Natura Impact Statement for Proposed Jetty extension and slipway - Frenchport, Co Mayo

Report for: Mayo County Council

March 2015

Report by: Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd Main Street Ballisodare Telephone: 071 9140542 Email: [email protected]

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Proposed Jetty Document extension and slipway - Frenchport, Co Mayo Client Mayo Local Enterprise Office Will Woodrow Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd Prepared by Main Street, Ballisodare, Co Sligo, Ireland. T: +353 719140542 Lead Author Will Woodrow Checked internally WW Checked by client Status / Version / Date V1 27 03 15

STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY This report is written by Will Woodrow, MSc. MCIEEM. The author has considerable experience in impact assessment of projects including over ten years’ specific experience in Article 6 Assessments under the EU Habitats Directive and Ecological Impact Assessments. As a Full Member and Associate Member respectively of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, the author employs a high degree of competence and professional standard in his approach to environmental assessment.

Will Woodrow – qualifications: HND – Conservation Management MSc – European Environmental Policy and Regulation MSc (Arch) – Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies

CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Requirement for a Natura Impact Statement ...... 1 1.3 Structure/ Layout of the report ...... 1 1.4 Survey Dates and Main Sources of Consultation and Information ...... 2 2 DESCRIPTION AND FEATURES OF THE PROJECT AND AREA ...... 3 2.1 Location ...... 3 2.2 Project details ...... 3 2.3 Area description and issues ...... 8 2.3.1 Area description ...... 8 2.3.2 Management and current use ...... 11 3 DESCRIPTION OF NATURA 2000 SITES ...... 13 3.1 Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair Special Protection Area (SPA 004093) .... 13 3.1.1 Qualifying features of the Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair Special Protection Area (SPA site code: 004093) ...... 13 3.1.2 Proximity of the proposal to Natura 2000 features ...... 13 3.1.3 Main threats to the site ...... 14 3.2 Mullet Peninsula Special Protection Area (SPA site code 004227) ...... 14 3.2.1 Qualifying features of the Mullet Peninsula Special Protection Area (SPA) ...... 15 3.2.2 Proximity of the proposal to Natura 2000 features ...... 15 3.2.3 Main threats to the site ...... 15 3.3 Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC (SAC site code 000470) ...... 15 3.3.1 Qualifying features of the Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex Special Area of Conservation (SAC) ...... 16 3.3.2 Proximity of the proposal to Natura 2000 features ...... 16 3.3.3 Main threats to the site ...... 18 3.4 Erris Head Special Area of Conservation (SAC site code 001501) ...... 18 3.4.1 Qualifying features of the SAC ...... 19 3.4.2 Proximity of the proposal to Natura 2000 features ...... 19 3.4.3 Main threats to the site ...... 19 3.5 West Connacht Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC site code 002998) ...... 20 3.5.1 Qualifying features of the SAC ...... 20 3.5.2 Proximity of the proposal to Natura 2000 features ...... 20 3.5.3 Main threats to the site ...... 21 3.6 Screening Matrix ...... 22

2

4 CONCLUSIONS OF SCREENING ASSESSMENT ...... 28 5 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ...... 29 5.1 Potential impacts arising from different aspects of the proposal ...... 29 5.1.1 Direct habitat loss ...... 30 5.1.2 Potential localised changes in sediments ...... 30 5.1.3 Release of hydrocarbons and cement into the water-column ...... 31 5.1.4 Potential disturbance during construction ...... 31 5.1.5 Production of suspended solids within the water column ...... 32 5.1.6 Potential for carriage of pollutants into the watercourse by surface run-off ...... 32 5.1.7 Disturbance to common bottlenose dolphins during the operation of ships to and from AMETS 32 5.2 Potential impacts on Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA ...... 33 5.2.1 Species potentially affected ...... 33 5.2.2 Proximity to areas potentially used by species ...... 33 5.2.3 Loss of feeding / roosting habitat ...... 33 5.2.4 Disturbance during construction ...... 37 5.2.5 Disturbance during operation ...... 39 5.2.6 Pollution of feeding habitat ...... 39 5.3 Potential impacts on Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC ...... 39 5.3.1 Habitats and species potentially affected ...... 39 5.3.2 Proximity to features potentially affected ...... 39 5.3.3 Pollution ...... 41 5.3.4 Impacts on sedimentation ...... 42 5.3.5 Disturbance to otter...... 42 5.4 Potential impacts on West Connacht Coast SAC ...... 42 5.4.1 Species potentially affected ...... 42 5.4.2 Proximity to areas potentially used by species ...... 43 5.4.4 Disturbance during construction ...... 45 5.4.5 Disturbance during operation ...... 45 5.4.5 Hydrocarbon and chemical pollution during construction and operation ...... 47 5.5 Potential impacts on local ecology ...... 47 5.5.1 Description of features potentially affected ...... 47 5.5.2 Habitat loss ...... 48 5.5.3 Pollution ...... 48 5.5.4 Disturbance ...... 48 6 IN-COMBINATION EFFECTS WITH OTHER PLANS & PROJECTS ...... 49

3

6.1 Context ...... 49 6.2 In-combination Assessment ...... 49 7 MITIGATION OF EFFECTS ...... 51 7.1 Potential disturbance on wintering waterfowl for which the Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA is designated during construction ...... 51 7.2 Potential impact on Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA intertidal feeding areas as a result of tracked or wheeled vehicles driving on intertidal areas during construction activity. 51 7.3 Potential pollution of intertidal and subtidal habitats within the Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA and Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC ...... 52 7.4 Potential pollution events during construction or operation and consequent direct and indirect impacts on the West Connacht Coast SAC ...... 53 7.5 Potential pollution events during construction or operation and consequent direct and indirect impacts on the West Connacht Coast SAC ...... 53 7.6 Ensuring compliance ...... 53 7.7 Impacts on Local Ecology - Potential pollution of intertidal and subtidal habitats in the immediate vicinity of the proposed works ...... 53 7.8 Impacts on Local Ecology - Potential disturbance of breeding corncrake through unnecessary movements of construction machinery ...... 54 8 CONCLUSIONS ...... 54 9 REFERENCES ...... 55 Appendix 1 – Sensitivity Assessment of surrounding habitats (Mayo County Council 2011) 59 Appendix 2 – Consultation response from IWDG ...... 59 Appendix 3 – Site Synopses for sites covered in the Appropriate Assessment ...... 61

4 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd was approached by Mayo County Council to undertake a Natura Impact Statement for the proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension within the townland of Annagh on the Mullet Peninsula, Co. Mayo. This report collates the information required to allow for an assessment of the proposed works to be evaluated.

1.2 Requirement for a Natura Impact Statement The Habitats Directive was transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997 and European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (the Habitats Regulations). Regulation 42 of the 2011 Regulations requires that any proposal likely to have a significant effect on a European Site, alone or in combination with other operations or activities, needs to be assessed with respect to its potential impact in the site’s conservation objectives. Regulation 42 (9) of the 2011 Habitats Regulations states: Where a public authority is required to conduct an Appropriate Assessment pursuant to paragraph (6) in relation to a plan or project that it proposes to undertake or adopt, it shall—  prepare a Natura Impact Statement,  compile any other evidence including, but not limited to, scientific evidence that is required for the purposes of the Appropriate Assessment, and  submit a Natura Impact Statement together with evidence compiled under subparagraph (b) to the Minister not later than six weeks before it proposes to adopt or undertake the plan or project to which the Natura Impact Statement and evidence relates.

Section 177AE of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2001 (as inserted by section 57 of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010) set out the appropriate procedure for Local Authority projects with potential to impact on Natura 2000 sites. This requires that, where an Appropriate Assessment is required in respect of a development by a local authority that is a planning authority, they will prepare, or cause to be prepared, a Natura Impact Statement. The Natura Impact Statement shall then be provided to An Bord Pleanála for them to undertake an Appropriate Assessment. This report comprises a Natura Impact Statement as required under Regulation 42(9) of the European Communities (Birds and Natural habitats) Regulations 2011. The Statement incorporates a screening (sections 2 to 5) of Natura 2000 sites potentially affected by the proposal with sections 6 to 8 providing an assessment of the proposal considering potential impacts on conservation features within them and provides mitigation proposals to avoid impact on the integrity of Natura 2000 sites (a Natura Impact Statement). This allows for an audit trail through Article 6 of the EU Habitats Directive to facilitate an Appropriate Assessment by a competent authority.

1.3 Structure/ Layout of the report This report provides the information necessary for a competent authority to undertake an Appropriate Assessment of the proposal. The report sections, paragraphs and tables relate in sequence to the process of assessing the potential impact of the project in the context of

1 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 sequential requirements of Article 6 of the EU Habitats Directive. Sections 1 to 4 of the report provide a description of the project and a screening assessment aimed at ascertaining the Natura 2000 sites and designated features within them potentially affected by the proposal. Sections 5 to 7, provide an assessment of the potential impacts and provide mitigation measures to ensure that the proposal will not result in an impact on integrity of any Natura 2000 sites.

1.4 Survey Dates and Main Sources of Consultation and Information  Site field survey 05 January 2015  Previous site survey and reports (Draft Appropriate Assessment, Mayo County Council 2011, and field survey July 2011)  Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (2009). Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland: Guidance for Planning Authorities;  European Community Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) – The Habitats Directive;  European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011;  European Commission Environment DG (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;  Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The Provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC;  Scientific reports, papers, journals and books as detailed.  Liaison with relevant statutory and expert bodies (DAHG:NPWS and IWDG)  Informal discussion with local BirdWatch Ireland representative (25 03 15)

2 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

2 DESCRIPTION AND FEATURES OF THE PROJECT AND AREA

2.1 Location The proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension is located within the townland of Annagh on the Mullet Peninsula, Co. Mayo. The location can be found at grid reference IF 642 343. The proposal is situated partly within the Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair Special Protection Area (SPA Site Code: 004093).

2.2 Project details Project rationale and choice of location The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) is planning to develop a Wave Energy Test Site off the west coast of Ireland near Annagh Head in County Mayo (west of Belmullet). The wave energy test site is a facility to provide prospective developers with a grid connection and licensed test area location to test their full scale prototype wave energy converters. This is an important part of the overall strategy for the development of ocean energy in Ireland. Easy access to the test site for maintenance, setting up and checking of equipment from a nearby location is a requirement. Frenchport Pier has been selected as a suitable pier. Some enhancement works are required to the pier structure to bring it to the required standard. This would facilitate the Wave Energy Test site project by allowing small vessels such as RIBS (Rigid Inflatable Boats), to be launched for inspection and maintenance operations of the WEC. This report assesses the potential impacts of the Frenchport Pier extension. An assessment of the Wave Energy Test site and associated infrastructure (indicated on Figure 3.1.2 below) are subject to a separate Environmental Impact Assessment co-ordinated by the SEAI. Further details of this the Wave Energy Test site project, and the already completed Environmental Scoping Report (completed by ESBI, 2010) are available on the SEAI website (http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Ocean_Energy/Belmullet_Wave_Energy_Test_Site/). Proposed works at Frenchport Pier have been agreed by SEAI along with consultant engineers ARUP to facilitate the Wave Energy Test Site project. These plans have been agreed in consultation with Mayo County Council, fishermen and local community.

Summary of Project Elements Proposed works will involve:  Construction of a new 8m long x 4.6m wide Pier Extension (36.8m2);  Construction of a new 6m wide slipway alongside the existing pier (42m; 252m2);  Construction of 142m2 extension to existing car par: This new car park will provide an additional 12 car parking bays (bays 2.5m x 5.0m) and 5 vehicle and boat parking spaces (bays 3.6m x 12.2m);  Existing parking area is to be developed with drainage, hardcore, tarmac surface and parking areas delineated;  A 4m x 9.8m waste facility will be included within the existing parking area.  Possible re-alignment of roundabout and monument to adjust the turning circle.

3 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Figure 2 provides a layout view of the proposed works, with Figure 3 providing section details.

Proposed Construction Approach Construction works on the new slipway and pier will consist of preparation works, comprising removal of existing concrete steps and creation of a temporary rock platform (<200kg) at the end of the pier for use of an excavator for stripping sediment/rock, placing formwork and pouring concrete. Rock will be re-used on construction of the slipway. The slipway will be pre-cast concrete and then placed below the water level. The new pier extension will be poured in 6 sections (2.4m x 4.5m sections at 3 levels approximately 1.5 – 2m high). The first two levels will be poured below water level with the remaining pours carried out in the dry. Each section will be keyed / dowelled together. Sand and sand bags (200 No.) or similar system will be used for plugging gaps between formwork and rock to prevent seepage of concrete. Cast in-situ mass tremie concrete is to be used. It is expected that works can be undertaken in tandem with tidal opportunities to undertaken works in dry conditions at low tide. However, if this is not feasible, an approach will be undertaken that uses a pumped cofferdam approach. Equipment used will consist of a 20 ton Excavator, 6 ton dumper, mini excavator, Rock Breaker; Tractor and dump trailer for transporting fill to and from the site; Pump/Crane for pouring concrete and a pump for de-watering formwork between tides; Compressor and kango hammer for breaking out the existing pier, general power tools, poker vibrator and vibrating roller. Plant access to the location for the pier extension will be undertaken along the route of the proposed slipway (to the immediate east of the existing pier. It is proposed that a site compound will be established within the existing car parking area.

Proposed Construction Timing It is expected that works will be undertaken over a build period of 3-4 months between April and July.

4 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Figure 1 – Location of the proposal in relation to the wider area and Natura 2000 sites

5 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Figure 2 – Layout of proposal

6 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Figure 3 – Proposal sections

7 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

2.3 Area description and issues

2.3.1 Area description The area falls within Portnafrankagh Bay, which being located along the very exposed Mullet Peninsula, is classified as meso-tidal and exposed according to the Western River Basin Management Plan. However, while the wider area is very exposed, the location of Frenchport pier itself is located within an enclosed bay characterised predominantly by sandy and muddy sand substrata, which is less exposed than the wider area. While approximately the inner half of the bay is comprised of littoral sands, west of the low water mark, water depths rapidly drop off to depths of circa 20m. The main habitat types located within the vicinity of the pier development are littoral rock, and Sand and muddy sand shores. The habits either side of the pier undergo a fairly short transition from terrestrial through to subtidal habitats. Immediately either side of the pier there is an area of cobbles and boulders. There is an existing hardcore car park to the south of the pier. This area is bordered to the east by improved agricultural grassland, and semi-improved grassland to the west. The general area is shown in plates 1 to 6 below.

