1 (38) 0 (13) 0 (6) 0 (13) 0 (16) 0 (7) 0 (2) 1 (95) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Turnstone 0 (0) 0 (6) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 1 (7) Black-headed Gull 0 (82) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (3) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 1 (86) Common Gull 0 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (3) Herring Gull 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 7 (449) 1 (111) 1 (154) 7 (112) 9 (41) 8 (41) 1 (138) 33 (1046) Date: 29.11.08 High tide: 12.16 hrs (3.9 m) Count time: 08.05-09.13 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (2) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (2) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (17) 4 (6) 0 (7) 4 (31) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (5) 0 (5) Wigeon 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (121) 8 (81) 8 (207) Teal 8 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (33) 0 (0) 0 (19) 10 (20) 18 (74) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (6) 2 (6) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (11) 0 (25) 0 (36) Oystercatcher 14 (46) 1 (1) 0 (2) 0 (16) 0 (9) 2 (1) 0 (0) 17 (75) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (3) Knot 0 (0) 0 (56) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (56) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (240) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (240) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (52) 0 (18) 0 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (75) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (20) 0 (4) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (25) Curlew 1 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) 1 (1) 0 (1) 2 (5) Redshank 12 (19) 3 (0) 0 (1) 0 (13) 0 (6) 0 (12) 2 (1) 17 (52) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (1) Turnstone 26 (0) 2 (0) 0 (9) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 28 (11) Black-headed Gull 6 (32) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (4) 0 (2) 6 (42) Common Gull 2 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (2) Herring Gull 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 69 (102) 6 (370) 0 (47) 0 (74) 0 (33) 7 (178) 22 (149) 104 (953) Date: 29.11.08 High tide: 12.16 hrs (3.9 m) Count time: 09.25-10.17 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 1 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 6 (8) 12 (0) 1 (9) 22 (19) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (23) 0 (23) Wigeon 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (0) 8 (0) 0 (0) 0 (21) 13 (21) Teal 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 7 (14) 8 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 18 (14) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (2) 2 (2) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (24) 0 (24) Oystercatcher 1 (2) 10 (0) 0 (1) 3 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 14 (3) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 18 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 18 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 52 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 52 (0) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 8 (0) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (1) 9 (3) Curlew 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1) Redshank 9 (0) 5 (0) 4 (0) 7 (0) 0 (2) 0 (5) 2 (5) 27 (12) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Turnstone 16 (1) 6 (0) 9 (0) 10 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 41 (3) Black-headed Gull 0 (4) 0 (0) 2 (0) 4 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 6 (6) Common Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) Herring Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 28 (8) 24 (0) 17 (1) 114 (18) 22 (12) 13 (5) 6 (89) 224 (133) Date: 10.12.08 High tide: 09.09 hrs (3.9 m) Count time: 11.07-11.55 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) Grey Heron 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (3) 3 (0) 1 (0) 3 (0) 17 (5) 2 (0) 0 (0) 26 (8) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (2) Wigeon 0 (7) 7 (12) 0 (0) 0 (0) 64 (16) 13 (0) 8 (195) 92 (230) Teal 0 (8) 0 (0) 9 (6) 12 (16) 23 (4) 5 (0) 6 (16) 55 (50) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 2 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Oystercatcher 9 (161) 0 (5) 0 (2) 1 (4) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (3) 10 (177) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 1 (1) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (280) 0 (280) Dunlin 0 (2) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (14) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (17) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (10) 0 (10) 0 (0) 0 (10) 0 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (36) Curlew 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (1) 2 (0) 0 (0) 2 (4) Redshank 4 (61) 0 (6) 0 (3) 5 (9) 1 (4) 7 (0) 2 (1) 19 (84) Greenshank 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (2) Turnstone 0 (2) 0 (4) 1 (0) 5 (2) 2 (0) 2 (0) 0 (7) 10 (15) Black-headed Gull 17 (101) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (5) 0 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 19 (106) Common Gull 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) Herring Gull 0 (5) 0 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (8) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 33 (365) 10 (41) 11 (12) 26 (61) 107 (38) 34 (0) 20 (507) 241(1024) Date: 10.12.08 High tide09.09 hrs (3.9 m) Count time: 12.05-13.15 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (2) Grey Heron 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (3) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (5) 2 (8) 0 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (4) 0 (7) 2 (29) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) Wigeon 0 (9) 7 (7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (36) 28 (93) 0 (13) 35 (158) Teal 0 (21) 0 (2) 0 (11) 0 (13) 0 (39) 2 (18) 0 (19) 2 (123) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (5) 0 (31) 0 (36) Oystercatcher 4 (142) 0 (2) 0 (9) 0 (8) 0 (2) 0 (2) 0 (6) 4 (171) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (8) 0 (24) 0 (1) 0 (4) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (39) Curlew 0 (6) 0 (6) 0 (2) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (17) Redshank 1 (69) 0 (6) 0 (4) 0 (12) 1 (3) 0 (8) 1 (1) 3 (103) Greenshank 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 1 (0) 1 (3) Turnstone 0 (2) 0 (4) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) 0 (0) 3 (7) Black-headed Gull 5 (80) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 5 (87) Common Gull 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) Herring Gull 0 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (4) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 10 (352) 9 (60) 0 (36) 0 (47) 1 (83) 33 (133) 2 (80) 55 (791) Date: 23.12.08 High tide: 08.34 hrs (3.4 m) Count time: 10.28-11.15 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 1 (0) 10 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (0) 10 (0) 0 (2) 25 (2) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Wigeon 17 (0) 14 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 48 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 83 (0) Teal 13 (0) 3 (0) 12 (0) 6 (0) 41 (0) 13 (0) 0 (4) 88 (4) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (9) 0 (9) Oystercatcher 79 (0) 11 (0) 3 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 96 (0) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) Curlew 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) Redshank 33 (0) 3 (0) 5 (0) 10 (0) 5 (0) 8 (0) 2 (0) 66 (0) Greenshank 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (1) 4 (1) Turnstone 9 (0) 3 (0) 10 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (0) 0 (0) 27 (0) Black-headed Gull 57 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0) 2 (0) 2 (2) 67 (2) Common Gull 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) Herring Gull 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0)