Plate 1 – The pier from the south at 3/4 falling tide

8 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Plate 2 – habitat to the south east of the pier, showing littoral rock and mixed substrate habitats

Plate 3 – habitat to the north west of the pier, showing littoral rock and mixed substrate habitats

9 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Plate 4 – Sublittoral habitat at the end of the pier (area beneath proposed pier extension)

Plate 5 – Sublittoral fringe habitat falling immediately below Mean Low Water Tide level

10 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Plate 6 – Looking north from car park showing improved grassland immediately east of the existing car park, with intertidal sand and mudflats in the middle distance

2.3.2 Management and current use The area currently holds an existing pier and car parking area. There is limited access on foot from the car park to the intertidal zone. The area is used for berthing and mooring fishing boats. The area can become exposed to extreme weather, and there is no slipway at the pier, which means that larger boats berthed in the area must be launched from other sites, such as Ballyglass. For this reason the number of fishing boats berthed in the area can be limited. Plate 7 shows fishing boats moored in the area during summer months

11 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Plate 7 – View north from existing car park showing moored fishing and day boats during the summer (SEAI)

12 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

3 DESCRIPTION OF NATURA 2000 SITES The proposal lies partly within the Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair Special Protection Area (SPA 004093), and in the vicinity of the Mullet Peninsula SPA (SPA 004227), the Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex Special Area of Conservation (SAC 000470), the Erris Head SAC (SAC 001501) and the West Connacht Coast SAC (SAC 002998). The designation features and descriptions of each are provided in sections 3.1 to 3.5.

3.1 Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair Special Protection Area (SPA 004093) Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA covers 406.16 hectares of which 18.27% comprises marine area. The NPWS site synopsis describes Termoncarragh Lake as ‘a shallow, coastal lake situated on the north-west side of the Mullet peninsula, Co. Mayo. It is fringed by swamp vegetation and edged in parts by freshwater marsh and fen’.

3.1.1 Qualifying features of the Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair Special Protection Area (SPA site code: 004093) Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA is designated for seven bird species which include:  Whooper Swan (Cygnus cygnus) [A038] - Wintering  Barnacle Goose (Branta leucopsis) [A045] - Wintering  Corncrake (Crex crex) [A122] - Breeding  Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) [A142] - Breeding  Chough (Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax) [A346] – Breeding  Greenland White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons flavirostris) [A395] - Wintering  Dunlin (Calidris alpina schinzii) [A466] – Breeding  Wetland and Waterbirds [A999]

3.1.2 Proximity of the proposal to Natura 2000 features

The proposal is situated partly within the Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA (see Figure 1) and a number of site selection features have the potential to occur within or adjacent to the site. Table 1 provides information relating to the proximity of designation features to the proposal.

13 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Table 1 - Proximity of proposal to Mullet Peninsula SPA site selection features Interest Feature Closest proximity / potential connectivity Whooper Swan (Cygnus Potential to occur immediately adjacent to the proposal. cygnus) [A038] Barnacle Goose (Branta Potential to occur immediately adjacent to the proposal. leucopsis) [A045] At its closest proximity within the SPA, corncrake are likely to Corncrake (Crex crex) [A122] occur some 720 metres to the northeast of the proposal. Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) At its closest proximity within the SPA, lapwing are likely to [A142] occur some 720 metres to the northeast of the proposal. Chough (Pyrrhocorax Chough are likely to occur immediately adjacent to the pyrrhocorax) [A346] proposal. Greenland White-fronted At its closest proximity within the SPA, Greenland white- Goose (Anser albifrons fronted geese are likely to occur some 720 metres to the flavirostris) [A395] northeast of the proposal. Dunlin (Calidris alpina schinzii) At its closest proximity within the SPA, dunlin are likely to occur [A466] some 720 metres to the northeast of the proposal. At its closest proximity within the SPA, wildfowl are likely to Wetland and Waterbirds [A999] occur immediately adjacent to the proposal.

3.1.3 Main threats to the site

The main threats to the site as taken from the NPWS standard data form include the following:

Negative Impact Threats and pressures Inside/ outside the site [i/o/b]

Low Roads & motorways, o

Low Fertilisation i

Medium Dispersed habitation o High Grazing, i High Restructuring agricultural land holding i i = inside, o = outside, b = both

3.2 Mullet Peninsula Special Protection Area (SPA site code 004227) The Mullet Peninsula SPA covers 325.69 hectares of which 0.1% is marine area. The NPWS site Standard Data Form describes the SPA as comprising of ‘three separate areas situated on the Mullet peninsula in Co. Mayo. The peninsula is low-lying and exposed (rarely rising above 20 m)

14 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 and is mostly underlain by metamorphic schist and gneiss, although the southern tip is granite and rises to 103 m. The three areas that make up the site are located, respectively, 5 km north- west, 2 km west and 15 km south-west of the town of Belmullet. The main habitat present is grassland, which is managed in a relatively intensive manner’.

3.2.1 Qualifying features of the Mullet Peninsula Special Protection Area (SPA) The Mullet Peninsula SPA is designated for the following EU Birds Directive Annex I species:  Corncrake (Crex crex) [A122]

3.2.2 Proximity of the proposal to Natura 2000 features

The site is situated partly within Mullet Peninsula SPA (see Figure 1) and a number of site selection features have the potential to occur within or adjacent to the site. Table 2 outlines the precautionary minimum distance at which of each of the designation features are likely to be found in relation to the proposal.

Table 2 - Proximity of proposal to The Mullet Peninsula SPA site selection features Interest Feature Closest proximity / potential connectivity At its nearest the Mullet Peninsula SPA, and therefore Corncrake (Crex crex) [A122] corncrake within the SPA, has the potential to occur some 700 metres to the north of the proposal and is separated by an area of open marine coastal water.

3.2.3 Main threats to the site

The main threats to the site as taken from the NPWS standard data form include the following:

Negative Impact Threats and pressures Inside/ outside the site [i/o/b]

Low Discontinuous urbanisation, i

Low Cultivation i High Mowing / cutting of grassland, i High Non-intensive goat grazing i i = inside, o = outside, b = both

3.3 Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC (SAC site code 000470) The Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC covers 14029.04 hectares of which 82.15% comprises marine area. The NPWS site synopsis describes the site as a ‘large coastal site comprising much of the Mullet Peninsula, the sheltered waters of Blacksod Bay and the low-lying sandy coastline

15 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 from Belmullet to Kinrovar. The character of the site is strongly influenced by the Atlantic Ocean and the exposed location of much of the site results in a terrestrial landscape dominated by blown sand and largely devoid of trees. The underlying bedrock is principally metamorphic schist and gneiss. The site displays an excellent range of coastal and marine habitats’.

3.3.1 Qualifying features of the Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex Special Area of Conservation (SAC) The Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC is designated for the following habitats and/or species listed on Annex I / II of the E.U. Habitats Directive (* = priority; numbers in brackets are Natura 2000 codes):  Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide [1140]  Large shallow inlets and bays [1160]  Reefs [1170]  Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand [1310]  Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes) [2120]  Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes) [2130]  Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-Ulicetea) [2150]  Machairs (* in Ireland) [21A0]  Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition - type vegetation [3150]  Alkaline fens [7230]  Lutra lutra (Otter) [1355]  Petalophyllum ralfsii (Petalwort) [1395]

3.3.2 Proximity of the proposal to Natura 2000 features

The site is situated some 190 metres outside the west of Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC (see Figure 1). Table 3 outlines the precautionary minimum distance at which of each of the designation features are likely to be found in relation to the proposal.

16 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Table 3 - Proximity of proposal to Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC site selection features Interest Feature Closest proximity / potential connectivity Mudflats and sandflats not At its closest proximity this feature is likely to occur some 200 covered by seawater at low tide metres to the east of the proposal. [1140] Large shallow inlets and bays At its closest proximity this feature is likely to occur some 200 [1160] metres to the east of the proposal.

Reefs [1170] At its closest proximity this feature is likely to occur some 400 metres to the north-east of the proposal. Salicornia and other annuals At its closest proximity this feature is likely to occur some 200 colonising mud and sand metres to the east of the proposal. [1310] Shifting dunes along the At its closest proximity this feature is likely to occur some 500 shoreline with Ammophila - 800 metres to the east of the proposal. arenaria (white dunes) [2120] Fixed coastal dunes with At its closest proximity this feature is likely to occur some 500 herbaceous vegetation (grey - 800 metres to the east of the proposal. dunes) [2130] Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes At its closest proximity this feature is likely to occur some 500 (Calluno-Ulicetea) [2150] - 800 metres to the east of the proposal.

Machairs (* in Ireland) [21A0] At its closest proximity this feature is likely to occur some 500 - 800 metres to the east of the proposal. Natural eutrophic lakes with At its closest proximity this feature is likely to occur some Magnopotamion or 1,200 – 1,800 metres to the east of the proposal. Hydrocharition - type vegetation [3150]

Alkaline fens [7230] At its closest proximity this feature is likely to occur some 1,000 metres to the east of the proposal. Lutra lutra (Otter) [1355] Otter is likely to occur immediately adjacent to the proposal. Petalophyllum ralfsii At its closest proximity this feature is likely to occur in excess (Petalwort) [1395] of 500 metres to the east of the proposal.

17 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

3.3.3 Main threats to the site

The main threats to the site as taken from the NPWS standard data form include the following:

Negative Impact Threats and pressures Inside/ outside the site [i/o/b]

Low Nautical sports (including motorized nautical sports & non-motorized nautical sports), stock i feeding, Taking and removal of animals (terrestrial),

Low Leisure fishing. i

Medium Discharges (including: disposal of household / recreational facility waste, disposal of industrial i waste and disposal of inert materials), Medium Removal of beach materials, i

Medium Fertilisation, i

Medium Marine and Freshwater Aquaculture (including: intensive fish farming, intensification, i suspension culture and bottom culture),

Medium Hunting, bait digging / collection, i

Medium Hunting, fishing or collecting activities not i referred to above

Medium Walking, horseriding and non-motorised i vehicles.

High Erosion i

High Grazing. i i = inside, o = outside, b = both

3.4 Erris Head Special Area of Conservation (SAC site code 001501) The Erris Head Special Area of Conservation covers 814.8 hectares of which 47.2% comprises marine area. The NPWS site synopsis describes the site as ‘situated on the northern part of the Mullet Peninsula in north Co. Mayo. It comprises approximately 15 km of cliff, plus adjoining habitats. The geology of the region consists of acid rocks, such as quartzite, gneiss and Silurian schists and slates’.

18 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

3.4.1 Qualifying features of the SAC The Erris Head SAC is designated for the following habitats and/or species listed on Annex I / II of the E.U. Habitats Directive (* = priority; numbers in brackets are Natura 2000 codes):  Vegetated Sea Cliffs [1230]  Alpine and Subalpine Heaths [4060]

3.4.2 Proximity of the proposal to Natura 2000 features

The site is situated some 520 metres outside the southeast of the Erris Head Special Area of Conservation (see Figures 1). Table 4 outlines the precautionary minimum distance at which of each of the designation features are likely to be found in relation to the proposal.

Table 4 - Proximity of proposal to Erris Head SAC site selection features

Interest Feature Closest proximity / potential connectivity At its closest proximity this feature is likely to occur in excess Vegetated Sea Cliffs [1230] of 200 metres to the east of the proposal. Alpine and Subalpine Heaths At its closest proximity this feature is likely to occur in excess [4060] of 1 kilometre to the east of the proposal.

3.4.3 Main threats to the site

The main threats to the site as taken from the NPWS standard data form include the following:

Negative Impact Threats and pressures Inside/ outside the site [i|o|b]

Low Roads, motorways, o

Low Urbanised areas, human habitation (including: continuous urbanisation, discontinuous urbanisation, o dispersed habitation and other patterns of habitation),

Low Restructuring agricultural land holding (including: removal of hedges and copses or scrub and removal o of stone walls and embankments),

19 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Low Leisure fishing (including: bait digging / collection, b pole fishing and spear-fishing),

Low Paths, tracks, cycling tracks, walking, horse-riding i and non-motorised vehicles

Medium Grazing (including: intensive and non-intensive b grazing), i = inside, o = outside, b = both

3.5 West Connacht Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC site code 002998) The West Connacht Coast Special Area of Conservation covers 66016.34 hectares of which 100% comprises of marine area. The NPWS site synopsis describes the site as ‘comprising two parts, in its northern component the site extends from the coastal waters off Erris Head westwards beyond Eagle Island and the Mullet Peninsula in Co. Mayo. From there it extends southwards immediately off the coast as far as the entrance to Blacksod Bay. In its southern component, the site stretches from Clare Island and the outer reaches of Clew Bay at Old Head and continues southwards off the Mayo coast to the Connemara coast near Clifden and Ballyconneely, Co Galway. Predominantly coastal in nature, the site extends westwards into Atlantic continental shelf waters up to approximately 7-11 km from the mainland, although in its southern component it remains mostly inshore of the main islands: Clare Island, Inishturk, Inishbofin and Inishshark. Its area contains subtidal waters fringing these and other islands, as well as islets and rocky skerries off the Co. Mayo and Co. Galway coasts’.

3.5.1 Qualifying features of the SAC The West Connacht Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC 002998) is designated for the following habitats and/or species listed on Annex I / II of the E.U. Habitats Directive (* = priority; numbers in brackets are Natura 2000 codes):

 Tursiops truncatus (Common Bottlenose Dolphin) [1349]

3.5.2 Proximity of the proposal to Natura 2000 features

The site is situated some 520 metres to the northwest of the West Connacht Coast Special Area of Conservation (see Figure 1). Table 5 outlines the precautionary minimum distance at which of each of the designation features are likely to be found in relation to the proposal.