Totals 212 (0) 46 (0) 33 (0) 21 (0) 101 (0) 45 (0) 7 (19) 465 (19) Date: 23.12.08 High tide: 08.34 hrs (3.4 m) Count time: 11.33-12.35 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (0) 11 (0) 0 (0) 8 (0) 2 (0) 12 (0) 0 (2) 33 (2) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 23 (0) 0 (0) 0 (19) 23 (19) Wigeon 18 (0) 0 (0) 4 (0) 2 (0) 47 (0) 52 (0) 0 (232) 123 (232) Teal 8 (0) 0 (0) 36 (0) 6 (0) 47 (0) 0 (0) 0 (86) 97 (86) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (2) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (71) 0 (71) Oystercatcher 153 (0) 9 (0) 0 (0) 15 (0) 3 (0) 1 (0) 14 (0) 195 (0) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 54 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 54 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 12 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 12 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 17 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 22 (0) Bar-tailed Godwit 8 (0) 20 (0) 0 (0) 4 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 33 (0) Curlew 3 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 11 (0) Redshank 101 (0) 5 (0) 0 (0) 18 (0) 4 (0) 1 (0) 0 (7) 129 (7) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Turnstone 3 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) 0 (0) 9 (0) Black-headed Gull 77 (0) 11 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 90 (0) Common Gull 5 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 5 (1) Herring Gull 2 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 379 (0) 76 (0) 43 (0) 130 (0) 129 (0) 70 (0) 16 (421) 843 (421) Date: 07.01.09 High tide: 07.41 hrs (3.5 m) Count time: 09.48-11.22 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (6) 0 (13) 0 (62) 0 (81) Wigeon 0 (5) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 23 (24) 0 (4) 0 (175) 24 (208) Teal 0 (13) 11 (0) 0 (8) 2 (33) 0 (27) 0 (12) 0 (58) 13 (151) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (2) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (52) 0 (53) Oystercatcher 0 (73) 0 (5) 0 (3) 0 (6) 0 (3) 1 (4) 0 (2) 1 (96) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (2) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1325) 0 (6) 0 (265) 0 (0) 0 (2750) 0 (4346) Dunlin 0 (3) 0 (27) 0 (1) 0 (5) 0 (3) 0 (1) 0 (2) 0 (42) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (24) 0 (1) 0 (54) 0 (12) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (93) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (12) 0 (24) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (38) Curlew 0 (4) 0 (3) 0 (2) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (12) Redshank 2 (51) 0 (22) 0 (6) 0 (9) 1 (19) 1 (12) 3 (15) 7 (134) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Turnstone 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 2 (3) 0 (1) 0 (1) 3 (10) Black-headed Gull 0 (215) 0 (5) 0 (3) 0 (4) 0 (6) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (235) Common Gull 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) Herring Gull 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 2 (381) 12 (111) 0 (1349) 3 (125) 26 (368) 2 (53) 3 (3123) 48 (5510) Date: 07.01.09 High tide: 07.41 hrs (3.5 m) Count time: 11.30-12.55 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (2) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (3) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (3) 1 (3) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (5) 0 (5) 0 (56) 0 (66) Wigeon 0 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 35 (28) 0 (2) 0 (46) 35 (81) Teal 0 (14) 0 (10) 0 (10) 0 (14) 12 (33) 0 (1) 0 (114) 12 (196) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (74) 0 (74) Oystercatcher 0 (84) 0 (25) 0 (10) 0 (8) 0 (14) 0 (2) 0 (5) 0 (148) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1300) 0 (55) 0 (7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1362) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (4) 0 (5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (9) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (16) 0 (117) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (136) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) Curlew 0 (8) 0 (3) 0 (2) 0 (2) 0 (2) 0 (2) 0 (2) 0 (21) Redshank 1 (57) 1 (24) 0 (14) 0 (14) 0 (5) 0 (6) 1 (10) 3 (130) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Turnstone 0 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 3 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (7) Black-headed Gull 0 (220) 0 (6) 0 (6) 0 (4) 0 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (242) Common Gull 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) Herring Gull 0 (3) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (7) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 1 (395) 1 (75) 0 (1367) 1 (215) 51 (105) 0 (19) 2 (314) 56 (2490) Date: 20.01.09 High tide: 06.57 hrs (3.3 m) Count time: 09.08-10.03 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 3 (2) Wigeon 5 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 19 (0) 27 (0) 16 (0) 0 (57) 67 (61) Teal 18 (0) 0 (0) 7 (0) 38 (0) 15 (0) 2 (0) 0 (37) 80 (37) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (5) 0 (5) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (2) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (86) 0 (86) Oystercatcher 19 (145) 23 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0) 5 (0) 1 (0) 1 (1) 52 (146) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) Curlew 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 0 (1) 4 (1) Redshank 1 (105) 19 (0) 33 (0) 79 (0) 102 (0) 6 (0) 135 (5) 375 (110) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) Turnstone 4 (6) 5 (0) 8 (0) 1 (0) 4 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 22 (6) Black-headed Gull 27 (215) 22 (0) 1 (0) 4 (0) 3 (0) 3 (0) 0 (0) 60 (215) Common Gull 0 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) Herring Gull 0 (8) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (8) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 75 (486) 69 (0) 50 (0) 154 (0) 158 (0) 30 (0) 137 (197) 673 (683) Date: 20.01.09 High tide: 06.57 hrs (3.3 m) Count time: 10.10-11.04 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (14) 0 (0) 0 (44) 1 (60) Wigeon 5 (3) 4 (0) 8 (0) 4 (0) 0 (42) 15 (0) 0 (68) 36 (113) Teal 18 (1) 0 (0) 12 (0) 19 (0) 0 (7) 17 (0) 0 (21) 66 (29) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (2) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (87) 0 (87) Oystercatcher 20 (152) 3 (0) 1 (0) 6 (7) 0 (2) 2 (0) 0 (6) 32 (167) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 2 (0) 4 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (0) Curlew 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0) 0 (1) 1 (0) 0 (2) 5 (4) Redshank 3 (112) 7 (0) 4 (0) 5 (13) 0 (4) 2 (0) 0 (8) 21 (137) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Turnstone 5 (7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 8 (7) Black-headed Gull 28 (210) 50 (0) 0 (0) 0 (12) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 78 (223) Common Gull 0 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) Herring Gull 0 (9) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (9) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 80 (499) 67 (0) 31 (0) 42 (36) 0 (71) 39 (0) 0 (239) 259 (845) Date: 04.02.09 High tide: 18.28 hrs (3.4 m) Count time: 15.04-15.46 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 19 (0) 26 (0) 5 (0) 17 (0) 67 (0) Wigeon 5 (0) 7 (0) 3 (0) 32 (0) 12 (0) 0 (0) 7 (0) 66 (0) Teal 0 (0) 5 (0) 7 (0) 32 (0) 5 (0) 12 (0) 17 (0) 78 (0) Mallard 9 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 9 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (0) 7 (0) Oystercatcher 0 (0) 3 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 4 (0) 0 (7) 9 (7) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 34 (0) 145 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 179 (0) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) Curlew 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 2 (0) 0 (2) 3 (2) Redshank 5 (0) 5 (0) 4 (0) 10 (0) 3 (0) 3 (0) 0 (51) 30 (51) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (3) 2 (3) Turnstone 42 (0) 27 (0) 12 (0) 8 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 89 (2) Black-headed Gull 9 (0) 24 (0) 9 (0) 2 (0) 12 (0) 6 (0) 0 (6) 62 (6) Common Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) Herring Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (2) 1 (2) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 70 (0) 71 (0) 35 (0) 143 (0) 204 (0) 34 (0) 50 (74) 607 (74) Date: 04.02.09 High tide: 18.28 hrs (3.4 m) Count time: 15.50-16.15 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (0) 0 (0) 12 (4) 16 (4) Wigeon 0 (0) 8 (0) 8 (0) 8 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 24 (2) Teal 0 (0) 5 (0) 2 (0) 14 (0) 13 (0) 0 (0) 3 (2) 37 (2) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 2 (0) Oystercatcher 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) Curlew 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) Redshank 0 (0) 3 (0) 2 (0) 9 (0) 2 (0) 3 (0) 1 (3) 20 (3) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 1 (1) Turnstone 0 (0) 15 (0) 11 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 26 (0) Black-headed Gull 6 (0) 8 (0) 2 (0) 6 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 27 (65) 51 (65) Common Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Herring Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 6 (0) 39 (0) 25 (0) 40 (0) 21 (0) 3 (0) 47 (78) 181 (78) Date: 18.02.09 High tide: 18.25 hrs (3.0 m) Count time: 14.45-16.20 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (1) 1 (1) Grey Heron 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (4) 3 (4) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 8 (0) 0 (0) 0 (3) 0 (0) 8 (3) Wigeon 0 (4) 0 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (14) Teal 18 (0) 2 (0) 12 (0) 39 (23) 0 (101) 98 (36) 0 (0) 169 (160) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (4) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Oystercatcher 3 (3) 3 (0) 2 (0) 0 (3) 0 (8) 0 (1) 0 (5) 8 (20) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (75) 0 (8) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (83) Black-tailed Godwit 67 (0) 118 (0) 1 (0) 2 (131) 0 (0) 16 (0) 0 (0) 204 (131) Bar-tailed Godwit 11 (0) 13 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 24 (0) Curlew 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (3) 0 (2) 0 (0) 1 (0) 1 (5) Redshank 21 (0) 10 (0) 1 (0) 60 (125) 0 (86) 7 (4) 0 (14) 99 (229) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 4 (0) 0 (0) 4 (1) Turnstone 6 (78) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 8 (78) Black-headed Gull 2 (6) 13 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 65 (0) 0 (21) 81 (29) Common Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Herring Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 130 (92) 161 (0) 19 (0) 110 (361) 0 (224) 191 (44) 1 (45) 612 (766) Date: 18.2.09 High tide: 18.25 hrs (3.0 m) Count time: 14.45-16.20 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (1) Grey Heron 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 8 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (4) 8 (4) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 (0) 0 (26) 0 (5) 0 (2) 6 (33) Wigeon 7 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) 10 (0) 10 (0) 0 (4) 0 (0) 30 (4) Teal 13 (13) 0 (0) 0 (0) 30 (0) 23 (57) 88 (75) 0 (3) 154 (148) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (3) 0 (0) 0 (3) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Oystercatcher 4 (1) 1 (1) 1 (0) 2 (0) 0 (8) 0 (1) 0 (1) 8 (12) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (57) 0 (124) 0 (0) 55 (0) 1 (0) 0 (35) 0 (0) 56 (216) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (14) 0 (3) 1 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (17) Curlew 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 3 (0) 0 (1) 3 (2) Redshank 3 (11) 2 (4) 4 (0) 4 (0) 30 (95) 1 (61) 0 (22) 44 (193) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) Turnstone 76 (15) 4 (1) 17 (0) 35 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 132 (16) Black-headed Gull 4 (2) 1 (12) 0 (0) 11 (0) 15 (28) 0 (36) 0 (46) 31 (124) Common Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Herring Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 108 (113) 8 (145) 26 (0) 165 (0) 79 (215) 93 (221) 0 (79) 479 (773) Date: 04.03.09 High tide: 16.53 hrs (3.4 m) Count time: 14.30-15.00 hrs Species Sect. A Swct. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (0) 0 (0) 21 (0) 5 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (370) 27 (370) Shelduck 0 (00 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (7) 0 (9) 0 (16) Wigeon 2 (0) 0 (26) 5 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (5) 7 (31) Teal 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 15 (0) 0 (33) 0 (35) 15 (68) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Oystercatcher 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 1 (1) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) Curlew 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Redshank 7 (0) 1 (6) 2 (0) 6 (0) 5 (0) 0 (2) 0 (2) 21 (10) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 1 (1) Turnstone 22 (0) 3 (53) 0 (15) 22 (0) 0 (00 0 (0) 0 (0) 47 (68) Black-headed Gull 9 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 24 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 34 (0) Common Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Herring Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 41 (0) 4 (87) 28 (15) 58 (0) 25 (0) 0 (42) 0 (423) 156 (567) Date: 04.03.09 High tide: 16.53 hrs (3.4 m) Count time: 15.05-15.35 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 0 (0) 0 (0) 12 (0) 5 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 28 (0) 45 (0) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 15 (0) 15 (0) Wigeon 0 (0) 0 (0) 10 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 10 (0) Teal 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 17 (0) 18 (0) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Oystercatcher 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Curlew 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Redshank 6 (0) 3 (0) 0 (0) 7 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 18 (0) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) Turnstone 15 (0) 49 (0) 34 (0) 16 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 114 (0) Black-headed Gull 6 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 23 (0) 3 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 34 (0) Common Gull 1 (0) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) Herring Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 28 (0) 55 (0) 56 (0) 52 (0) 7 (0) 0 (0) 62 (0) 260 (0) Date: 16.03.09 High tide: 14.49 hrs (3.6 m) Count time: 11.02-12.00 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 3 (120) 0 (10) 0 (7) 0 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (375) 6 (522) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (6) 0 (8) Wigeon 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Teal 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (9) 0 (39) 0 (116) 0 (0) 0 (166) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (0) 4 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (5) 0 (5) Oystercatcher 0 (29) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (33) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (34) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (34) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (43) 0 (375) 0 (33) 0 (10) 0 (0) 0 (461) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (4) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (5) Curlew 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (8) 0 (2) 0 (2) 0 (1) 0 (13) Redshank 0 (144) 0 (12) 0 (14) 1 (360) 0 (67) 0 (16) 0 (0) 1 (613) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (4) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (5) Turnstone 0 (67) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (70) Black-headed Gull 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (26) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (28) Common Gull 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (4) Herring Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 3 (366) 0 (24) 0 (67) 1 (833) 0 (143) 0 (147) 8 (388) 11 (1968) Date: 16.03.09 High tide: 14.49 hrs (3.6 m) Count time: 12.05-12.47 hrs Species Sect. A Sect. B Sect. C Sect. D Sect. E Sect. F Sect. G Totals

Little Egret 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Grey Heron 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Mute Swan 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brent Goose 7 (107) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (6) 0 (22) 0 (5) 0 (785) 7 (925) Shelduck 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Wigeon 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Teal 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (10) 0 (10) 0 (0) 0 (25) 0 (47) Mallard 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Pintail 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Shoveler 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Oystercatcher 0 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) Grey Plover 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Lapwing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Knot 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dunlin 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Black-tailed Godwit 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (75) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (77) Bar-tailed Godwit 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) Curlew 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) Redshank 1 (69) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (4) 0 (3) 0 (1) 0 (15) 1 (93) Greenshank 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Turnstone 0 (65) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (21) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (88) Black-headed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (6) Common Gull 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (2) Herring Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Great Black-backed Gull 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Totals 8 (247) 0 (2) 0 (1) 0 (102) 0 (57) 0 (6) 0 (828) 8 (1243) Dublin City Council Dollymount Promenade and Flood Protection Project (DPFPP) Appropriate Assessment

Appendix 6

I-WeBS Data See Appendix 7.2.1 to 7.2.4 of EIS

Ref: 08.159.10 June 2009 Appendix 6

Wooden Bridge - Causeway

2003/04 Species 1% 1% Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Peak National International count Light-bellied Brent Goose 220 260 12 156 540 940 22 128 940 Shelduck 150 3,000 133 377 540 79 313 540 Wigeon 820 15,000 168 627 757 75 57 82 757 Gadwall 20 600 1 1 Teal 450 5,000 77 835 172 385 77 242 835 Mallard 380 20,000 18 2 39 12 39 Pintail 20 600 2 14 3 14 Shoveler 25 400 20 84 82 70 206 206 Goldeneye 95 11,500 1 1 Red-breasted Merganser 35 1,700 10 2 10 Cormorant 140 1,200 5 2 1 2 5 Little Egret 1,300 1 1 1 1 Grey Heron 30 2,700 1 8 7 30 7 1 30 Oystercatcher 680 10,200 96 854 292 782 650 779 456 854 Ringed Plover 150 730 12 12 Golden Plover 1,700 9,300 1,131 14 92 1,131 Grey Plover 65 2,500 119 119 40 7 24 67 187 187 Lapwing 2,100 20,000 22 2 22 Knot 190 4,500 81 28 1,254 272 238 720 833 1,254 Dunlin 880 13,300 20 502 655 44 99 763 1,447 1,447 Black-tailed Godwit 140 470 24 85 58 89 10 890 122 890 Bar-tailed Godwit 160 1,200 1,174 1,064 43 69 300 468 1,174 Curlew 550 8,500 6 435 166 376 260 364 182 435 Greenshank 20 2,300 2 3 10 4 10 Redshank 310 3,900 471 512 398 646 658 599 648 658 Turnstone 120 1,500 132 30 11 39 61 20 132 Mediterranean Gull 1 1 Black-headed Gull 20,000 395 47 191 11 318 330 395 Common Gull 16,000 80 2 15 26 80 Herring Gull 13,000 1 2 2 Great Black-backed Gull 4,800 2 2

The counts presented in the table refer to the peak counts of species in each month in the given I-WeBS season. Blank columns indicate months for which no data are available, while blank cells within columns which contain positive values for one or more species constitute Zero for those species.

2004/05 Species 1% 1% Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Peak National International count Light-bellied Brent Goose 220 260 105 1,505 1,198 229 215 597 1,505 Shelduck 150 3,000 17 139 76 565 369 39 565 Wigeon 820 15,000 95 316 167 135 36 20 316 Teal 450 5,000 73 143 1,062 48 241 59 1,062 Mallard 380 20,000 42 2 2 42 Pintail 20 600 6 1 32 32 Shoveler 25 400 25 48 67 72 72 Goldeneye 95 11,500 1 12 12 Red-breasted Merganser 35 1,700 2 2 8 1 8 Great Crested Grebe 55 3,600 4 4 Cormorant 140 1,200 3 2 3 Little Egret 1,300 1 3 1 3 Grey Heron 30 2,700 17 7 5 6 1 17 Oystercatcher 680 10,200 1,140 1,171 454 476 743 283 1,171 Ringed Plover 150 730 2 2 Golden Plover 1,700 9,300 3,202 3,202 Grey Plover 65 2,500 3 19 34 44 1 44 Lapwing 2,100 20,000 21 15 21 Knot 190 4,500 138 1,117 156 363 889 1,117 Dunlin 880 13,300 168 1,519 219 1,697 12 373 1,697 Black-tailed Godwit 140 470 95 92 2 36 450 450 Bar-tailed Godwit 160 1,200 2,175 938 7 21 2,110 390 2,175 Curlew 550 8,500 65 416 64 44 203 146 416 Greenshank 20 2,300 3 1 10 10 Redshank 310 3,900 82 159 122 41 561 304 561 Turnstone 120 1,500 35 34 7 16 44 138 138 Black-headed Gull 20,000 2 2 4 258 883 86 883 Common Gull 16,000 1 33 18 33 Herring Gull 13,000 2 3 2 3 Great Black-backed Gull 4,800 2 2 2

The counts presented in the table refer to the peak counts of species in each month in the given I-WeBS season. Blank columns indicate months for which no data are available, while blank cells within columns which contain positive values for one or more species constitute Zero for those species.

2005/06 Species 1% 1% Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Peak National International count Mute Swan 110 110 4 2 4 Light-bellied Brent Goose 220 260 177 931 232 1,070 2,447 62 2,447 Shelduck 150 3,000 1 4 15 133 181 398 323 398 Wigeon 820 15,000 19 449 113 52 66 31 449 Teal 450 5,000 52 58 4 6 80 356 267 356 Mallard 380 20,000 8 18 5 18 Shoveler 25 400 3 31 59 49 142 5 142 Red-breasted Merganser 35 1,700 1 1 Little Grebe 25 4,000 1 1 Cormorant 140 1,200 4 4 1 4 Little Egret 1,300 11 6 2 1 11 Grey Heron 30 2,700 11 9 7 1 1 11 Oystercatcher 680 10,200 305 561 499 135 344 412 418 561 Ringed Plover 150 730 18 7 18 Golden Plover 1,700 9,300 25 562 562 Grey Plover 65 2,500 176 4 37 117 51 3 9 176 Lapwing 2,100 20,000 19 18 19 Knot 190 4,500 28 409 753 4,265 1,950 1,117 732 4,265 Little Stint 1 1 Dunlin 880 13,300 205 74 90 881 330 708 1,697 1,697 Ruff 12,500 1 1 Black-tailed Godwit 140 470 222 439 1 59 221 439 Bar-tailed Godwit 160 1,200 687 636 449 460 210 446 380 687 Whimbrel 2,000 1 1 Curlew 550 8,500 224 92 393 23 121 524 7 524 Greenshank 20 2,300 6 5 3 1 1 1 6 Redshank 310 3,900 1,218 347 699 206 315 893 697 1,218 Turnstone 120 1,500 109 62 148 9 25 64 9 148 Black-headed Gull 20,000 511 163 60 148 511 Common Gull 16,000 1 24 24 Herring Gull 13,000 6 4 5 6 Great Black-backed Gull 4,800 2 2

The counts presented in the table refer to the peak counts of species in each month in the given I-WeBS season. Blank columns indicate months for which no data are available, while blank cells within columns which contain positive values for one or more species constitute Zero for those species.