20 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Table 5 - Proximity of proposal to West Connacht Coast SAC site selection features

Interest Feature Closest proximity / potential connectivity

Tursiops truncatus (Common At its closest proximity the SAC is located some 520 metres to Bottlenose Dolphin) [1349] the northwest of the proposal.

3.5.3 Main threats to the site

The main threats to the site as taken from the NPWS standard data form include the following:

Negative Impact Threats and pressures Inside/ outside the site [i/o/b]

Low Port areas (including: slipways, piers / tourist harbours or recreational piers, fishing harbours and b industrial ports)

Low Noise nuisance, noise pollution (including: point source or irregular noise pollution and diffuse or b permanent noise pollution).

Low Discharges (including: disposal of household / recreational facility waste, disposal of industrial o waste, disposal of industrial waste and disposal of inert materials).

Medium Fishing and harvesting aquatic resources b

Medium Shipping lanes (including: cargo lanes and b passenger ferry lanes (high speed)). i = inside, o = outside, b = both

21 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

3.6 Screening Matrix Having set out the site features and known or likely threats above, as derived from NPWS data and site surveys, the Significance of Impact Matrix (Table 6 below) provides an analysis of the potential for the proposal to result in a significant adverse effect on Natura 2000 sites taking account of the known threats to the site listed above. It is important to note at this stage that a potential significant effect can only be ruled out if there is considered to be no risk, any uncertainty must result in potential significant effect being assumed. The Significance of Impact Matrix uses a number of specific terms to conclude on the potential for significant effect. The term ‘Likely Significant Effect’ is used where a plan or project is likely to undermine any of the site’s conservation objectives, the term ‘Potential Significant Effect’ is used where a plan or project has an indicated potential to undermine any of the site’s conservation objectives, but where doubt exists about the risk of a significant effect in the current context. Nevertheless where doubt exists about the risk of a significant effect, use of the precautionary principle requires this effect to be considered appropriately within the screening process. The term ‘No Potential Significant Effect’ is used where it can be concluded with confidence that there is no potential causal link. It can be concluded on the basis of the screening matrix that, while there is no potential for significant effect on the following sites:  Mullet Peninsula Special Protection Area (SPA site code 004227)  Erris Head Special Area of Conservation (SAC site code 001501)

It is considered that potential for significant effect cannot be conclusively ruled out at this stage on the following Natura 2000 sites:  Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair Special Protection Area (SPA 004093)  West Connacht Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC site code 002998)  Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC (SAC site code 000470)

Specific areas of concern relating to potential for significant effects on the above sites are detailed below. Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair Special Protection Area (SPA 004093) Potential disturbance of wintering bird interest features during construction. Specifically species using intertidal habitat for feeding and intertidal / supratidal habitat for roosting.

West Connacht Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC site code 002998) Potential disturbance of designated cetacean interest (bottlenose dolphin) resulting from increased boat traffic from the AMETS test site and Frenchport pier.

Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC (SAC site code 000470) Potential indirect impacts (pollution and / or impacts on sedimentation) on intertidal and subtidal habitats (Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide [1140] and

22 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Large shallow inlets and bays [1160]) and Reefs [1170] as well as potential disturbance on Otter [1355]. .

23 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Table 6 - Significance of Impact Matrix for each of the Natura 2000 sites listed in Sections 3.1 to 3.5

Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair Special Protection Area (SPA 004093) Interest feature Impact type Potential Cause Potential Significant Effects Whooper Swan (Cygnus cygnus) [A038] – Wintering Although the nearest suitable habitat within the SPA for the species is situated some 700 metres to the Barnacle Goose (Branta north of the proposal some habitat adjacent to the leucopsis) [A045] – Possible Significant proposal and outside of the SPA does exist. A Wintering Effect precautionary approach would therefore consider that Greenland White-fronted there is a need to further assess the potential for Goose (Anser albifrons disturbance on the species. flavirostris) [A395] – Wintering Disturbance due to noise and Corncrake (Crex crex) increased anthropogenic activity [A122] - Breeding during both the construction and Lapwing (Vanellus operational phases of the project vanellus) [A142] - Due to the distance of the proposal from the suitable

Breeding habitats for these species within the SPA it is considered that there is no potential for significant No Potential Chough (Pyrrhocorax adverse impact on these species as a result of Significant Effect pyrrhocorax) [A346] - disturbance during the construction or operational Breeding phases of the proposal. Dunlin (Calidris alpina schinzii) [A466] - Breeding Wetland and Waterbirds The proposal is partly situated within the [A999] Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA. There is therefore potential for disturbance of Possible Significant wintering bird interest features during construction. Effect Specifically species using intertidal habitat for feeding and intertidal / supratidal habitat for roosting. Mullet Peninsula Special Protection Area (SPA 004227)

24 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Corncrake (Crex crex) Due to the separation of the site from the SPA by a [A122] distance of some 700 metres to the north of the proposal and is separated by an area of open marine No Potential Disturbance coastal water, it is considered that there no potential Significant Effect for significant adverse impact on corncrake as a result of the proposal. Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex Special Area of Conservation (SAC 000470) Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide [1140] Pollution, removal of beach Potential indirect impacts (pollution and / or impacts on Possible Significant Large shallow inlets and materials and erosion sedimentation) on intertidal and subtidal habitats. Effect bays [1160] Reefs [1170] Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand [1310] Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes) Due to the separation of the proposal from this feature [2120] Pollution, removal of beach within the SAC, it is considered that there is no No Potential materials and erosion potential for significant adverse impact on this habitat Significant Effect Fixed coastal dunes with type within the SAC as a result of the proposal. herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes) [2130] Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-Ulicetea) [2150] Due to the separation of the proposal from this feature Machairs (* in Ireland) within the SAC, it is considered that there is no No Potential No potential link [21A0] potential for significant adverse impact on this habitat Significant Effect type within the SAC as a result of the proposal. Natural eutrophic lakes Due to the separation of the proposal from this feature with Magnopotamion or within the SAC and no potential link to the feature, it is No Potential Pollution Hydrocharition - type considered that there is no potential for significant Significant Effect vegetation [3150]

25 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

adverse impact on this habitat type within the SAC as a result of the proposal. Due to the separation of the proposal from this feature within the SAC and no potential link to the feature, it is No Potential Alkaline fens [7230] Pollution considered that there is no potential for significant Significant Effect adverse impact on this habitat type within the SAC as a result of the proposal. Due to the nature of the proposal and the potential for otter to occur immediately adjacent to the site, it must Possible Significant Lutra lutra (Otter) [1355] Disturbance be considered at this stage that there is some potential Effect for disturbance on otter as a result of the proposed works. This species is associated with machair and damp dune slack habitat. Due to the separation of the Petalophyllum ralfsii proposal from this feature within the SAC and no No Potential No potential link (Petalwort) [1395] potential link to the feature, it is considered that there Significant Effect is no potential for significant adverse impact on this species within the SAC as a result of the proposal. Erris Head Special Area of Conservation (SAC 001501) Due to the nature of the proposal and the potential for otter to occur immediately adjacent to the site, it must Vegetated Sea Cliffs No Potential No potential link be considered at this stage that there is some potential [1230] Significant Effect for disturbance on otter as a result of the proposed works. Due to the nature of the proposal and the potential for otter to occur immediately adjacent to the site, it must Alpine and Subalpine No Potential No potential link be considered at this stage that there is some potential Heaths [4060] Significant Effect for disturbance on otter as a result of the proposed works. West Connacht Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC 002998) Tursiops truncatus Due to the nature of the proposed works and the (Common Bottlenose Disturbance from increased activities associated with the operational phase of the Possible Significant Dolphin) [1349] anthropogenic activity proposal it is considered that potential for disturbance Effect to this species cannot be ruled out at this stage. Explanation of terms used in Significance of Impact Matrix.

26 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Likely Significant Effect: Where a plan or project is likely to undermine any of the site’s conservation objectives; Possible Significant Effect: Where a plan or project has an indicated potential to undermine any of the site’s conservation objectives, but where doubt exists about the risk of a significant effect in the current context. Nevertheless where doubt exists about the risk of a significant effect, use of the precautionary principle requires this effect to be considered appropriately within the screening process

27 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

4 CONCLUSIONS OF SCREENING ASSESSMENT On the basis of the screening assessment and application of the precautionary principle, indicators of significance show that there is potential for direct and localised short and long term interference with the structure and function of adjacent and neighbouring Natura 2000 sites. It can be concluded on the basis of the screening matrix that, there is no potential for significant effect on the following sites:  Mullet Peninsula Special Protection Area (SPA site code 004227)  Erris Head Special Area of Conservation (SAC site code 001501) However, it is considered that potential for significant effect cannot be conclusively ruled out at this stage on the following Natura 2000 sites:  Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair Special Protection Area (SPA 004093)  West Connacht Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC site code 002998)  Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC (SAC site code 000470)

Specific areas of concern relating to potential for significant effects on the above sites are detailed below. Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair Special Protection Area (SPA 004093) Potential disturbance of wintering bird interest features during construction. Specifically species using intertidal habitat for feeding and intertidal / supratidal habitat for roosting. Direct loss of potential feeding and roosting habitat.

West Connacht Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC site code 002998) Potential disturbance of designated cetacean interest (common bottlenose dolphin) resulting from increased boat traffic from the AMETS test site and Frenchport pier.

Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC (SAC site code 000470) Potential indirect impacts (pollution and / or impacts on sedimentation) on intertidal and subtidal habitats (Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide [1140] and Large shallow inlets and bays [1160]) and Reefs [1170] as well as potential disturbance on Otter [1355].

Therefore, the above impacts are required to be considered in detail in order to ascertain the impact of the proposed development on the integrity of the above sites either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, with respect to the sites’ structure and function and their conservation objectives in the form of an Appropriate Assessment. Sections 5 to 8 provide the information necessary to undertake an Appropriate Assessment and incorporate, where there are adverse impacts, an assessment of potential mitigation of those impacts.

28 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

5 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS This section explores the potential impacts relating to the different sites and site selection features and examines the significance of the impacts on them, taking account of the nature of the proposed pontoon and the sensitivity of the features in the immediate vicinity of the site. Where an impact is identified, the need for appropriate mitigation is highlighted (and covered in Section 7). In order to determine the potential impact of the proposal on the receiving habitats and species surveys and consultation were undertaken to assess the extent and usage of the sites by site selection features. This this includes site surveys and consultation with databases and reports.

5.1 Potential impacts arising from different aspects of the proposal The proposal has a number of elements that have been outlined in Section 2.2. These different elements are as follows:  Construction of a concrete pier extension;  Construction of a concrete slipway;  Upgrade of an existing car parking area;  Provision of a waste recycling facility;  Operation of access boats to and from the AMETS site and Frenchport Pier;  Ongoing usage of car park area.

Potential impacts associated with these different elements include:  Direct loss of 178m2 (0.0178ha) of intertidal and subtidal habitat within the Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA resulting from placement of pier extension and new slipway  Potential localised changes in sediments (Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA and Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC) and resultant habitat changes due to localised impact on sedimentary systems  Release of hydrocarbons and cement into the watercolumn (including construction activities as well as potential spillage during re-fuelling of vessels stored within the car park area)  Potential disturbance during construction (birds within the Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA and otter within the Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC)  Production of suspended solids within the water column (notably associated with construction operations within the intertidal zone) (Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA and otter within the Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC)  Potential for carriage of pollutants into the watercourse by surface run-off (associated with the creation of new hard surfaces associated with car parking and access)  Disturbance to common bottlenose dolphins during the operation of ships to and from AMETS (West Connacht Coast SAC)  Potential fuel and chemical spills within the West Connacht Coast SAC during movements to and from the AMETS site

29 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

The general impacts of these sources on ecological features, including the site selection features are outlined below, prior to sections examining the specific potential impacts of the project on all potentially affected Natura 2000 sites and their site selection features in turn.

5.1.1 Direct habitat loss The proposal requires placement of the pier extension and slipway on 39m2 of subtidal SPA habitat and 139m2 of intertidal SPA habitat as well as 173m2 of intertidal habitat falling outside the SPA. In addition, the proposal will result in the loss of 134m2 of improved grassland adjacent to the existing car park and SPA. The extension areas are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 – Frenchport pier and slipway extension areas in relation to intertidal habitat and the Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA

5.1.2 Potential localised changes in sediments Placement of new, or extension of existing, hard engineering structures in coastal locations have the potential to have some impact on the natural drift and movement of sediments and material along a coastline by intercepting longshore drift. This can result in changes to sediment budgets in other locations, for example resulting in reduced sediment being available for nourishing ‘downstream’ intertidal areas if it is caused to accumulate in the vicinity of the structure. This can result in negative sediment budgets and, ultimately, loss of intertidal habitats in some instances. The north-western face of the existing pier holds an accumulation of boulders and pebbles that persist to around two thirds of the way down the pier from the shore (as shown in Plate 8). This suggests an active longshore drift from north-west to south-east at the pier location.

30 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Plate 8 – pebble and boulder accumulation at the north-western face of the existing pier.

5.1.3 Release of hydrocarbons and cement into the water-column Hydrocarbons can result in direct toxicity or sub-lethal effects to marine organisms and can also result in accumulation of hydrocarbons in living tissues, leading to toxicity impacts on species higher up the food chain. Sources of hydrocarbons can include spillages during construction (either during re-fuelling or from leaks from construction plant) and from spillages during operation of the pier and car park. In this latter case, hydrocarbons have the potential to contaminate run-off from the car park area and enter the marine environment. Cement can be toxic during the construction phase, potentially leading to localised changes in pH if not appropriately controlled.

5.1.4 Potential disturbance during construction Vibration and noise, although largely limited to the construction window, have the potential to impact on some of the site selection features of surrounding Natura 2000 sites, specifically otter and waterfowl species. Sudden loud noises (or impulsive noises) tend to have the most significant impact on waterfowl species since they do not habituate to it in the same way as background ambient noise. Research suggests that birds may habituate to ambient noise below 70dB(A) whereas sudden irregular noises of above 50dB(A) may result in some level of disturbance (Cutts et al 2008).

31 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

5.1.5 Production of suspended solids within the water column Construction work within the intertidal zone has the potential to result in localised release of suspended solids. This, in turn can result in smothering of subtidal and intertidal habitats in the locality.

5.1.6 Potential for carriage of pollutants into the watercourse by surface run-off The extension of the car park area will result in an increase in surface water runoff due to the increased hardcore surface area in place of the existing improved grassland. The ongoing use of the car park also brings with it the potential for contamination of surface water by hydrocarbons from cars and vessel engines as they are stored out of the water or loaded. This has the potential to facilitate hydrocarbons entering the marine environment and subsequent impacts as detailed above.

5.1.7 Disturbance to common bottlenose dolphins during the operation of ships to and from AMETS The proposal is specifically intended to facilitate access to the Atlantic Marine Energy Test Site for monitoring and periodic maintenance operations. This will necessitate movement of boats (largely likely to be Rigid hull Inflatable Boats – RIBs) in and out of the water at Frenchport and from the pier to the test sites through the West Connacht Coast SAC, which is designated for common bottlenose dolphins. Noise from some construction activities and / or vessel engines can result in avoidance and other responses by cetaceans, including common bottlenose dolphins.

32 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

5.2 Potential impacts on Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA 5.2.1 Species potentially affected Site selection features considered to be potentially affected by the proposal during the screening stage were whooper swan, barnacle goose and Greenland white-fronted goose as well as wetlands and waterbirds. Wetlands and waterbirds are included as a Special Conservation Interest for some SPAs that have been designated for wintering waterbirds and that contain a wetland site of significant importance to one or more of the species of Special Conservation Interest. The conservation objective for this interest feature is “To maintain or restore the favourable conservation condition of the wetland habitat at Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA as a resource for the regularly occurring migratory waterbirds that utilise it”. The site synopsis states that the site also supports wintering populations of golden plover, teal, mallard and ringed plover. However, it is also known that the area also holds up to 3 regular wintering great northern divers, up to around 200 each of dunlin and sanderling on passage, and staging pale-bellied brent geese (BirdWatch Ireland, pers. comm. 2015).

5.2.2 Proximity to areas potentially used by species Whooper swan and goose populations are largely associated with the area around and north- west of Termoncarragh Lake, including the grassland areas around Termonacarragh cemetry. The barnacle goose flock, which can reach up to around 1200 birds, tends to commute more or less over the proposal site while moving between Inishglora and Inishkeeragh and the feeding fields (wherease the population associated with the Inishkeas tends to move to feed around Cross Lough. Whooper swans will commute between the lake and surrounding terrestrial feeding areas. These highly mobile species have the potential to use the fields around the proposal for feeding and the barnacle goose flock in particular is known to do this on occasion (BirdWatch Ireland, pers. comm. 2015). Of the species considered to contribute to the Wetlands and waterbirds, golden plover, ringed plover, dunlin and sanderling are generally associated with intertidal mudflats and sandflats for feeding and the supratidal habitats adjacent to those for roosting. Some wader species are also known to use supratidal mixed areas for roosting around 350 metres south east of the proposal. A flock of pale-bellied brent geese tend to use the wider area, notably as a late winter / spring staging post during northward migration, with numbers peaking around March and April. These birds most frequently use the freshwater inflow into the intertidal area some 600 metres to the east of the proposal (BirdWatch Ireland, pers. comm. 2015). Mallard and teal can both use a variety of habitats. For example, although teal may prefer well vegetated wetlands during the winter, they can be found in intertidal and subtidal habitat both feeding and roosting. Both of these species have some potential to occur in the immediate vicinity of the pier.

5.2.3 Loss of feeding / roosting habitat Direct loss of feeding habitat As detailed in section 5.1.1, the proposal will result in the loss of 39m2 of subtidal SPA habitat and 139m2 of intertidal SPA habitat as well as 173m2 of intertidal habitat falling outside the SPA. In addition, the proposal will result in the loss of 134m2 of improved grassland adjacent to the existing car park and SPA. The 139m2 of subtidal habitat that will be lost within the footprint of the proposed slipway comprises mixed substrate intertidal habitat conforming to Fossit Codes Infralittoral Mixed

33 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Substrates (SS4), Littoral Mixed Substrate Shores (LR4) and Cobbles / Boulders (LS1), with the area within the SPA falling into the first two categories.

Plate 9 – Area of intertidal habitat within footprint of proposed slipway (January 2015)

This habitat type has only very limited potential for use by the species listed above with whooper swan, barnacle geese and Greenland white-fronted geese generally preferring freshwater lakes (or offshore island) for roosting and grassland habitats for feeding. Golden plover, ringed plover, dunlin, sanderling tend to use finer substrate intertidal habitats for feeding, notably sandflats and mudflats. Teal and mallard have greater potential to use the area in the vicinity of the pier, with mallard in particular being an adaptable species in habitat terms, although the habitats in the vicinity of the pier would not be considered to be particularly favourable for the species. During the site visit in January 2015, a great northern diver was noted some 200 metres north of the existing pier. Discussions with local BirdWatch Ireland staff have confirmed that this is one of three that routinely winter in the bay, being generally faithful to specific areas, with the other two further to the north-west and west. The sub-tidal habitat that will be lost to the slipway extension has potential to be used by great northern divers. This covers a total area of 39m2, or 0.0039ha. Great northern diver is not a species for which the SPA is explicitly designated, being neither mentioned within the site synopsis or Natura 2000 form. However, it is a regular wintering species in the area. Regardless of this, the small area impacted on by the pier extension, the site-faithful nature of the species, and the very small number of individuals means that, in terms of habitat loss, it is not considered that this constitutes a significant impact on the species. Disturbance during construction is covered in section 5.2.4. The SPA comprises a total area of 406.16ha, with the SPA habitat directly affected by the proposal comprising a total area of 0.02ha or 0.005% of the SPA area. Considering this and the general lack of suitability of the area for the species for which the site is designated, it is not considered that its loss will result in an impact on the conservation condition of the site

34 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 features and will therefore not result in an adverse impact on the integrity of the Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA.

Indirect loss of feeding habitat (changes in sedimentation) As detailed previously, there is some evidence of limited longshore drift at the site, shown by a greater build-up of cobbles and boulders to the northwest of the existing pier compared to the south east side. The less distinct build-up of some cobbles and boulders to the south east of the existing pier (as shown in plate 9) shows that there is also evidence of some reverse movement. This suggests that, although there is evidence of longshore drift, it is not particularly strong and the area is in relative equilibrium. The lack of a significant difference in beach profile or accumulated sediment size on either side of the pier supports this (significant longshore drift would result in finer grained beach material being moved along the beach leaving a coarser grained, steeper and narrower beach profile on the updrift side of the pier with a finer grained flatter and wider beach on the downdrift side (Ecopro, 1996)). The area within the SPA providing feeding habitat for species for which the SPA is designated comprises largely intertidal sand and mudflats and lies 190 metres to the east of the proposal. There is no evidence that the existing structure has any effect on the accumulation patterns of sand and mud sediments in the area, with no deposits in the region of the pier suggesting any form of current interruption to the processes that feed these intertidal areas. The pier will be extended by a total of 8 metres. It is not considered that this is likely to result in any appreciable change to the current situation in terms of sedimentary processes and not considered that the proposal has the potential to result in significant impacts on the sediment budgets of SPA intertidal areas. There is no dredging associated with the proposal and so no likely impacts associated with changes in sediment processes associated with changes in the benthic profile of the area.

Although the proposal will result in the loss of 39m2 of subtidal habitat and 139m2 of intertidal habitat within the SPA, it is not considered that this will result in any impacts on the ecological structure and functioning of the SPA for the site Interest Features in either the short or long term and therefore will not result in an impact on integrity of the Natura 2000 site.

35 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Figure 5 – Fossitt Habitats and and MNCR Marine Biotope codes for the area around the pier (Mayo County Council 2011)

36 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

5.2.4 Disturbance during construction The interest features cited as potentially affected by the proposal during the screening process are primarily wintering and passage birds. As detailed above, some interest features for the SPA (notably barnacle geese) are known to occasionally feed outside the SPA boundary in the fields to the south and south-east of the pier. Disturbance, whether temporary or permanent, can affect wintering birds in a number of ways. Energy budgets are critical to wintering and passage birds; there is a need for them to obtain as much food as possible during feeding periods in order to maintain energy budgets. Disturbance during feeding both reduces the feeding period, effectively reduces the feeding habitat area (by making some areas out of bounds), and increases energy expended, both as a result of the requirement to flee the disturbance and as a result of raised heart rates (eg Platteeuw et al, 1997). Disturbance can also result in species having to move to feed in less optimal areas. There have been many studies undertaken on disturbance of waterbirds, with many of these concentrating on recreational impacts or large scale construction activities. A useful literature review was undertaken by Cutts et al (2009) which looked at over 100 sources and summarised findings, including:  The avifaunal community will vary in its sensitivity to disturbance on a seasonal basis;

 Sensitivity is greatest in migration periods during the spring and autumn and measures to reduce disturbance at migration staging areas should be taken. Consequently works should be carried out during the summer months if feasible to avoid any potential increased disturbance;

 Effects and impacts of disturbance will be increased in hard weather conditions with some species (such as redshank) particularly sensitive during these periods. Consequently works should be carried out during the summer months if feasible to avoid any potential increased disturbance;

 Roosting birds, especially in areas where there are limited alternative roosting areas available will be sensitive to disturbance. Consequently if works are to be undertaken during the winter months then disturbance events should be restricted at and around high tide as birds begin to roost;

 The presence of people engaging in both recreational and construction activity on mudflats when birds are feeding, particularly in spring and autumn passages, and winter should be restricted as this has a high impact on bird’s fitness;

 Birds are known to become habituate to regular noise below 70 dB(A). Where possible, sudden irregular noise levels, likely to be in excess of 50dB(A) should be avoided where possible, as this can cause increased disturbance to birds. However data available on this is generally poor and there are no known agreed acceptable noise limits (decibels or distances) that would keep disturbance to a minimum. The precautionary approach would therefore aim to reduce acute noise levels to a minimum where possible. The general known disturbance impacts on waterfowl are illustrated in figure 6.

37 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Figure 6 – Illustration of construction disturbance impacts on waterfowl (Cutts et al 2009)

The most appropriate data on construction levels obtained was from the UK BS 5228: 2009: Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites – Part 1: which sets out typical noise levels for items of construction plant (DEFRA, 2005). This gives the following general operating noise levels for activities likely to be undertaken as part of the works (although it should be noted that noise levels will drop away with increasing distance from the source):  Ground excavation / Earthworks with tracked excavator – 78-86dB (at 10 metres)

 Breaking and spreading rubble (most similar to placement of rock infill during pier construction) with tracked excavator – 82-86dB(A)

In general terms, species most at risk from disturbance are those using the intertidal areas adjacent to the proposed works and the fields immediately to the south and south-west. Disturbance would be temporary, during activities at specific parts of the tidal cycle. It is also possible that there will be temporary disturbance of the species feeding in the wider area during higher parts of the tidal cycle due to movement and sudden noise associated with some aspects of the construction. This could reduce the extent to which species are able to access feeding areas along the shore from the works during high tidal cycles or may result in disturbance of wildfowl flocks on adjacent grassland areas during the active construction operations. Mitigation in the form of a works method statement to avoid any potential disturbance is appropriate. Appropriate mitigation in this regard is detailed in section 7.

38 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

5.2.5 Disturbance during operation During operation, sources of disturbance are generally limited to berthing and landing of boats used to access AMETS site. This is likely to be no different in intensity of disturbance noise from the current situation. The general use of Rigid hull Inflatable Boats (RIBs) to access the AMETS site, and their speed, means that disturbance episodes in the area are likely to be relatively limited in time. It is known that some small craft (such as curraghs) are currently launched in the area by driving across the intertidal sand and mudflats. This brings with it the potential disturbance of feeding and roosting birds at certain times of the year. Provision of the slipway will avoid this need and, if accompanied by appropriate encouragement or new bye-laws relating to the beach could lead to some reduced disturbance in this regard.

5.2.6 Pollution of feeding habitat Works undertaken at the site will require the use of a mechanical excavator and other plant machinery. The use of such vehicles in sensitive areas always brings with it the risk of hydrocarbon pollution if vehicles are re-fuelled on site. Such pollution events can impact on local fish and invertebrate populations, thus impacting on prey availability for birds. In addition, the works will require the use of concrete within the intertidal and subtidal zones. This introduces the risk of concrete or cement spillage into the intertidal zone or water column itself. An assessment of the sensitivity of habitats in the area, including habitats used by feeding birds, was undertaken in 2011 and is provided at appendix 1. This includes sensitivity to hydrocarbon pollution. This shows that intertidal sand and mudflats are considered to be on high sensitivity to hydrocarbon contamination. Not included within the MarLin criteria are risks from pouring of in-situ concrete, accidental puncturing of cement bags and cement mixer washout operations. Concrete is very aggressive with a high pH, and can be toxic to marine organisms. However, dilution of any discharge into waters would occur rapidly, lessening the risk involved. Appropriate mitigation in the form of a works method statement to avoid any pollution potential and to ensure appropriate response to any spill or pollution event is appropriate. Appropriate mitigation in this regard is detailed in section 7.

5.3 Potential impacts on Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC 5.3.1 Habitats and species potentially affected Site selection features considered to be potentially affected by the proposal during the screening stage were Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide, Large shallow inlets and bays, and Reefs.

5.3.2 Proximity to features potentially affected Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide The majority of the intertidal SAC habitat falling within Portnafrankagh Bay falls within this habitat. This occurs at the nearest point at 190m east or south-east of the proposal.

39 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Large Shallow Inlets and Bays The Annex I habitat Large Shallow Inlets and Bays includes a variety of habitat types, including mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide, Zostera beds, reefs, and others. As detailed previously, the proposal does not fall within the Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC. However, it falls partly within habitats that have the potential to be considered conforming to the Annex I habitat Large Shallow Inlets and Bays. It is therefore reasonable to consider the conservation value of the habitat in this context. The Annex I habitat Large Shallow Inlets and Bays contains the following nationally rare, internationally threatened and/or in decline habitats:  Zostera marina communities,  Maërl communities,  Lanice conchilega communities,  Sabella pavonina communities,  Serpula vermicularis reefs,  Ostrea edulis reefs,  Limaria hians reefs,  Pachycerianthus beds,  Sea pen communities,  Neopentadactyla mixta beds,  Edwardsia delapiae communities.