2006/07 Species 1% 1% Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Peak National International count Mute Swan 110 110 5 5 Light-bellied Brent Goose 220 260 9 682 855 176 35 319 855 Shelduck 150 3,000 2 2 77 55 209 159 215 215 Wigeon 820 15,000 3 93 105 271 72 25 19 271 Teal 450 5,000 26 91 320 117 198 300 160 320 Mallard 380 20,000 1 26 26 Shoveler 25 400 23 59 69 28 9 69 Goldeneye 95 11,500 2 2 Red-breasted Merganser 35 1,700 4 7 2 7 Great Crested Grebe 55 3,600 1 1 Cormorant 140 1,200 3 1 3 Little Egret 1,300 3 7 2 3 1 7 Grey Heron 30 2,700 5 2 27 4 8 2 27 Oystercatcher 680 10,200 656 260 564 102 352 1,453 920 1,453 Golden Plover 1,700 9,300 56 1,020 1,020 Grey Plover 65 2,500 157 1 24 15 29 46 157 Lapwing 2,100 20,000 1 31 1 31 Knot 190 4,500 87 1,121 955 3,475 2,317 3,475 Sanderling 65 1,200 7 7 Dunlin 880 13,300 63 228 580 78 3,357 1,561 3,357 Snipe 20,000 1 1 Black-tailed Godwit 140 470 140 20 38 56 25 140 Bar-tailed Godwit 160 1,200 1,080 894 174 709 110 2,229 421 2,229 Curlew 550 8,500 151 16 162 68 114 897 321 897 Greenshank 20 2,300 2 3 4 1 1 4 Redshank 310 3,900 502 228 279 134 425 369 714 714 Turnstone 120 1,500 25 24 130 27 34 25 112 130 Black-headed Gull 20,000 975 176 102 93 44 232 304 975 Common Gull 16,000 1 7 4 7 8 8 Lesser Black-backed Gull 4,500 4 4 Herring Gull 13,000 5 9 6 4 9 Great Black-backed Gull 4,800 3 3 Common Tern 1 1

The counts presented in the table refer to the peak counts of species in each month in the given I-WeBS season. Blank columns indicate months for which no data are available, while blank cells within columns which contain positive values for one or more species constitute Zero for those species.

2007/08 Species 1% 1% Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Peak National International count Light-bellied Brent Goose 220 260 56 2,009 20 281 806 2,009 Shelduck 150 3,000 5 35 94 156 163 190 190 Wigeon 820 15,000 12 166 693 80 105 693 Teal 450 5,000 149 320 195 118 352 75 352 Mallard 380 20,000 4 9 9 Pintail 20 600 5 5 5 Shoveler 25 400 22 111 111 Red-breasted Merganser 35 1,700 7 4 2 7 Cormorant 140 1,200 1 3 1 3 Little Egret 1,300 12 8 1 2 1 12 Grey Heron 30 2,700 9 6 4 1 9 Oystercatcher 680 10,200 62 586 823 446 927 430 927 Golden Plover 1,700 9,300 36 161 14 161 Grey Plover 65 2,500 72 32 132 29 162 2 162 Lapwing 2,100 20,000 11 26 26 Knot 190 4,500 7 3,850 885 4,300 75 4,300 Dunlin 880 13,300 35 160 379 3 379 Black-tailed Godwit 140 470 51 23 5 221 221 Bar-tailed Godwit 160 1,200 841 483 1,842 201 259 205 1,842 Curlew 550 8,500 431 284 56 290 453 17 453 Greenshank 20 2,300 16 12 34 1 1 34 Redshank 310 3,900 540 351 1,089 423 1,902 274 1,902 Turnstone 120 1,500 90 19 47 27 90 35 90 Black-headed Gull 20,000 466 116 430 1,101 56 1,101 Common Gull 16,000 1 2 5 3 5 Herring Gull 13,000 19 21 11 2 2 21 Great Black-backed Gull 4,800 2 2

The counts presented in the table refer to the peak counts of species in each month in the given I-WeBS season. Blank columns indicate months for which no data are available, while blank cells within columns which contain positive values for one or more species constitute Zero for those species.

Wooden Bridge - Causeway Species 1% 1% 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Peak Mean National International Mute Swan 110 110 4 5 5 2 Light-bellied Brent Goose 220 260 940 1,505 2,447 855 2,009 2,447 1,551 Shelduck 150 3,000 540 565 398 215 190 565 382 Wigeon 820 15,000 757 316 449 271 693 757 497 Gadwall 20 600 1 1 0 Teal 450 5,000 835 1,062 356 320 352 1,062 585 Mallard 380 20,000 39 42 18 26 9 42 27 Pintail 20 600 14 32 5 32 10 Shoveler 25 400 206 72 142 69 111 206 120 Goldeneye 95 11,500 1 12 2 12 3 Red-breasted Merganser 35 1,700 10 8 1 7 7 10 7 Little Grebe 25 4,000 1 1 0 Great Crested Grebe 55 3,600 4 1 4 1 Cormorant 140 1,200 5 3 4 3 3 5 4 Little Egret 1,300 1 3 11 7 12 12 7 Grey Heron 30 2,700 30 17 11 27 9 30 19 Oystercatcher 680 10,200 854 1,171 561 1,453 927 1,453 993 Ringed Plover 150 730 12 2 18 18 6 Golden Plover 1,700 9,300 1,131 3,202 562 1,020 161 3,202 1,215 Grey Plover 65 2,500 187 44 176 157 162 187 145 Lapwing 2,100 20,000 22 21 19 31 26 31 24 Knot 190 4,500 1,254 1,117 4,265 3,475 4,300 4,300 2,882 Sanderling 65 1,200 7 7 1 Little Stint 1 1 0 Dunlin 880 13,300 1,447 1,697 1,697 3,357 379 3,357 1,715 Ruff 12,500 1 1 0 Snipe 20,000 1 1 0 Black-tailed Godwit 140 470 890 450 439 140 221 890 428 Bar-tailed Godwit 160 1,200 1,174 2,175 687 2,229 1,842 2,229 1,621 Whimbrel 2,000 1 1 0 Curlew 550 8,500 435 416 524 897 453 897 545 Greenshank 20 2,300 10 10 6 4 34 34 13 Redshank 310 3,900 658 561 1,218 714 1,902 1,902 1,011 Turnstone 120 1,500 132 138 148 130 90 148 128 Mediterranean Gull 1 1 0 Black-headed Gull 20,000 395 883 511 975 1,101 1,101 773 Common Gull 16,000 80 33 24 8 5 80 30 Lesser Black-backed Gull 4,500 4 4 1 Herring Gull 13,000 2 3 6 9 21 21 8 Great Black-backed Gull 4,800 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 Common Tern 1 1 0

* Note there has been a taxonomic change within the wildfowl, which are now headed by swans and geese.

The counts presented in the table refer to the peak counts of species in each I-WeBS season. Site peak and mean are calculated as the peak and mean of peak counts respectively over the seasons specified. Blank cells within columns which contain positive values for one or more species constitute zero for those species.