It is considered that likely proximity to key marine communities within these aspects of Large Shallow Inlets and Bays Annex 1 habitat are as follows:  Zostera marina communities – the nearest communities have been recorded from Blacksod Bay which is geographically isolated from Portnafrankagh Bay and Frenchport pier; is considered that soft substrata within the bay maybe suitable to support these communities;  Maërl communities – the nearest communities have been recorded within Blacksod Bay with no records in the vicinity of Portnafrankagh Bay, with substrata not looking suitable to support this habitat, maerl forming species were not found in a littoral survey undertaken in the vicinity of Frenchport Pier on 4th July 2011;  Lanice conchilega communities – normally found on sandy substrata along the upper sublittoral fringe – Lanice were common within sandy substrata in the vicinity of Frenchport Pier although not within the direct zone of impact of the proposed pier works. The species was mainly contained within other marine biotopes with only small patches of Lanice beds;  Sabella pavonina communities - normally found on sand and mud substrata along the upper sublittoral fringe. The nearest record of this species is of small numbers within Blacksod Bay at Emlybeg Point – none were observed within the study area of Frenchport Pier in a littoral survey undertaken during low water spring tides on the 4th July 2011;  Serpula vermicularis reefs – these are found in sublittoral muddy sands with the nearest record of this species from BioMar and MERC within Blacksod Bay itself;  Ostrea edulis reefs – these reefs are normally found within the shallow sublittoral zone on muddy substrata; the nearest record for this species is within Blacksod Bay itself, and it is considered that substrata within the wider bay around Frenchport is not optimal to support this species;  Limaria hians reefs (gaping file shell) are typically found on coarse sand, gravel, broken shells and stones from the sublittoral down to 100m depth; the species has not been recorded in Mayo, and it is considered that substrata within the wider bay around Frenchport is not suitable to support this species;

40 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015  Pachycerianthus beds (fireworks anemone) are generally found within very sheltered areas of mud or muddy sand, from depths of 10-130m; the nearest record of this species from Biomar is from Kilkieran Bay in Galway, and it is considered that substrata within the wider bay around Frenchport is not suitable to support this species;  Sea pen communities are generally found on circalittoral muds; The nearest record of the sea pen Virgularia mirabilis is from Mannin Bay in Galway, none have been recorded within the SAC, and it is considered that substrata within the wider bay around Frenchport is not suitable to support sea pen communities;  Neopentadactyla mixta beds – this sea cucumber is normally associated with coarse gravel and maerl in areas with strong tidal streams; the nearest record from Donegal and Galway, and it is considered that substrata within the bay around Frenchport;  Edwardsia delapiae communities – this burrowing anemone has only been recorded in Valencia along the south-west coast of Ireland.

Reefs The Annex I habitat Reefs in the immediate vicinity of the proposal is considered above. The nearest area of habitat within the SAC potentially corresponding to the Annex I habitat Reefs falls over 400m north east of the proposal. Marine biotopes recorded in the vicinity of the pier fall within habitats that have the potential to correspond to the Annex I habitat Reefs, with the exception of the barren cobble / boulder habitat located on the foreshore directly adjacent to the pier. The potential for these communities to occur at the proposal location has been considered above in the context of Large shallow inlets and bays.

Other species of importance listed in the Natura 2000 form for the Blacksod Bay / Mullet SAC are Paracentrotus lividus and Phellia gausapata. Neither species were found in the vicinity of Frenchport Pier during a littoral survey undertaken on 4th July 2011. The nearest record for Paracentrotus lividus is from within Portnafrankagh Bay and the nearest record for Phellia gausapata is off the Iniskea Islands and from within Blacksod Bay itself.

5.3.3 Pollution Although the proposal is, at its nearest point, over 190 metres from the SAC, there is potential for pollution, notably resulting from a hydrocarbon spill event, since these have the potential to cover a large area. Such an event could occur during construction during operations within the littoral zone or the terrestrial car park area. There is also the possibility of sustained hydrocarbon input into the area as a result of contaminated run-off from the car park into the bay in the longer term. Appendix 1 shows the sensitivity of surrounding habitats to hydrocarbon pollution. This shows that the Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide habitat is considered to be of high sensitivity with other habitats of moderate or lower sensitivity. Mitigation in the form of a works method statement to avoid any pollution potential and to ensure a full and suitable response to any spill or pollution event during construction is appropriate. Mitigation in the form of infrastructure to avoid contaminated run-off from the car park area entering the water column is also appropriate. Mitigation in this regard is detailed in section 7. 41 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

5.3.4 Impacts on sedimentation The habitat that has the potential to be affected by changes in sedimentation is Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide. As detailed in section 5.1.2, there is some evidence of limited longshore drift at the site, shown by a greater build-up of cobbles and boulders to the northwest of the existing pier compared to the south east side. A less distinct build-up of some cobbles and boulders to the south east of the existing pier shows that there is also evidence of some reverse movement. This suggests that, although there is evidence of longshore drift, it is not particularly strong and the area is in relative equilibrium. The lack of a significant difference in beach profile or accumulated sediment size on either side of the pier supports this (significant longshore drift would result in finer grained beach material being moved along the beach leaving a coarser grained, steeper and narrower beach profile on the updrift side of the pier with a finer grained flatter and wider beach on the downdrift side (Ecopro, 1996)). The area of intertidal sand and mudflats lies 190 metres to the east of the proposal. There is no evidence that the existing structure has any effect on the accumulation patterns of sand and mud sediments in the area, with no deposits in the region of the pier suggesting any form of current interruption to the processes that feed these intertidal areas. The pier will be extended by a total of 8 metres. It is not considered that this is likely to result in any appreciable change to the current situation in terms of sedimentary processes and not considered that the proposal has the potential to result in significant impacts on the sediment budgets of SAC intertidal areas. There is no dredging associated with the proposal and so no likely impacts associated with changes in sediment processes associated with changes in the benthic profile of the area. It is not considered therefore that the proposal will result in any impacts on the ecological structure and functioning of the SAC for the site Interest Features in either the short or long term and therefore will not result in an impact on integrity of the Natura 2000 site with respect to changes in sediment patterns.

5.3.5 Disturbance to otter There have been no submitted records of otter in Portnafrankagh Bay to national databases. However, they have the potential to occur in the area. Where they occur they are likely to be feeding in the inshore areas on small fish and crustaceans. Coastal otters can differ from those found inland, in that they can more frequently be active during the day. In addition, their condition can be considerably affected by the availability of food, with condition poor when fish biomass is low (Chanin, 2003). This means that coastal otters tend to have their young during the summer, when fish are most abundant. Coastal otters tend to have their holts largely within 100m of the shore. These can be within such features as peat banks or sand dunes (Chanin, 2003). There is not considered to be any potentially suitable habitat for otter holts in the vicinity of the proposal. Considering the above, it is not deemed that the proposal has any potential to impact on otter populations as a result of disturbance.

5.4 Potential impacts on West Connacht Coast SAC 5.4.1 Species potentially affected Site selection features considered to be potentially affected by the proposal during the screening stage were common bottlenose dolphin. 42 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 Common bottlenose dolphin and harbour porpoise are listed in Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive and which includes protection of their habitat. It is also worth noting that all cetacean species are also included in Annex IV of the EU Habitats Directive. In a consultation letter from the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group (IWDG), dated the 30 January 2015, the IWDG confirm that “the area off Frenchport is important for cetaceans” and that a wide variety of species have been recorded including common, Risso’s, white-sided and white-beaked dolphins as well as minke, fin and killer whales. The vast majority of inshore sightings are of bottlenose dolphins, including at the mouth of Frenchport. “These dolphins are part of a mobile coastal population which are regularly in the area and could be potentially vulnerable to impact from the development. The importance of the area to these dolphins has been acknowledged at the highest level through its recent designation as an SAC for bottlenose dolphin as the only qualifying interest. However, bottlenose dolphins are also quite tolerant of inshore activities and this population will have been exposed to many developments around Ireland”.

5.4.2 Proximity to areas potentially used by species Common bottlenose dolphins are likely to occur within the SAC at the closest that it occurs to the proposal. This is just over 1km north-west of the proposal. The bottlenose dolphins that use the SAC are also likely to come further into shore at certain times when following prey fish schools. This is most likely to be during the summer months when schooling fish species will be coming into the more inshore waters. Appendix 3, “Ecological Assessment for the Proposed Atlantic Marine Energy Test Site” if the EIS for the AMETS test site (Scally et al undated) states that “bottlenose dolphins were the most frequently reported species and have occurred throughout the site and over at least 15 years”. The report also states that “the 13 records of this species in the area span 15 years with the first record reported on 8 April 1995. Bottlenose dolphins have been reported throughout the year though most were in September. Records were received from throughout the area including offshore. Group size was small with half the records of eight or less individuals and half between 12-20 individuals”. Table 7, as taken from Appendix 3, “Ecological Assessment for the Proposed Atlantic Marine Energy Test Site”, of the EIS shows the number of cetacean sightings in order of occurrence for the survey area as recorded on the IWDG database. As part of the impact assessment process, six line transect surveys of the AMETS site were carried out including 13 land-based watches (from Annagh Head) were carried out from October 2009 to November 2010. Detailed maps for each transect route and species recorded are provided in Appendix 3 of the EIS. The results for each are shown in tables 7 & 8.

43 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 Table 7 (Source: AMETS EIA Appendix 3) - Number of sightings and individuals (in brackets) recorded in the area of interest between 54.36º and 54.05º N and 10.71º to 10.08º W (in order of most abundant) taken from the IWDG database.

* species included on Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive

Table 8 (Source: AMETS EIA Appendix 3) - Species recorded during land-based effort watches from Annagh Head

44 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 Table 9 – Sightings recorded during line transect surveys at the Wave Energy Test Site

5.4.4 Disturbance during construction There has been a certain amount of research into activities such as pile-driving operations for offshore wind farms and their potential impacts on cetaceans. Such operations can result in noise levels that have the potential to disrupt cetacean behaviour and travel significant distances. There will be no such activities undertaken in the construction of the pier extension and slipway. In addition, the majority of activities will be undertaken above the mean low water mark. This will significantly reduce the potential for carrying noise away from the site. The proposal is a distance of just over 1km from the West Connacht Coast SAC. Considering all of the above, there is deemed to be no potential for disturbance impacts on interest features of the West Connacht Coast SAC during construction.

5.4.5 Disturbance during operation A report commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage (Senior, 2008) into the impact of anthropogenic noise sources on bottlenose dolphins within the Moray Firth SAC states that “behavioural reactions of cetaceans to ships and boats are highly variable, ranging from attraction (e.g. bow-riding) or no response, through short-term changes in behaviour or long- term displacement”. This research review also found that no studies have yet been able to determine whether species such as bottlenose dolphins are responding to noise or some other non-acoustic factor.

45 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 Although dolphins have been shown to tolerate and even approach marine vessels, they can also exhibit avoidance behaviours such as increased swimming speed, spatial avoidance, longer inter-breath intervals and altered surfacing patterns. It has been found that socializing and resting behaviours, including foraging activities, can be most susceptible to disruption in some populations as a result of boat interactions (Lusseau 2003a & Williams et al. 2006). It is considered likely that these variations in sensitivities are most likely due to site-specific differences in the acoustic invasiveness of interactions. Some studies have found that once boat interactions become intrusive females can spend an increased amount of time underwater. However, males were shown to exhibited avoidance behaviour as soon as boats were present (Lusseau 2003b). It is not yet fully known to what extent such short-term, behavioural changes result in long-term, biologically significant impacts on reproduction, physical condition, distribution and/or habitat use as such impacts have only recently been identified. A negative correlation between female reproductive success and cumulative exposure to tourism and research vessels has been identified in Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Bejder 2005). Other studies in New Zealand have identified a link between increased tourism activities and a significant increase in stillbirth rates in bottlenose dolphins (Lusseau et al. 2006a). It is acknowledged that the disturbance impacts outlined above, in particular short-term avoidance tactics, can lead to population decline in small coastal dolphin populations repeatedly exposed to boat interactions and how these individual behavioural responses could link to longer term population-level effects. It should be noted however, that unlike tourism related impacts on bottlenose dolphins from which many of the studies above relate, the proposed boat usage associated with Frenchport pier will solely be related to transport of staff to and from the AMETS test site. There will therefore be no prolonged sought out interaction with cetacean species associated with the proposal, unlike tourism activities as described above in case studies by Lusseau et al. 2006a and Bejder 2005. SEAI state that the frequency of visits from Frenchport Pier to the AMETS site for equipment set up and monitoring is likely to be weekly for the first few months and less frequently following that. Access from Frenchport pier to the AMETS test site will be by RIB. Generally speaking, larger, commercial vessels produce stronger, lower-frequency sounds, in the region of 50-150 Hz, with source levels around 190 dB re 1 μPa @ 1m or higher. Broadband source levels for most small ships (e.g. supply ships) are ~170-180 dB re 1 μPa @ 1m. (Hall et al. 1994). Smaller, coastal boats that tend to be used for wildlife watching or recreational purposes emit frequencies in the range of ~630-6300 Hz, with lower source levels ~155 dB re 1 μPa @ 1m. Information on the relative impacts of different types of vessels is generally inconclusive, although the SNH report notes that noise levels are not necessarily related to engine power and that vessels with smaller engines may produce more noise since the engines are working harder to attain cruising speed. A RIB, for example may have a higher noise level than another vessel but, being faster, may result in a shorter disturbance time at a given location and on a group of dolphins (unless following the dolphins). Considering that the proposal is intended to facilitate direct and effective transport to and from the AMETS site, it is considered that disturbance incidences are likely to be short-lived and will not result in the potential impacts described above. In addition, the low number of visits that will be required to the AMETS site means that disturbance incidences are also likely to be infrequent. Considering this, it is deemed unlikely that there is any reasonable potential for adverse effect on the bottlenose dolphin population of the West Connacht SAC as a result of the proposal, either in the short or long term. However, considering the 46 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 importance of the area and the uncertainties involved, it is recommended that mitigation in the form of a vessel code of conduct is agreed with NPWS prior to the undertaking of routine journeys through the SAC. This will have the added benefit of setting a standard protocol for operating within the SAC should the pier be used for other reasons or the journeys through / into the SAC to the AMETS site become more frequent or different vessels used.