Dublin Bay

Species 1% 1% 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Peak Mean National International Mute Swan 110 110 1 4 4 6 6 3 Whooper Swan 130 210 13 13 3 Dark-Bellied Brent Goose 1 1 0 Light-bellied Brent Goose 220 260 2,730 3,759 5,290 5,131 3,819 5,290 4,146 Shelduck 150 3,000 1,041 949 755 761 1,036 1,041 908 Wigeon 820 15,000 1,469 402 584 518 1,302 1,469 855 Gadwall 20 600 1 1 0 Teal 450 5,000 1,478 1,386 970 925 823 1,478 1,116 Mallard 380 20,000 60 93 55 91 67 93 73 Pintail 20 600 157 100 120 150 179 179 141 Blue-winged Teal 1 1 0 Shoveler 25 400 206 72 142 104 111 206 127 Scaup 45 3,100 2 2 0 Long-tailed Duck 20,000 1 1 1 0 Common Scoter 230 16,000 13 21 15 2 21 10 Goldeneye 95 11,500 18 15 20 23 23 23 20 Red-breasted Merganser 35 1,700 49 45 47 43 56 56 48 Red-throated Diver 20 3,000 3 5 10 12 7 12 7 Black-throated Diver 3,750 1 1 0 Great Northern Diver 50 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 Little Grebe 25 4,000 10 1 10 2 Great Crested Grebe 55 3,600 121 72 102 97 198 198 118 Slavonian Grebe 55 1 1 0 Cormorant 140 1,200 190 152 287 323 182 323 227 Shag 7 7 7 3 Little Egret 1,300 3 8 23 29 69 69 26 Grey Heron 30 2,700 37 30 40 44 33 44 37 Water Rail 1 2 1 1 2 1 Moorhen 20 6 4 3 4 9 9 5 Coot 330 17,500 1 1 0 Oystercatcher 680 10,200 3,633 3,513 2,137 3,327 2,933 3,633 3,109 Ringed Plover 150 730 323 185 288 849 355 849 400 Golden Plover 1,700 9,300 1,340 3,247 1,810 1,020 162 3,247 1,516 Grey Plover 65 2,500 524 128 536 751 202 751 428 Lapwing 2,100 20,000 43 44 127 56 26 127 59 Knot 190 4,500 2,506 2,520 4,894 4,519 5,802 5,802 4,048 Sanderling 65 1,200 525 592 589 692 609 692 601 Little Stint 1 1 0 Purple Sandpiper 35 750 1 13 1 13 3 Dunlin 880 13,300 5,104 4,596 3,350 7,453 6,124 7,453 5,325 Ruff 12,500 1 2 2 1 Snipe 20,000 11 2 1 1 11 3 Black-tailed Godwit 140 470 1,448 862 751 679 936 1,448 935 Bar-tailed Godwit 160 1,200 1,548 2,259 771 2,231 2,138 2,259 1,789 Whimbrel 2,000 1 1 1 0 Curlew 550 8,500 1,301 880 995 1,374 1,017 1,374 1,113 Spotted Redshank 900 1 1 0 Greenshank 20 2,300 72 29 18 33 47 72 40 Redshank 310 3,900 1,871 1,117 2,178 2,096 2,856 2,856 2,024 Turnstone 120 1,500 204 349 613 356 292 613 363 Mediterranean Gull 21 16 28 16 33 33 23 Black-headed Gull 20,000 2,691 3,598 2,899 5,456 4,358 5,456 3,800 Ring-billed Gull 3 1 1 3 1

* Note there has been a taxonomic change within the wildfowl, which are now headed by swans and geese.

The counts presented in the table refer to the peak counts of species in each I-WeBS season. Site peak and mean are calculated as the peak and mean of peak counts respectively over the seasons specified. Blank cells within columns which contain positive values for one or more species constitute zero for those species.

Common Gull 16,000 878 532 686 549 298 878 589 Lesser Black-backed Gull 4,500 27 18 671 483 14 671 243 Herring Gull 13,000 448 275 411 649 262 649 409 Iceland Gull 1 1 0 Glaucous Gull 2 2 0 Great Black-backed Gull 4,800 274 328 297 654 180 654 347 Sandwich Tern 3 6 133 342 122 342 121 Common Tern 1 5 173 15 173 39 Arctic Tern 2 2 0 Common/ Arctic Tern 400 400 80 Little Tern 1 1 0 Unidentified Tern 244 244 49 Kingfisher 1 1 1 1 1 1

* Note there has been a taxonomic change within the wildfowl, which are now headed by swans and geese.

The counts presented in the table refer to the peak counts of species in each I-WeBS season. Site peak and mean are calculated as the peak and mean of peak counts respectively over the seasons specified. Blank cells within columns which contain positive values for one or more species constitute zero for those species. Roughan & O’Donovan S2S Cycleway & Footway Interim Works: Bull Road to Causeway Road Cycleway Consulting Engineers Dublin City Council

APPENDIX C North City Arterial Watermain (Screening Report)

Ref: 12135.24/HDA FINAL ISSUE – April 2013 Appendix C

North City Arterial Watermain

Dublin City

Habitats Directive Assessment –

Screening Report

August 2012

Client: Consulting Engineer: Dublin City Council Roughan & O'Donovan Block 1, Floor 4 Arena House Civic Offices Arena Road Wood Quay Sandyford Dublin 8 Dublin 18

Roughan & O’Donovan Dublin City Council Consulting Engineers North City Arterial Waterman

North City Arterial Watermain Dublin City

Habitats Directive Assessment – Screening Report

Document No: ...... 11.216.01

Made: ...... Tony Dempsey

Checked: ...... Barry Corrigan

Approved: ...... Tony Dempsey

Revision Description Made Checked Approved Date

1 Draft for Client SG BC TD August 2012 Approval

2 Final SG BC TD August 2012

Roughan & O’Donovan Dublin City Council Consulting Engineers North City Arterial Waterman Roughan & O’Donovan Dublin City Council Consulting Engineers North City Arterial Waterman

North City Arterial Watermain Dublin City

Habitats Directive Assessment – Screening Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 The Requirement for an Assessment under Article 6 ...... 1 1.2 The Aim of this Report ...... 1 1.3 Statutory Body Consultations ...... 1

2.0 THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...... 1 2.1 Introduction ...... 1 2.2 Stages of Article 6 Habitats Directive Assessment ...... 2

3.0 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT ...... 3

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ...... 3

5.0 NATURA 2000 SITES ...... 7 5.1 Designated Sites in the Vicinity of the Project ...... 7 5.2 Characteristics of the Designated Sites ...... 8

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF LIKELY EFFECTS ...... 9 6.1 Consideration of Significance ...... 9 6.2 Likelihood and Significance of Effects ...... 10

7.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ...... 10 7.1 Introduction ...... 10 7.2 North Dublin Bay SAC ...... 10 7.3 North Bull Island SPA ...... 12

8.0 SPECIFIC MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 13

9.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 14

Ref: 11.216 August 2012 Page i Roughan & O’Donovan Dublin City Council Consulting Engineers North City Arterial Waterman

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared by Roughan & O’Donovan Consulting Engineers to determine the potential effects, if any, of the proposed North City Arterial Watermain on sites with European conservation designations (i.e. Natura 2000 sites). The report is largely informed by the EIS for the North City Arterial Watermain and Clontarf Flood Defence (2007) and conditions provided as part of the development consent from An Bord Pleanála (2008).

1.1 The Requirement for an Assessment under Article 6 The requirement for appropriate assessment is set out in the EU Habitats Directive (92/34/EEC) in Article 6.3 which states:

“Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the [Natura 2000] site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans and projects, shall be subjected to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives.”

1.2 The Aim of this Report This Screening Report for Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Directive (Article 6) (hereinafter referred to as Screening Report) has been prepared in accordance with current guidance and provides an ecological impact assessment for the proposed North City Arterial Watermain.

The Screening Report provides the information required in order to establish whether or not the proposed development is likely to have a significant impact on the Natura 2000 sites in the context of their conservation objectives and specifically on the habitats and species for which the Natura 2000 sites have been designated.

By undertaking the assessment in a step by step manner in relation to the habitats and species of the Natura 2000 sites, this report seeks to inform the screening process required as the first stage of the process pursuant to Article 6.3 of the EU Habitats Directive in determining that this project can be screened out at Stage 1 with a conclusion that there is no potential for significant effects on Natura 2000 sites.

1.3 Statutory Body Consultations

Consultations were carried out with National Parks and Wildlife Service to agree the scope and extent of assessment required. Dr. Linda Patton, Dr. David Tierney and Mr. Niall Harmey provided advice at NPWS offices in January 2012 and agreement was made as to the outline of the report. NPWS are satisfied with the approach taken for the screening report and no further consultation are considered necessary provided that recommendations within this report are included in the contract documents for construction of the scheme.

2.0 THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

2.1 Introduction As set out in 1.1 above, Article 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) defines the requirement for Appropriate Assessment of certain plans and projects. In order

Ref: 11.216 August 2012 Page 1 Roughan & O’Donovan Dublin City Council Consulting Engineers North City Arterial Waterman

to inform the requirements of this Screening Report the following guidance documents have been referred to:  Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland – Guidance for Planning Authorities (NPWS 2009, Revised February 2010);  EU Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the ‘Habitats Directive’ 92/43/EEC (2007); and  Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites. Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (2002). In terms of what is required to allow the competent authority to undertake and complete the Appropriate Assessment, the Guidance for Planning Authorities (NPWS 2009, revised February 2010) states:

‘AA is an impact assessment process that fits within the decision making framework and tests of Article 6(3) and 6(4) and, for the purposes of this guidance, it comprises two main elements. Firstly a Natura Impact Statement – i.e. a statement of the likely and possible impacts of the plan or project on a Natura 2000 site must be prepared. This comprises a comprehensive ecological impact assessment of a plan or project; it examines the direct and indirect impacts that the plan or project might have on its own or in combination with other plans and projects, on one or more Natura 2000 sites in view of the sites’ conservation objectives. Secondly, the competent authority carries out the AA, based on the NIS and any other information it may consider necessary.’