5.4.5 Hydrocarbon and chemical pollution during construction and operation As detailed above, bottlenose dolphins and other cetaceans have the potential to occur within Portnafrankagh Bay. Hydrocarbon and chemical spillages have the potential to result in direct as well as indirect impacts on cetaceans. Direct impacts can include chemical burns and skin irritation, internal ulcers if ingested, lung irritation if vapours from surface slicks are breathed in. indirect impacts can include impacts on prey availability and bioaccumulation in the food chain. Pollution events could relate to spillage during construction at the pier location or spillage of fuels or hydraulic oils etc during journeys to and from the AMETS site. These could originate from the boats themselves or from the operations relating to carriage of materials to the AMETS site. Mitigation in the form of a works method statement to avoid any pollution potential and to ensure a full and suitable response to any spill or pollution event during construction is appropriate. Mitigation in the form of infrastructure to avoid contaminated run-off from the car park area entering the water column is also appropriate. Mitigation in the form of best practice approaches to avoid potential spillages during journeys and ensuring fast and effective clean-up in the event of a spillage is also appropriate. Mitigation in this regard is detailed in section 7.

5.5 Potential impacts on local ecology 5.5.1 Description of features potentially affected Habitats The area in the vicinity of the proposal, including intertidal areas was surveyed in 2015 and in 2011. The 2015 survey confirmed that the habitats as mapped and recorded in the 2011 survey remain as recorded then. The habitats found at the proposal location are shown in Figure 5. Approximately 70m2 of the boulder / cobble area will be lost for construction of the new slipway. The ecological impact of this is considered not significant due to the low ecological value of this area. Approximately 1m2 of the biotope, Ascophyllum nodosum on mixed substrata and 8m2 of Fucus serratus on mixed substrata will be permanently lost for construction of the new slipway. Approximately 89m2 of the biotope Chorda filum and Laminaria saccharina on unstable substrata will be lost for construction of the new pier extension. These habitats are considered to be locally important.

Birds It is known that corncrakes occasionally occur in the grasslands in the vicinity of the proposal. For example, the fields immediately to the south east of the car park tend to be managed for silage and, accordingly, have fairly high levels of fertiliser applied. This has resulted in the past in early season cover and, accordingly, early season calling corncrakes (BirdWatch Ireland, pers. comm. 2015).

47 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

5.5.2 Habitat loss As detailed above, the habitats that will be lost to the proposal are considered to be of local conservation importance. It is not considered that the loss of these areas is of ecological significance.

5.5.3 Pollution Sensitivity of surrounding habitats including to hydrocarbon pollution is presented in appendix 1. Most of the surrounding biotopes have a sensitivity of hydrocarbon contamination of moderate to low. However pollution, in the form of a fuel or chemical spillage, also has the potential to impact on local fish and invertebrate populations. More significant impacts relate to a temporary release of nutrients from sediments during the construction phase, which will have a temporary impact on biotopes within the vicinity of the pier, as these generally are sensitive to changes in nutrient conditions. Mitigation in the form of a works method statement to avoid any pollution potential and to ensure a full and suitable response to any spill or pollution event during construction is appropriate. This must include methods to avoid local contamination of habitats during works. Mitigation in the form of infrastructure to avoid contaminated run-off from the car park area entering the water column is also appropriate. Mitigation in this regard is detailed in section 7.

5.5.4 Disturbance Because corncrakes are known to occur in the area occasionally and have the potential to breed in some of the habitat on the Annagh peninsula, measures to avoid disturbance are appropriate. While a precautionary approach to avoiding any potential for pollution incidents may suggest having a compound that is a distance from the car park and works area, in the summer months that may increase the number of machinery movements to and from the construction site in an area where corncrakes may be breeding. A preferred approach is to have a construction compound within the car park area to reduce the potential for such disturbance, but with extra measures to ensure that there is no potential for pollution incidents. Appropriate mitigation in the form of a works method statement and approaches to avoid any pollution potential and to ensure appropriate response to any spill or pollution event is appropriate. Appropriate mitigation in this regard is detailed in section 7.

48 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 6 IN-COMBINATION EFFECTS WITH OTHER PLANS & PROJECTS

6.1 Context Article 6 of the EU Habitats Directive and Regulation 28 of the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 state that any plan or project that may, either alone or in combination with other activities, plans or projects, significantly affect a Natura 2000 site should be the subject of an Appropriate Assessment. The assessment of in-combination impacts is therefore an important part of the assessment process. In-combination impacts can particularly be an issue when proposals have a small impact on Natura 2000 sites as a result of factors such as disturbance or pollution, and when other proposals also have a small impact, the result can be a significant impact on the Natura site.

6.2 In-combination Assessment There are no EPA IPPC licensed facilities located within 3km of Frenchport pier. In addition, there are no Mayo County Council licensed facilities within a 3km buffer zone that would be considered ‘in combination’. There are no pier or slipway facilities along the entire western side of the Mullet Peninsula other than Frenchport pier. The nearest slipway is Faulmore Slipway located at the southern tip of this peninsula, approximately 27km south (distance by coastline) and this slipway is small and of poor condition. The nearest slipway to the north of Frenchport is Glenlara located 32km to the north of Frenchport (via the coast, or along the north coast of the Mullet Peninsula, which is also of poor quality. Thus, there are no similar piers/slipways along this stretch of coast which could be considered to have an impact ‘in combination’ with Frenchport pier/slipway. A search of the Geodirectory indicated that there are no commercial buildings located within a 3km buffer of Frenchport pier that could be considered in combination. While, the proposed works at Frenchport pier will facilitate access to the proposed Wave Energy Test Site facility it is noted that the proposed Wave Energy Test Site and associated route corridor for the submarine electricity cable to the test sites are not located within a Natura 2000 site, with the exception of the onshore section of the electricity cable and proposed beach landing substation at Belderra Strand, which is part of the Mullet/Blacksod Bay Complex cSAC (see Figure 7 below). A screening for Appropriate Assssment was undertaken for this project (MERC, 2011) and is available online at: http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Ocean_Energy/Foreshore_Lease_Consultation/AMETS_Ap propriate_Assessment_Screening.pdf This proposal has clear links to the AMETS project, notably in facilitating transport to and from the site from Frenchport Pier. The potential impacts of this have been fully assessed within this Natura Impact Statement. There are not considered to be any other potential ‘in combination’ considerations between the two projects.

49 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Figure 7 – Proposed Atlantic Marine Energy Testing Site in relation to the proposal

50 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 7 MITIGATION OF EFFECTS Section 5 highlights a number of potential impacts associated with the proposed pontoon construction that require mitigation in order to avoid impact on the site selection features and therefore adverse impact on the integrity of neighbouring Natura 2000 sites. These are summarised as follows:  Potential disturbance on wintering waterfowl for which the Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA is designated (during construction)  Potential impact on Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA intertidal feeding areas as a result of tracked or wheeled vehicles driving on intertidal areas (during construction)  Potential pollution of intertidal and subtidal habitats within the Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA and Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC (construction and operation).  Potential pollution events during construction or operation and consequent direct and indirect impacts on the West Connacht Coast SAC.

In addition, the proposed works have the potential to impact on local ecology in the following ways:  Potential pollution of intertidal and subtidal habitats in the immediate vicinity of the proposed works  Potential disturbance of breeding corncrake through unnecessary movements of construction machinery

Although the potential impacts were considered in Section 5 under the various site selection features, they are set out in this section under functional categories since certain mitigation requirements will apply to a number of site selection features and different designated sites. All required mitigation is set out below as a full suite of action required in order to ensure that the proposal does not adversely impact on the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 sites potentially affected.

7.1 Potential disturbance on wintering waterfowl for which the Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA is designated during construction The potential for disturbance on wintering waterfowl during construction has been highlighted in section 5. In order to avoid any such impact, all works must be undertaken between the beginning of May and the 15th of October.

7.2 Potential impact on Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA intertidal feeding areas as a result of tracked or wheeled vehicles driving on intertidal areas during construction activity. In order to avoid a potential risk of direct impact on intertidal feeding areas as a result of tracked or wheeled vehicles driving on intertidal areas during construction activity the following approach must be followed:

51 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015  Minimise access to the intertidal areas by tracked or wheeled vehicles during the construction phase. Works should be undertaken from the landward side wherever feasible to reduce impact to the foreshore. Access to intertidal areas will only be allowed within an agreed working area confined to the footprint of the proposed works and an 10 metre buffer.

 All vehicle operators must be briefed by a suitably qualified person, prior to commencement of works, about issues relating to working corridors and approaches.

 There will be no storage of material of any kind within the SPA boundary

7.3 Potential pollution of intertidal and subtidal habitats within the Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA and Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC The potential for hydrocarbons and other pollutants entering the watercourse during construction must be by both risk minimisation and an appropriate capacity for emergency response:  No re-fuelling will be undertaken within the SPA boundary.  All fuels, lubricants and hydraulic fluids shall be kept in secure bunded areas at a minimum of 40m from the SPA boundary. The bunded area shall accommodate 110% of the total capacity of the containers within it. Containers must be properly secured to prevent unauthorised access and misuse.  An effective spillage procedure must be put in place with all staff properly briefed. Any waste oils or hydraulic fluids shall be collected, stored in appropriate containers and disposed of offsite in an appropriate manner.  Spill kits with an appropriate capacity for the contaminants used on site and the nature of the site must be kept on site and available throughout the construction process  Measures must be taken during all aspect of construction to ensure that no cement or concrete is allowed to enter intertidal waters. The use of concrete with a suitable drying time or appropriate protection of working areas, must be used tied where tidal sequences result in any risk of tidal contact with newly concreted areas.  Any works below the intertidal zone or undertaken at a stage of the tidal cycle that risks inundation will be undertaken in such a way as to protect the surrounding intertidal ecology from any impact. This is likely to require the use of a pumped cofferdam approach. Any such approach must be accompanied by a full method statement provided by the contractor to Mayo County Council for agreement in advance of works.  Run off from hard surface areas and concrete mixing areas must not enter the intertidal zone so as to reduce the potential for contaminants entering the water.  Excepting circumstances detailed in section 7.6, the site compound should be situated a minimum of 50m south west of the car park area in order to maximise the distance from any potential receiving waters in the event of a fuel or chemical spillage. If the site compound is situated within the existing car parking area, it must be fully bunded and a minimum of 20 metres from the top of the bank leading to the intertidal area at its nearest point.

52 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

The run-off from the car park must be linked to a soakaway that incorporates an appropriately specified class I alarmed oil interceptor.

7.4 Potential pollution events during construction or operation and consequent direct and indirect impacts on the West Connacht Coast SAC In order to ensure no potential disturbance of bottlenose dolphins or other cetaceans within the West Connacht SAC a vessel code of conduct should agreed with NPWS prior to the undertaking of routine journeys through the SAC. This should include the following at a minimum:  Minimum distances to be maintained to cetaceans where they are not being approached by the animal;  Maximum speed limits while within potential disturbance distances of cetaceans;  A protocol for behaviour while piloting vessels to ensure that cetaceans are not specifically approached or harassed;  Control on acoustic devices with potential to impact on cetaceans.

7.5 Potential pollution events during construction or operation and consequent direct and indirect impacts on the West Connacht Coast SAC In order to ensure no potential contamination of the waters in the vicinity of the pier with hydrocarbons and other pollutants during construction or operation, all requirements as detailed within section 7.4 must be complied with. In order to ensure the continued protection of the waters within the West Connacht SAC and the bottlenose dolphin population within it and prior to operation of the pier, a code of practice and an oil spill contingency plan should be agreed between SEAI and National Parks and Wildlife Service. This should relate to all movements to and from the AMETS site from Frenchport Pier to minimise the likelihood of any spill and to ensure any spill is quickly and effectively cleaned up. This should include at a minimum:  Details on spill kits to be kept on board vessels used to move personnel and materials to and from the AMETS site from Frenchport Pier and measures to be taken in the event of a minor spillage;  An emergency communication procedure in the event of a significant spill event.

7.6 Ensuring compliance In order to ensure that all mitigation measures are employed in a coherent way, the contractor will be required to produce and abide by a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). This will incorporate all the above mitigation requirements and details of approaches and method statements applied in their implementation.

7.7 Impacts on Local Ecology - Potential pollution of intertidal and subtidal habitats in the immediate vicinity of the proposed works All requirements as detailed within section 7.3 must be complied with. 53 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

7.8 Impacts on Local Ecology - Potential disturbance of breeding corncrake through unnecessary movements of construction machinery Prior to the start of the project, contact must be made with local BirdWatch Ireland and NPWS staff to identify any breeding corncrakes in the locality. If corncrake are breeding in the vicinity of the site, this should be taken account of in the siting of the compound, notably reducing unnecessary trips with heavy machinery along the road that connects the pier with the minor road to Annagh Head. The siting of the compound should take account of the potential for corncrakes to set up territory in the area while ensuring that sufficient distance is maintained to the intertidal area to avoid any risk of contamination through spillage.

8 CONCLUSIONS This Natura Impact Statement has identified the particular types of effect that have potential for adverse impact on the integrity of the Natura 2000 Sites in the vicinity of the proposal. The statement identifies mitigation measures to avoid and minimise these effects so that the structure and functions of the Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA and Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC are not affected, thus demonstrating that the proposal can be mitigated to avoid adverse impact. These mitigation measures have been set out in Section 7. The incorporation of these measures in full into the event and their subsequent implementation on site will ensure that there will be no significant effects, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects affecting the conservation interests or conservation objectives of the Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA and Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex SAC, i.e. the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites. It is therefore concluded that the proposal will not, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, adversely affect the integrity of any European Site (Natura 2000 site) either directly or indirectly.