2.2 Stages of Article 6 Habitats Directive Assessment The European Commission’s guidance promotes a four stage process, as set out below, to complete an Appropriate Assessment.  1. Screening  2. Appropriate Assessment (Natura Impact Statement)  3. Assessment of Alternative Solutions  4. The “IROPI test” (Imperative Reasons of Over-riding Public Interest)

Stages 1 and 2 deal with the main requirements for assessment under Article 6(3). Stages 3 and 4 are undertaken when, after Stages 1 and 2, it cannot be said with sufficient certainty that the development will not have any significant effect on the Natura 2000 sites.

This Screening Report includes the assessment and testing required under Stage One – the Screening Process. In complying with the obligations under Article 6(3) and to be consistent with the Guidance for Planning Authorities, this report has been structured as follows:  Background to the Project  Natura 2000 Sites  Assessment of Likely Effects  Screening Conclusion and Statement

Ref: 11.216 August 2012 Page 2 Roughan & O’Donovan Dublin City Council Consulting Engineers North City Arterial Waterman

3.0 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT

Dublin City Council published and submitted an Environmental Impact Statement for the North City Water Arterial Watermain and Clontarf Flood Defence to An Bord Pleanála in December 2007 as part of the planning application for the scheme. The scheme was approved by An Bord Pleanála in July 2008 with conditions. Subsequently, Dublin City Council has decided to proceed with the watermain section of the scheme while omitting the flood defence element. The removal of the flood defence element will have no additional impact on the scheme and will not require any additional works or changes that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment.

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

The North City Arterial Waterman (NCAM) will involve the laying of approximately 9.7km of 400m to 600m diameter trunk main which will be laid through Fairview Park and cross the existing Dublin Belfast / Dart railway line onto the north side of Alfie Byrne Road. The pipeline will be laid alongside the Alfie Byrne Road to its junction with the Clontarf Road at the Clontarf Promenade. The pipeline will then be laid within the Clontarf Promenade, up to the Bull Wall and then along the Clontarf Road, James Larkin Road, Howth Road and Dublin Road to the junction with Bayside Boulevard South. As part of the NCAM two spur pipelines will be laid in the roadbed along Hollybroook Road and Kilbarrack. All construction works are temporary in nature and the site will be reinstated in full upon completion of the scheme. See Figure 1.1 for details of the scheme.

Construction Methodology The proposed scheme is broken down into three phases:  Phase 1: Fairview and Alfie Byrne Road;  Phase 2: Clontarf Pipeline;  Phase 3: Works in Road.

It is proposed that phase one will take place first during the summer months (mid April to mid August) of 2013. Phase 2 and 3 are likely to run concurrently in the following years.

Fairview Park, Alfie Byrne Road and Clontarf Promenade are located on areas of “made ground” consisting of construction, industrial and domestic waste deposited during the last century. Site investigations carried out in advance of the proposed works indicate that some of these areas are contaminated to varying degrees with contaminants associated with such wastes. The risk assessment indicates that the current use of undisturbed ground in these areas does not pose a risk to human health; however excavation and disturbance of contaminated materials in the ground could have an effect on the environment during the construction phase of the development and would require measures to be put in place to mitigate these effects. As such, disturbance will be minimised as far as is practicable.

Phase 1 Fairview Park and Alfie Byrne Road The route crosses the football pitch where topsoil must be stripped and stored before a temporary running surface for construction vehicles is installed. On completion of

Ref: 11.216 August 2012 Page 3 Roughan & O’Donovan Dublin City Council Consulting Engineers North City Arterial Waterman

the excavation and backfilling of the NCAM trench this surface must be removed and the football pitch reinstated with the stored topsoil.

Ground Preparation The contractor will be confined to works within the 16m wide wayleave. Prior to commencement of works the area will be fenced off with a 2.4m hoarding. The contractor will provide, maintain and keep available at all times plant and equipment necessary to minimise the formation and accumulation of dust arising from the works and will provide facilities for vehicle cleaning. Any dirt or mud adhering to the tyres or chassis of any vehicle will be thoroughly cleaned off before the vehicle is permitted to leave the site.

Trees and shrubs interfering with the construction will be removed and disposed of or pruned by a qualified tree surgeon. The contractor will strip the topsoil and store it for reuse along the wayleave. The height of the stored topsoil will not exceed 2 metres. Stumps of trees and shrubs are to be rooted out and disposed of offsite at a suitable location. The holes left by the removal of tree stumps will be filled with suitable imported fill material. Immediately after stripping of topsoil the contractor will lay a thick granular material on a geo-grid membrane.

The geo-grid membrane and the layer of thick granular material will provide a reinforced sub-base/haul road which will allow stabilised access onto the working area and also isolate contact with the existing made ground. The stripping of topsoil and laying of the granular layer will be done in a controlled manner so that the time period during which the stripped area will be exposed will be kept to an absolute minimum. The areas used for the storage of topsoil will not require the use of the granular layer if no plant movement is required for the area.

Pipe Laying Works Following completion of preparation woks the contractor will proceed with the excavation of the trench and installation of the pipeline. Where possible the excavated spoil will not be stored beyond the working day, however in the event that this is not practical, appropriate precautions in relation to the material will be taken. These precautions will include appropriate storage and covering.

Groundwater arising from the excavations will be controlled in such a manner as to prevent indiscriminate soak-away or run-off across the site. Where groundwater encountered in the excavation trench is required to be removed for the purpose of laying and backfilling the pipe, the contractor will apply to Dublin City Council for a discharge licence to deal with the disposal of groundwater as necessary.

The pipe will be laid on granular bedding and granular surround will facilitate the migration of existing groundwater or landfill gasses. In order to restrict the movement of any gasses or water, impermeable sections across the full width and depth of the trench will be constructed using clay or another approved impermeable material every 200 metres and at locations close to the existing boundaries of the known waste body.

The trench will be backfilled with imported suitable fill material. Backfilling with the granular material used on top of the geo-grid membrane will not be permitted.

Ref: 11.216 August 2012 Page 4 Roughan & O’Donovan Dublin City Council Consulting Engineers North City Arterial Waterman

Ground Reinstatement Through Fairview Park, existing tree and shrub cover will be retained where possible during construction. New tree planting may be carried out by Dublin City Council during the operational phase, to replace early mature tree cover which will be lost along the Alfie Byrne Road during construction. A number of native species are recommended for inclusion. Birch, rowan and hawthorn, grown as standard will provide relatively light screening; native trees which provide more dense screening are alder, ash, white beam, white popular and oak. Thorny shrubs include blackthorn, hawthorn, wild rose and rose cultivars.

The contractor shall complete the reinstatement and landscaping of areas impacted by construction activities in accordance with the requirement of DCC Parks and Landscape Services Division and these requirements will be included in the contract documents.

The landscaped areas will only be handed over to the DCC Parks and Landscape Service Division upon completion of the works to their satisfaction.

It is assumed that the geo-grid membrane and granular material will be deemed contaminated and it shall be removed and disposed of offsite accordingly. The removal of the geo-grid membrane and the granular material will be carried out in a controlled manner. The stored topsoil will be spread, tilled and seeded over the wayleave area.

Phase 2: Clontarf Pipeline Approximately 2.9km of NCAM pipeline will be laid along the Clontarf Promenade. Due to the contaminated nature of areas of existing ground it is proposed that there will be minimal disruption to the existing subsoil.

There will be a number of working sections with 100m sub-sections, and the majority of works in one subsection will be completed prior to works commencing another sub-section. The footpath along the sea front at each working section will be closed to the public when that section is under construction. Hoarding will be provided at each section until completion of top soiling and grass seeding. At that stage hoarding will be removed and temporary fencing of a type to be agreed with DCC Parks and Landscape Service will be provided.

Diversions will be provided around the grassed area thereby only allowing public access to the promenade footpaths. Following the first full grass cut or as soon as possible thereafter the grassed area of the promenade will be handed over the DCC Parks and Landscape Services Division.

Construction Method The contractor will be confined to working within one of the working areas at any one time. Prior to commencement of the works the contractor will fence the working area with a 2.4m high timber hoarding from seaward edge of the cycle path to the sea wall.

The contractor will provide, maintain and keep available at all times all plant and equipment necessary to minimise the formation and accumulation of dust arising from the works. The contractor will be required to provide facilities for vehicle cleaning. Any dirt or mud on the tyres or chassis of any vehicle will be thoroughly cleaned off before the vehicle is permitted to leave the site.

Ref: 11.216 August 2012 Page 5 Roughan & O’Donovan Dublin City Council Consulting Engineers North City Arterial Waterman

In order to minimise the impact of construction plant on the existing ground it is proposed to provide a haul road, which will allow the movement of plant along the working area. The road will consist of a layer of a thick granular material laid on a geo-grid membrane directly on the existing topsoil. The geo-grid membrane and the layer of granular material will provide a reinforced sub-base/haul road which will allow stabilised access onto the working area and also isolate contact with the existing made ground. The road will be located on the seaward side of the embankment and the width will vary between 4m and 8m.

The existing trees and shrubs, which require removal, will be cut as low to the ground as possible and disposed off site. The remaining stumps, which do not require removal, will be treated to avoid any sprouting in the future. Where the treatment of stumps is not possible these will be rooted out and disposed of off-site to a suitably licensed facility. The holes left by the removal of stumps will be filled with imported suitable fill material or granular material depending on the location.

No construction plant or other type of equipment will be allowed outside the area of the haul road if it is deemed that this would damage the existing top soil and expose the ground beneath.

Construction of Pipeline The method of construction for the pipeline will be determined by the contractor. Where possible the excavated spoil will not be stored on the promenade beyond the working day, however in the event that this is not practical appropriate precautions in relation to the material will be taken. These precautions will include appropriate storage and covering of material.

The contractor of the pipeline will proceed as for the sections above. As soon as reasonably practicable, after the completion of each 100m long section, the in-filled section will be topsoiled and seeded.

Phase 3: Works in Roads A large section of the scheme will be laid in trafficked roads (5.4km). Pipelines will be laid in James Larkin Road, Howth Road, Dublin Road, Kilbarrack Road and Hollybrook Road.

Ground Preparation Works Construction of sections of 150m maximum lengths are proposed. The working sections shall be secured with fencing made of removable panels. The contractor shall ensure that lighting is provided on the fencing during the night for security purposes. Fencing will be kept in place until completion of works.

Pipe Laying Works The contactor will proceed with the excavation of the trench (generally 1-2m wide and 1-3m deep, depending on the location of existing services and obstruction) and installation of the pipeline. Where possible excavated spoil will not be stored beyond the working day, however where this is deemed not practical appropriate precautions will be taken to include appropriate storage and covering.

All excavated material for disposal will be disposed of with regard to relevant legislation and guidance. Ground water will be controlled so as to prevent

Ref: 11.216 August 2012 Page 6 Roughan & O’Donovan Dublin City Council Consulting Engineers North City Arterial Waterman

indiscriminate soak-away or run-off across the sites. A discharge licence will be required for any groundwater that is encountered during laying and backfilling.

The pipe will be laid on a granular bedding and granular surround. The trench will be backfilled with imported granular material or foamed concrete.

Works on the water pipeline in the section adjoining the south bull lagoon i.e. from the Bull wall to the Bull Island Causeway will be carried out between mid-April and mid-August. The seasonal restrictions will minimise impacts on wintering waterfowl. Visual screening will be applied to the side of the construction areas which face towards the South Bull Lagoon to minimise the potential for disturbance impact from human activity within the construction area.

Road Reinstatement The permanent reinstatement works will be completed immediately after the installation of the pipe within the 150m long working area. There are three types of permanent reinstatement to be applied as part of the works, concrete footpath, concrete pavement and bitmac pavement.

5.0 NATURA 2000 SITES

5.1 Designated Sites in the Vicinity of the Project Section 3.2.3 of the Guidance for Planning Authorities states that the approach to screening can be different for different plans and projects and will depend on the scale and the likely effects of the project. For the purpose of this screening exercise the likely zone of impact primarily relates to the zone immediately around the construction site, taken as 250m for the purpose of this assessment.

A review of the National Parks and Wildlife Service database has identified North Dublin Bay SAC and North Bull Island SPA as being in proximity the works.

End of scheme

James Larkin Road

Beginning of Dublin Bay SAC and scheme Clontarf Road North Bull Island SPA Alfie Byrne Road

Plate 1: Designated Natura 2000 Sites (NPWS Online Map).

Ref: 11.216 August 2012 Page 7 Roughan & O’Donovan Dublin City Council Consulting Engineers North City Arterial Waterman

5.2 Characteristics of the Designated Sites North Dublin Bay SAC The site covers the inner part of Dublin Bay, the seaward boundary extending from the Bull Wall lighthouse across the Martello Tower at Howth. The sites is an excellent example of a coastal sites with all the main habitats represented. It holds good examples of 10 habitats that are listed on Annex I of the E.U. Habitats Directive; one of these is listed with priority status. Several of the wintering bird species have populations of international importance, while some of the invertebrates are of national importance. The site contains a number of rare and scarce plants including some of which are legally protected.

The Conservation objectives for North Dublin Bay are as follows:

To maintain or restore the favourable conservation condition of the Annex I habitats(s) and/or the Annex II species for which the SAC has been selected:  Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide  Annual vegetation and other annuals colonizing mud and sand  Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand  Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco Puccinellietalia maritimae)  Petalophyllum ralfsii  Mediterranean salt meadows  Embryonic shifting dunes  Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria  Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation  Humid dune slacks

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.

North Bull Island SPA The North Bull Island SPA is an excellent example of an estuarine complex and is one of the top sites in Ireland for wintering waterfowl. It is of international importance on account of both the total number of waterfowl and the individual populations of Light-bellied Brent Goose, Black-tailed Godwit and Bar-tailed Godwit that use it. Also of significance is the regular presence of several species that are listed on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive, notably Golden Plover and Bar-tailed Godwit, but also Ruff and Short-eared Owl.

Objective: To maintain or restore the favourable conservation condition of the bird species listed as Special Conservation Interests for this SPA:  [wintering] Branta bernicla hrota  [wintering] Tadorna tadorna  [wintering] Anas crecca

Ref: 11.216 August 2012 Page 8 Roughan & O’Donovan Dublin City Council Consulting Engineers North City Arterial Waterman

 [wintering] Anas acuta  [wintering] Anas clypeata  [wintering] Haematopus ostralegus  [wintering] Pluvialis squatarola  [wintering] Calidris canutus  [wintering] Calidris alba  [wintering] Limosa limosa  [wintering] Limosa lapponica  [wintering] Numenius arquata  [wintering] Tringa totanus  [wintering] Arenaria interpres  Wetlands & Waterbirds

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

The favourable conservation status of a species is achieved when:  population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural 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.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF LIKELY EFFECTS

6.1 Consideration of Significance In terms of significance, the NPWS Guidance quotes an EC definition “any element of a plan or project that has the potential to affect the conservation objectives of a Natura 2000 site, including its structure and function, should be considered significant (EC, 2006)”.

In order to assess the likely impacts and ascertain whether a significant impact on the integrity of the Natura sites is likely to occur as a result of the proposed development, it is necessary to consider what constitutes the integrity of a site as referred to in Article 6 (3) of the Habitats Directive. The document Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The Provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC gives clear guidance in this regard and states:

Ref: 11.216 August 2012 Page 9 Roughan & O’Donovan Dublin City Council Consulting Engineers North City Arterial Waterman

“The integrity of the site involves its ecological functions. The decision as to whether it is adversely affected should focus on and be limited to the site’s conservation objectives.”

6.2 Likelihood and Significance of Effects There is no one measure of significance, but the EC guidance suggests the use of likelihood of changes to relevant indicators to establish changes in these conservation objectives. The indicators of most relevance to the identified SACs would be the quality and extent of habitats, species present and their population size and vegetation characteristics.

For the assessment of significance of potential impacts upon the conservation objectives of each site identified, the following should be considered:  deterioration of habitats or the habitats of qualifying species;  disturbance to qualifying species; and  to ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: (i) population of the species as a viable component of the site; (ii) distribution of the species within the site; (iii) distribution and extend of habitats supporting the species; (iv) structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species; and (v) no significant disturbance of the species.  to ensure for the qualifying habitat that the following are maintained in the long term: (i) extent of the habitat on the site; (ii) distribution of the habitat within the site; (iii) structure and function of the habitat; (iv) processes supporting the habitat; (v) distribution of typical species of the habitat; (vi) viability of typical species as components of the habitat; and (vii) no significant disturbance of typical species of the habitat.

7.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS

7.1 Introduction This section considers the potential impacts of the proposed North Dublin City Arterial Watermain Construction upon the qualifying features of the Natura 2000 sites, as identified in Section 5.

7.2 North Dublin Bay SAC North Dublin Bay is designated for a number of coastal habitats. The main vulnerabilities to the Site are in the form of recreational pressures, rabbit grazing, activities that may impact on the water table and disturbance to birds from commercial bate digging. The intertidal areas of the site are known to receive polluted water though there are no apparent significant impacts on the associated flora and fauna.

Ref: 11.216 August 2012 Page 10 Roughan & O’Donovan Dublin City Council Consulting Engineers North City Arterial Waterman

Terrestrial habitats directly impacted from the proposed project include amenity grassland, ephemeral vegetation of spoil and disturbed ground, ornamental/non- native scrub and early mature mixed broadleaved /conifer woodland at construction phase when existing vegetation cover is removed from the temporary construction land take and construction compound. These impacts are assessed as locally significant. No protected plant species or habitat will be impacted including those within the SAC. Construction areas will be regraded and re-seeded with grassland and management transferred back to DCC parks and Landscape Services Division upon completion.

Upon completion the construction sites will be reinstated and therefore, no adverse impacts will be caused by the proposal during the operational phase of the scheme to North Dublin Bay SAC.