54 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 9 REFERENCES ABP Research, 1999. Good practice guidelines for ports and harbours operating within or near UK marine Special Areas of Conservation. English Nature, UK Marine SACs Project. pp 120. Bailey, M. and Rochford J. (2006) Otter Survey of Ireland 2004/2005. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 23. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. Bejder, L. (2005). Linking short and long-term effects of nature-based tourism on cetaceans. PhD Thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 157 pp. Budd, G.C. 2008. Fucus ceranoides on reduced salinity eulittoral rock. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitatsensitivity.php?habitatid=271&code=1997 Budd, G.C. 2008. Dense Lanice conchilega and other polychaetes in tide-swept infralittoral sand. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub- programme [on- line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitatsensitivity.php?habitatid=116&code=1997 Chanin P (2003). Ecology of the European Otter. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 10. English Nature, Peterborough Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N., Howell, K.L., Lieberknecht, L.M., Northen, K.O., & Reker, J.B. (2004). The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05 JNCC, Peterborough. Crowe, O. 2005. Ireland’s wetlands and their waterbirds. BirdWatch Ireland, Newcastle, Co. Wicklow. Cutts, N; Phelps, A; Burdon, D. (2008). Construction and Waterfowl: Defining Sensitivity, Response, Impacts and Guidance. Report to Humber INCA. Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies, University of Hull. DEFRA (2005) Update of noise database for prediction of noise on construction and open sites DoEHLG (2009) APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT OF PLANS AND PROJECTS IN IRELAND – Guidance for Planning Authorities. DoEHLG (2009). Conservation Plan for Irish Cetaceans. Public Consultation Draft. DoEHLG, Dublin. EC (no date). Natura 2000 Standard Data Form for Special Protection Areas (SPA), for sites eligible for identification as sites of community interest (SCI) and for Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). Site Code IE0000470. Mullet/Blacksod Bay Complex. National Parks and Wildlife Service, 7 Ely Place, Dublin 2. EC (no date). Natura 2000 Standard Data Form for Special Protection Areas (SPA), for sites eligible for identification as sites of community interest (SCI) and for Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). Site Code IE0001501. Erris Head. National Parks and Wildlife Service, 7 Ely Place, Dublin 2. EC (no date). Natura 2000 Standard Data Form for Special Protection Areas (SPA), for sites eligible for identification as sites of community interest (SCI) and for Special Areas 55 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 of Conservation (SAC). Site Code IE0004093. Termoncarragh lake and Annagh Machair SPA. National Parks and Wildlife Service, 7 Ely Place, Dublin 2. EC (2007). Natura 2000. Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats. EUR 27. European Commission DG Environment, Nature and Biodiversity. EC (2000) Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC. EC (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. ECOPRO (1996) Environmentally Friendly Coastal Protection. Stationery Office. Government of Ireland. Dublin European Community Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) – The Habitats Directive; European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997 European Commission Environment DG (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 Communities, 2000, Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The Provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC Fossitt, J.A. (2000). A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council, Dublin 1. Hill, J.M. 2008. Barnacles and Patella spp. on exposed or moderately exposed, or vertical sheltered, eulittoral rock. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitatsensitivity.php?habitatid=199&code=1997 Hill, J.M. 2008. Ascophyllum nodosum ecad mackaii beds on extremely sheltered mid eulittoral mixed substrata. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub- programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom.. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitatsensitivity.php?habitatid=138&code=1997 Hill, J.M. 2008. Mixed fucoids, Chorda filum and green seaweeds on reduced salinity infralittoral rock. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitatsensitivity.php?habitatid=356&code=1997 Hockin, D., Ounsted, M., Gorman, M., Hill, D., Keller, V., Barker, M.A., 1992. Examination of the effects of disturbance on birds with reference to its importance in ecological assessments. Journal of Environmental Management 36, 253–286. Lusseau D., Slooten E. and Currey R.J. (2006a). Unsustainable dolphin watching activities in Fiordland, New Zealand. Tourism in Marine Environments 3(2): 173-178. Lusseau, D. (2003b). Male and Female bottlenose dolphins Tursiops spp. have different strategies to avoid interactions with tour boats in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand. Marine Ecology Progress Series 257:267-274.

56 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 Marshall, C.E. 2008. Fucus serratus with sponges, ascidians and red seaweeds on tide- swept lower eulittoral mixed substrata. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitatsensitivity.php?habitatid=221&code=1997 Martin, Corinne S., S. Vaz, B. Ernande, J. R. Ellis, P. D. Eastwood, F. Coppin, S. Harrop, G. J. Meaden and A. Carpentier. (2005). Spatial distributions (1989-2004) and preferential habitats of thornback ray and lesser-spotted dogfish in the Eastern English Channel. Theme Session on Elasmobranch Fisheries Science (N) CM 2005/N:23. International Council for the Exploration of the Seas. McCorry, M., Ryle, T. (2009). Saltmarsh Monitoring Project 2007-2008. Volume 4. Final Report (2009). Contract reference D/C/227. A Report for Research Branch, National Parks and Wildlife Service. MERC (2008). Surveys of sensitive sublittoral communities in Mullet/Blacksod Bay Complex SAC, Rutland Island and Sound SAC and Mulroy Bay SAC. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Galway. MERC Consultants (2009) Preliminary Ecological Site Assessment for The Proposed Wave Energy Test Site off Annagh Head, Co. Mayo. MERC on behalf of Tonn Energy Ltd., Fitzwilliam Hall, Dublin 2. NPWS (2011) Conservation objectives for Mullet/Blacksod Bay Complex SAC [000470]. Generic Version 2.0. Department of the Environment Heritage & Local Government. NPWS (2011) Conservation objectives for Erris Head SAC [001501]. Generic Version 2.0. Department of the Environment Heritage & Local Government. NPWS (2011) Conservation objectives for Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA [004093]. Generic Version 2.0. Department of the Environment Heritage & Local Government. NPWS (2008). The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland. Conservation Status in Ireland of Habitats and Species listed in the European Council Directive on the Conservation of Habitats, Flora and Fauna 92/43/EEC. NPWS 2013, The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland. Habitat Assessments Volume 2. Version 1.1. Unpublished Report, National Parks & Wildlife Services. Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland. NPWS 2013, The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland. Species Assessments Volume 3. Version 1.0. Unpublished Report, National Parks & Wildlife Services. Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland. Picton, B.E. & Costello, M.J. (1998). The Biomar biotope viewer: a guide to marine habitats, fauna and flora in Britain and Ireland, Environmental Sciences Unit, Trinity College, Dublin. Platteeuw, M, Rene, J H G., and Henkens, J. (1997) Possible impacts of disturbance to waterbirds: individuals, carrying capacity and populations. In Wildfowl (1997) 48: 225-236 Senior, B., Bailey, H., Lusseau, D., Foote A., & Thompson, P.M. (2008). Anthropogenic noise in the Moray Firth SAC; potential sources and impacts on bottlenose dolphins. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.265 (ROAME No.F05LE02).

57 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 Snow, David; Perrins, Christopher M (editors) (1998). The birds of the Western Palearctic: concise edition (2 volumes). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019854099X Stillman, R.A., West, A.D. & Caldow, R.W.G. 2007. Predicting the effect of disturbance on coastal birds. Ibis 149 (Suppl. 1): 73–81. Tyler-Walters, H. 2008. Yellow and grey lichens on supralittoral rock. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitatsensitivity.php?habitatid=96&code=1997 Tyler-Walters, H. & Marshall, C. 2008. Muddy sand shores. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitatsensitivity.php?habitatid=21&code=1997 White, N. 2008. Pelvetia canaliculata. Channelled wrack. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciessensitivity.php?speciesID=4064 White, N. 2008. Fucus spiralis. Spiral wrack. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/speciessensitivity.php?speciesID=3347 Williams, R., Lusseau, D., & Hammond, P.S. (2006). Estimating relative energetic costs of human disturbance to killer whales (Orcinus orca). Biological Conservation 133 (3): 301-311.

58 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 Appendix 1 – Sensitivity Assessment of surrounding habitats (Mayo County Council 2011) Sensitivity of existing habitats/species assemblages to key impacts from the proposed pier works are detailed further and illustrated in Figures 1 to 7 below:

a) Substratum Loss (Long-term): This direct impact relates to the surface area lost for construction of the new pier/slipway. As indicated in Figure 1 below, marine biotopes within the vicinity of Frenchport pier are moderately sensitive to substrata loss, with Ascophyllum on mixed substrata being highly sensitive. These biotopes come under the Annex I habitat ‘Reefs’. The species found at Frenchport are considered widespread in distribution and typical of disturbed habitats and thus have a high recoverability rate.

b) Increases in Suspended Solids loadings (Construction Phase only): As seen in Figure 2 below, marine biotopes in the vicinity of Frenchport Pier are of low sensitivity to increases in suspended solids concentrations.

c) Noise Disturbance/Visual Presence (predominantly Construction Phase): As seen in Figure 3 below marine biotopes in the vicinity of Frenchport Pier are of low sensitivity to noise disturbance/visual presence.

d) Physical Disturbance & Abrasion (Construction Phase): As seen in Figure 4 below marine biotopes in the vicinity of Frenchport Pier are generally of low to moderate sensitivity physical disturbance and abrasion apart from lichens on supralittoral rock which are highly sensitive. Impacts on these biotopes will occur during the construction phase only.

e) Changes in Nutrient Levels (Construction Phase): As can be seen from Figure 5 below, marine biotopes in the vicinity of Frenchport Pier range from low/very low (Fucus serratus and Chorda filum biotopes), to moderate (Pelvetia canaliculata on upper shore) and high sensitivity (Ascophyllum biotope) to changing nutrient concentrations. The species found at Frenchport are considered widespread in distribution and typical of disturbed habitats and thus have a high recoverability rate.

f) Changes in Oxygenation levels (Construction Phase): As can be seen from Figure 6 below, marine biotopes in the vicinity of Frenchport Pier are largely not characterised with regards sensitivity to changes in oxygenation levels, although biotopes closet to the pier that would be subject to the greatest impacts are of low/very low sensitivity (i.e. Chorda filum and Fucus serratus dominated biotopes).

g) Hydrocarbons Contamination (Long-term): As can be seen from Figure 7 below, marine biotopes in the vicinity of Frenchport Pier are generally of low to moderate sensitivity to hydrocarbon contamination. The greatest risks relate to sedimentary biotopes (e.g. littoral muddy sands), where hydrocarbons would attach to sediment particles and smother fauna within this substrata.

59 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 Figure 1 – Sensitivity of marine habitats (biotopes) to Substrata loss

Figure 2 – Sensitivity of marine biotopes to increased Suspended Solids loadings

60 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 Figure 3 – Sensitivity of marine biotopes to noise disturbance/visual presence

Figure 4 – Sensitivity of marine biotopes to physical disturbance / abrasion

61 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 Figure 5 – Sensitivity of marine biotopes to nutrient levels

Figure 6 – Sensitivity of marine biotopes to changes in oxygenation levels

62 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Figure 7 – Sensitivity of marine biotopes to hydrocarbon contamination

53 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

SUMMARY OF HABITATS IN THE STUDY AREA (FROM SURVEY ON 4TH JULY 2011)

Habitat Biotope Code Area Substrata Suspended Noise/ Physical Nutrient Oxygenation Hydrocarbon directly loss Solids Visual Disturbance Changes Changes contamination impacted Presence & Abrasion (m2)

Yellow and grey lichens LR.FLR.Lic.YG Very High Not Relevant Not High High Not Relevant Very High on supralittoral rock Sensitive

V. maura on littoral rock LR.FLR.Lic.Ver No data No data No data No data No data No data No data

P. canaliculata on LR.LLR.F.Pel* Moderate Not Sensitive Not Moderate Moderate No data Moderate littoral rock Sensitive

F. spiralis on littoral LR.LLR.F.Fspi.F* Moderate Very Low Not Low Low No data Moderate rock Sensitive

Barnacles on exposed LR.HLR.MusB.Sem Moderate Very Low Not Moderate Low Not Sensitive Moderate littoral rock Sensitive

A. nodosum on mixed LR.LLR.F.Asc.X High Not Sensitive Not Moderate High No data Moderate substrata Sensitive

F. serratus on mixed LR.LLR.F.Fserr.X Moderate Very Low Not Low Very Low Very Low Very Low substrata Sensitive

C. filum & L.saccharina IR.HIR.KSed.LsacC Moderate Very Low Not Low Low Low Low on unstable substrata hoR Sensitive

Littoral muddy sands LS.LSa.MuSa.MacA Moderate Very Low Very Low Low Moderate Moderate High with A. marina and re M.balthica

Cobbles/boulders LS.LCS.Sh.BarSh Moderate Not Sensitive Not Very Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Sensitive

54 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

BIOTOPE DESCRIPTIONS & SPECIES FOUND (CONNOR ET AL., 2004).

Biotope Name: Yellow and grey lichens on supralittoral rock

Biotope Code: LR.FLR.Lic.YG Salinity : Variable Wave Exposure : All exposure levels Substratum : Bedrock; stable boulders Depth Band : Supralittoral

Description

Vertical to gently sloping bedrock and stable boulders in the supralittoral (or splash zone) of the majority of rocky shores are typically characterised by a diverse maritime community of yellow and grey lichens, such as Xanthoria parietina, Caloplaca marina, Lecanora atra and Ramalina spp. The black lichen Verrucaria maura is also present, but usually in lower abundance than in the littoral fringe zone. In wave exposed conditions, where the effects of sea-spray extend further up the shore, the lichens generally form a wide and distinct band. This band then becomes less distinct as wave exposure decreases, and in sheltered locations, cobbles and pebbles may also support the biotope. Pools, damp pits and crevices in the rock are occasionally occupied by winkles such as Littorina saxatilis and halacarid mites may also be present. At Frenchport, this zone was narrow, variable and indistinct but contained the typical species composition listed above. Wave exposure along the shore was sheltered with mixed substrata of boulders and bedrock leading to indistinct zonation.