A number of measures are in place as part of the planning consent to prevent impact on the site during construction phase, these include:  Disturbance to ground will be minimised as far as practicable;  The contractor will confine works to within 16m wide wayleave;  The contractor will strip the topsoil and store for reuse along the wayleave, the height of stored topsoil will not exceed 2m;  Where possible excavated spoil will not be stored beyond the working day, however in the event that this is not practical, appropriate precautions in relation to the material will be taken. These precautions will include appropriate storage and covering;  Ground water arising from excavations will be controlled in such a manner as to prevent indiscriminate soak-away or run-off across the site;  It is proposed to construct the works in sections of 150m maximum lengths. The working sections shall be secured with fencing made of removable panels. The fencing shall be kept in place until the works within the working sections are complete;  Existing tree and shrub cover will be retained where possible during construction;  Street trees will be protected during construction and excavation kept outside the canopy spread of trees where possible to minimise root spread;  New tree planting may be carried out by DCC to replace early mature tree cover along the Tolka, Alfie Byrne Road and Clontaf Promenade. Native species include Birch, rowan and hawthorn grown as standards which would provide light screening. Native trees which provide more dense screening are alder, ash white beam, white poplar and oak, thorny shrubs include blackthorn, hawthorn, wild rose and rose cultivars.

In order to minimise the potential impact on the water environment the following mitigation measures are outlined in the EIS and form part of the planning consent:  All material including oils, solvents and paints will be stored within temporary bunded areas or dedicated bunded containers;  Where possible refuelling will be take place in a designated bunded area away from surface water gullies, drains and water bodies, in the event of refuelling outside of this area fuel will be transported in a mobile double skinned tank;

Ref: 11.216 August 2012 Page 11 Roughan & O’Donovan Dublin City Council Consulting Engineers North City Arterial Waterman

 Spill kits and hydrocarbon absorbent packs will be available and trip trays will be used during refuelling;  All relevant personnel will be fully trained in the use of this equipment;  Where soil/made ground and subsoil stripping occurs, the resulting excavated soil fractions will be segregated into inert, non-hazardous and /or hazardous fractions (in accordance with Council Decision 2003/33/EC, the EPA water classification criteria at certain licensed landfills in Ireland);  It is understood that the excavated inert material will be either used for the construction of the earth bund or removed off-site. The excavation and handling of inert material will be carefully managed in such a way as to prevent any potential negative impact on the receiving water environment;  Where possible the excavated spoil would not be stored beyond the working day, however in the event that this is not practical appropriate precautions in relation to the material will be taken. These precautions will include appropriate storage and covering;  All associated hazardous construction waste will be stored within temporary bunded storage areas prior to removal by an appropriate EPA or Local Authority approved waste management contractor;  The risk of groundwater ingress to excavations, or surface water collecting in excavations, is deemed low. As the design progresses, should it be found necessary to extend the trench into the quaternary aquifer, discussions will be held with Dublin City Council Drainage Department and Environment Department, to determine the most appropriate disposal route for water generated during dewatering operations;  The guidelines provided by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, with respect to concrete wash waters, CIRIA, the UK Environment Agency and Environment and Heritage Service, the UK Department of the Environment and Inland Fisheries Ireland will be adhered to in order to ensure that there is a neutral impact on the water environment during the construction phase of the proposed development.

As such the only potential impact which could occur to North Dublin Bay SAC would relate to an impact on water quality as a result of pollution. However it is noted the habitats present within the SAC are not pollution sensitive, it is therefore assumed that a significant pollution event would be required to impact on the SAC, its protected habitats or its protected species. Taking the precautionary principal and working in compliance with other legislative requirements to maintain water quality (EU Water Quality Directives and Associated Regulations, Bathing Water Directive, Water Framework Directive), best practice will be put in place to ensure that there is no negative impact on water quality arising from runoff from the construction site. Mitigation measures listed above are provided as part of the planning consent and ensure that there is no significant risk to water quality from runoff to the SAC. There are no other possible direct or indirect impacts and as such it is concluded that there will be no impact on North Dublin Bay SAC, its qualifying habitats and species or the conservation objectives of the site.

7.3 North Bull Island SPA North Bull Island SPA is designated for a number of overwintering wildfowl and wader species. It is of international importance for waterfowl on the basis that it regularly supports in excess of 20,000 waterfowl. It also qualifies for international importance as the numbers of three species exceed the international threshold, namely Light-bellied Brent Goose, Black-tailed Godwit and Bartailed Godwit.

Ref: 11.216 August 2012 Page 12 Roughan & O’Donovan Dublin City Council Consulting Engineers North City Arterial Waterman

While wintering waterfowl in Dublin Bay are relatively habituated to traffic noise and movement, pedestrian and cyclist use of footpaths and cycleways that adjoin intertidal habitats, relatively static human activity does cause disturbance and waterfowl move away from it. Waterfowl using intertidal habitats are therefore likely to be displaced from the immediate area of construction works by disturbance. Displacement impacts during the winter season are assessed as potentially significant in the South Bull Lagoon, because internationally important numbers of Brent geese and black-tailed godwit, and nationally important numbers of shelduck, teal, knot, dunlin, redshank and turnstone occur within the area liable to disturbance along the base of the sea wall.

Brent geese are known to use the grassland feeding areas beside Alfie Byrne Road during the winter season, however given that works are planned in the summer months only there will be no impact on the geese as a result of displacement or loss of habitat at Alfie Byrne Road. Immediate replacement of this strip of grassed area is required for the provision of this habitat during winter grazing.

The following mitigation measures were included in the EIS for the scheme and now make up part of the planning consent:  Visual screening will be applied to the side of the construction compound which faces towards the Tolka Basin, to minimise the potential for disturbance impacts from human activity within the compound. Visual screening will also be provided along the sea wall for each section of Clontarf Promenade when under construction. It is envisaged that a 2.5m high timber hoarding will be used.  When grassland at Clontarf Promenade is being reinstated, red fescue grass (Festuca rubra) will be included in the seed mix at a rate of at least 30%. This species is relatively salt tolerant and will withstand short periods of inundation with salt water.  An ecologist will be made available to the site supervisory staff as required for consultation during construction phase, to liaise with and advise on potential impacts and mitigation measures and to assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures.  Measures to be taken to avoid discharge of contaminated surface water runoff to intertidal habitats are detailed above in Section 7.2.

As with North Dublin Bay SAC the only potential impacts which could occur to North Bull Island SPA relate to an impact on water quality as a result of pollution. Due to the mitigation measures provided as part of the planning consent there is no significant risk to the SPA. In addition seasonal restriction put on the works (summer time construction only) and the provision of screening on the shore side of the scheme ensure that there are no other possible direct or indirect impacts on the SPA. As such it is concluded that there will be no impact on North Bull Island SPA, its qualifying habitats and species or conservation objectives.

8.0 SPECIFIC MITIGATION MEASURES

The assessment has concluded that there will be no impact on either of the listed Natura 2000 sites. The mitigation measures provided as part of the EIS for North City Arterial Watermain and Clontarf Flood Defence have been approved by An Bord

Ref: 11.216 August 2012 Page 13 Roughan & O’Donovan Dublin City Council Consulting Engineers North City Arterial Waterman

Pleanála and make up part of the planning consent for this project. As such no specific additional mitigation measures are required.

As part of the EIS for the North City Arterial Watermain and Clontarf Flood Defence Project the scheme included the provision of a flood protection wall and bunding, designed for the purpose of flood protection. In particular a bund was included in the design for the grassed area along Alfie Byrne Road. This resulted in a potential impact on Brent geese that currently use the area for grazing, as the raised area of grassland could become unsuitable after reinstatement. In addition the provision of the bund and flood protection works resulted in a longer construction period throughout the year. Mitigation proposed within the EIS included the provision of alternative grassland habitat at the Causeway Road. Grassland here would be mown to prepare short grass sward suitable for use by geese as a replacement feeding areas.

The removal of the flood protection requirements allows for smaller areas of grassland being impacted by the scheme. In addition the area of grassland at Alfie Byrne Road will be reinstated prior to the arrival of overwintering waterfowl. This will negate the need for compensatory habitat to be provided at Causeway as identified within the EIS.

9.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The first stage of the Appropriate Assessment process, screening, has been completed in compliance with the relevant European Commission and national guidelines.

The potential impacts during the construction and operation of the proposed North Dublin City Arterial Watermain have been considered in the context of the Natura 2000 sites, their Qualifying Interests and conservation objectives.

The evaluation undertaken has identified that there will be no significant impact on any of the Qualifying Habitats or Species, either alone or in-combination, with the North Dublin Bay SAC or North Bull Island SPA.

Therefore, as a result of the ecological impact assessment carried out, it is considered that the conservation objectives for the Natura 2000 sites will not be compromised by the proposed development, nor will the proposed development have any significant impact on the designated sites or the habitats or species for which it they been designated.

Conclusion As a result of the assessment carried out it is the considered view of the author that the proposed development will have no adverse effect on the integrity of either of the Natura 2000 sites listed and as such this report returns a conclusion that there is no potential for significant effects on the Natura 2000 sites. As such the project can be screened out under the Habitats Directive as not requiring a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment.

Ref: 11.216 August 2012 Page 14