Biotope Name: Verrucaria maura on upper littoral fringe rock

Biotope Code: LR.FLR.Lic.Ver.Ver Salinity : Variable Wave Exposure : All exposure levels Substratum : Bedrock; stable boulders; stable cobbles Depth Band : Littoral fringe - upper

Description Upper littoral fringe bedrock, boulders and stable cobbles on very exposed to very sheltered shores which have a blanket covering of the black lichen Verrucaria maura. The winkle Littorina saxatilis is often present. Due to the nature of this biotope it is species poor, but occasionally a range of species may be present in low abundance. These species include the yellow lichen Caloplaca marina and the winkle Melarhaphe neritoides, the barnacles Chthamalus montagui and Semibalanus balanoides or the ephemeral seaweeds Porphyra umbilicalis and Enteromorpha spp. can be present in low abundance. If one or more of these species is

52 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 present compare with Ver.B. On northern shores Littorina saxatilis var. rudis can dominate along with the occasional presence of the lichens Verrucaria mucosa and Xanthoria parietina. V. maura can be found overlying stable mud in N. Ireland sea loughs. At Frenchport, ephemeral seaweeds were not present within this biotope, and species diversity and numbers were low.

Biotope Name: Pelvetia canaliculata on sheltered littoral fringe rock

Biotope Code: LR.LLR.F.Pel Salinity : variable Wave Exposure : Sheltered, Very sheltered, Extremely sheltered Substratum : Bedrock; stable boulders; cobbles Depth Band : Upper Shore

Description Lower littoral fringe bedrock or stable boulders and mixed substrata in sheltered to extremely sheltered conditions characterised by a dense cover of the wrack Pelvetia canaliculata. The biotope may be present in localised sheltered patches on moderately exposed shores. P. canaliculata overgrows a crust of black lichens Verrucaria maura or the non-calcified red algae Hildenbrandia rubra on very sheltered shores. Individuals of the wrack Fucus spiralis can usually be found among the P. canaliculata and/or in lower part of the biotope. This biotope lacks the density of barnacles found amongst the P. canaliculata on more exposed shores. The winkle Littorina saxatilis occurs, as do a variety of amphipods. The red alga Catenella caespitosa can be present especially in more shaded areas while the green seaweed Enteromorpha spp. can be present in moist areas. At Frenchport, this biotope was indistinct and mingled with Fucus spiralis/Fucus ceranoides zone.

Biotope Name: Fucus spiralis on full salinity sheltered upper eulittoral rock

Biotope Code: LR.LLR.F.Fspi.FS Salinity : Full Wave Exposure : Moderately Exposed Substratum : Bedrock; stable boulders; cobbles Depth Band : Eulittoral/ Upper Shore

Description

Sheltered upper eulittoral bedrock characterised by a band of the spiral wrack Fucus spiralis overlying the black lichen Verrucaria maura and the olive green lichen Verrucaria mucosa. Underneath the fronds of F. spiralis is a community consisting of the limpet Patella vulgata, the winkles Littorina saxatilis and Littorina littorea and sparse individuals of the barnacle Semibalanus

53 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 balanoides while the mussel Mytilus edulis can be found attached in cracks and crevices. A variety of red algae including Hildenbrandia rubra may be present underneath the fronds. During the summer months ephemeral green seaweeds such as Enteromorpha intestinalis can be common. At Frenchport, no Mytilus edulis or Hildenbrandia rubra were found within the biotope.

Biotope Name: Ascophyllum nodosum on full salinity mid eulittoral mixed substrata

Biotope Code: LR.LLR.F.Asc.X Salinity : Full Wave Exposure : Sheltered, Very sheltered, Extremely sheltered Substratum : Mixed cobbles, boulders and pebbles on sediment Depth Band : Eulittoral

Description Sheltered to extremely sheltered full salinity mixed substrata (cobbles, boulders and pebbles on sediment) characterised by a canopy formed by a mosaic of the wracks Ascophyllum nodosum and Fucus vesiculosus. The red seaweed Polysiphonia lanosa can often be found as an epiphyte on the A. nodosum. The mussel Mytilus edulis often occurs in clumps, and provides further suitable substrata for the attachment of fucoids and red and green seaweeds such as Polysiphonia spp. and Enteromorpha intestinalis or the barnacle Semibalanus balanoides. Winkles are common and Littorina littorea and Littorina obtusata/mariae may occur in high densities, while species such as the limpet Patella vulgata, the crab Carcinus maenas and the whelk Nucella lapillus may occur on and around the boulders. Gammarids can be found underneath the boulders or among the seaweeds, while tube-forming spirorbids are found on the boulders, shells or on the F. vesiculosus. Infaunal species including the polychaetes Arenicola marina and Lanice conchilega may occur in the sediment between the cobbles. At Frenchport, there were no Mytilus edulis within this biotope. There were generally low abundances of the other species typical of this biotope, notably Polisiphonia sp. Cerastoderma edule was also present in sediment between boulders/cobbles along with Lanice conchilega and Arenicola marina. Due to variable topography at the site, there was not a clear zonation between biotopes. Thus, the Ascophyllum zone width was very variable across the shore, with large areas of mixed biotopes, with Fucus serratus and/or Fucus vesiculosus abundant in places.

Biotope Name: Fucus serratus on full salinity lower eulittoral mixed substrata

Biotope Code: LR.LLR.F.Fserr.X Salinity : Full Wave Exposure : Sheltered, Very sheltered, Extremely sheltered Substratum : Mixed cobbles, boulders and pebbles on sediment Depth Band : Eulittoral – lower shore

54 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Description

Sheltered to extremely sheltered full salinity lower eulittoral mixed substrata with dense stands of the wrack Fucus serratus. The crab Carcinus maenas and a large number of winkles such as Littorina littorea and Littorina obtusata/mariae can be found amongst the pebbles and cobbles as well as large individuals of the mussel Mytilus edulis, commonly occurring in clumps. On these mussels and on larger cobbles are the barnacle Semibalanus balanoides and the limpet Patella vulgata. Red algae such as coralline crusts including Lithothamnion spp. and the tube-forming polychaetes Pomatoceros triqueter and Spirorbis spp. can be found on cobbles and boulders. Spirorbis spp. can also be found on the F. serratus fronds. Sediment in the spaces between the loose substrata may support infauna including the polychaete Arenicola marina. The red seaweed Mastocarpus stellatus and the wrack Ascophyllum nodosum can occur in patches, while the green seaweeds Enteromorpha intestinalis and Cladophora spp. can be found among the mussels and underneath the F. serratus canopy. At Frenchport, no Mytilus edulis or Lithothamnion sp were observed within this biotope during the littoral survey. The red algae Gelidium latifolium, Ceramium sp and Lomentaria articulata were observed within this biotope along with the Hydroid Dynamena pumila and gastropod Gibbula umbilicalis. Ephemeral green algae such as Ulva and Enteromorpha sp were also abundant in places. The anemones Actinia equina and Anemone viridis were also abundant in places. This biotope merged into the Chorda filum and red algae dominated biotope along the sublittoral fringe. The polychaetes, Glycera sp., Lanice conchilega, Arenicola marina and other unidentified polychaeta were abundant in anoxic sandy substrata between boulders/cobbles within this biotope.

Biotope Name: Laminaria saccharina, Chorda filum and dense red seaweeds on shallow unstable infralittoral boulders or cobbles

Biotope Code: IR.HIR.KSed.LsacChoR Salinity : Full Wave Exposure : Moderately exposed Substratum : Boulders, cobbles, pebbles and gravel Depth Band : Infralittoral - upper

Description

Seasonally disturbed unstable boulders and cobbles in very shallow water dominated by the fast- growing brown seaweed Chorda filum together with the kelp Laminaria saccharina. The brown seaweed Desmarestia aculeata is also typical of this disturbed environment as well encrusting coralline algae and brown crusts. Beneath the prolific growth of C. filum, red and brown seaweeds densely cover many of the boulders, cobbles and pebbles. Other sediment-tolerant seaweeds such as species from the Ectocarpales (brown filamentous seaweeds) and the red seaweeds Chondrus crispus, Phyllophora pseudoceranoides, Dilsea carnosa and Corallina officinalis is normally present. Other red seaweeds which can be found here include Chondria dasyphylla, Brongniartella byssoides, Polysiphonia elongata, Ceramium nodolosum, Cystoclonium purpureum, Heterosiphonia plumosa, Rhodomela confervoides and Plocamium

55 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 cartilagineum. The brown seaweeds Punctaria sp. and Cladostephus spongiosus are generally present. The faunal component of this biotope is typically sparse - the starfish Asterias rubens and the crabs Pagurus bernhardus and Necora puber are amongst the most conspicuous animals. The bryozoan crust Electra pilosa colonise many of the algae along with the ascidian Botryllus schlosseri. Occasional the polychaete Lanice conchilega may occur in the sand between pebbles, and the anthozoan Urticina felina may be found amongst pockets of gravel along with the gastropod Gibbula cineraria. At some sites the rock beneath the algae can be occupied by the tube-building polychaete Pomatoceros triqueter. This biotope is also present at other open coast sites around the UK where suitable shallow, seasonally stable boulders, cobbles and pebbles occur. At Frenchport, the biotope present was not closely representative of this biotope. Laminara saccharina was sparse at Frenchport, and this biotope was dominated by the brown algae Chorda filum, Dictyota dichotoma and Scytosiphon lomentaria, with abundant ephemeral green algae such as Cladophera sp., Enteromorpha intestinalis and Ulva sp. The red algae, Gelidium latifolium was also abundant but severely bleached. Other species observed included the hermit crab Pagurus bernhardus, the gastropod Gibbula cineraria and the polychaetes Lanice conchilega and Pomatoceros triqueter. Substratum was dominated by boulders and cobbles and sand.

Biotope Name: Macoma balthica and Arenicola marina in littoral muddy sand

Biotope Code: LS.LSa.MuSa.MacAre Salinity : Full Wave Exposure : Moderately exposed, Sheltered, Very sheltered, Extremely sheltered Substratum : Fine sand or muddy sand Depth Band : Lower shore, Mid shore, Upper shore

Description Muddy sand or fine sand, often occurring as extensive intertidal flats both on open coasts and in marine inlets. The sediment is often compacted, with a rippled surface, areas of standing water, and generally remains water-saturated during low water. Scattered stones, cobbles and boulders with attached fucoids may be present. An anoxic layer is usually present within 5cm of the sediment surface and is often visible in worm casts. The habitat may be subject to variable salinity conditions in marine inlets. The species assemblage is characterised by the lugworm Arenicola marina and the Baltic tellin Macoma balthica. The polychaetes Scoloplos armiger and Pygospio elegans are typically superabundant and common, respectively. Oligochaetes, probably mainly Tubificoides benedii and T. pseudogaster, may be common, and the cockle Cerastoderma edule may be abundant. Within Portnafrankagh Bay, in the vicinity of Frenchport pier, species found during qualitative digs th on the 4 July 2011 included the polychaeta Nephtys caeca, Arenicola marina and Glyceridae. The bivalve mollusks Macoma balthica and Cerastoderma edule were also present along with the amphipod Eurydice pulchra. Lanice conchilega and other unidentified polychaetes were also present.

56 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

Biotope Name: Semibalanus balanoides on exposed to moderately exposed or vertical sheltered eulittoral rock

Biotope Code: LR.HLR.MusB.Sem Salinity : Full Wave Exposure : Exposed, Moderately exposed Substratum : Bedrock; large boulders Depth Band : Eulittoral - mid, Eulittoral - upper

Description Exposed to moderately exposed mid to upper eulittoral bedrock and large boulders characterized by dense barnacles Semibalanus balanoides and the limpet Patella vulgata. The community has a relatively low diversity of species though occasional cracks and crevices in the rock can provide a refuge for small individuals of the mussel Mytilus edulis, the winkle Littorina saxatilis and the whelk Nucella lapillus. Seaweeds are usually not found in high numbers though fissures and crevices in the bedrock can hold a sparse algal community including the green seaweed Enteromorpha intestinalis. On some shores the olive green lichen Verrucaria mucosa can be present in some abundance (Frequent). Three variants have been described: A S. balanoides and P. vulgata dominated community on bedrock (Sem.Sem); S. balanoides and sparse Fucus vesioculosus and red seaweeds (Sem.FvesR); and barnacles and L. littorea eulittoral boulders and cobbles (Sem.LlitX). At Frenchport, this biotope was not truly represented, but a sparse version of a barnacle/Patella dominated biotope on boulders was present along the mid-shore to the west of Frenchport Pier. No Mytilus were present within this biotope. The anemone Actinia equina was common among small rockpools within the biotope.

Biotope Name: Barren littoral shingle

Biotope Code: LS.LCS.Sh.BarSh Salinity : Full Wave Exposure : Exposed, Moderately exposed Substratum : Pebbles; cobbles; gravel Depth Band : Lower shore, Mid shore, Upper shore

Description Shingle or gravel shores, typically with sediment particle size ranging from 4 - 256 mm, sometimes with some coarse sand mixed in. This biotope is normally only found on exposed open coasts in fully marine conditions. Such shores tend to support virtually no macrofauna in their very mobile and freely draining substratum. The few individuals that may be found are

57 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 those washed into the habitat by the ebbing tide, including the occasional amphipod or small polychaete. At Frenchport, this biotope is not truly represented. The foreshore adjacent to the Pier consists of loose boulders and cobbles, containing little or no macrofauna. A low abundance of fucoid and ephemeral green algae are present on the mid-lower shore, with a mix biotopes present along the sublittoral fringe, comprising a mix of Fucus serratus/Chorda filum biotopes and polychaetes in finer sediment.

58 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 Appendix 2 – Consultation response from IWDG

59 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

60 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015 Appendix 3 – Site Synopses for sites covered in the Appropriate Assessment

61 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

62 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

63 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

64 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

65 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

66 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

67 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

68 Natura Impact Statement – Proposed Frenchport slipway and pier extension, Co. Mayo. Report by Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd March 2015

69