Sutton to Sandycove Promenade and Cycleway

Dublin City Council and Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council Sutton to Sandycove Promenade and Cycleway – Phase 2

Preliminary Design Report Appendices

March 2010

Dublin City Council and Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council S2S – Sutton to Sandycove

Contents

APPENDICES

Appendix A – List of Consultations Appendix B – Preliminary Health and Safety Plan Appendix C – Ecology Report Appendix D – Site Investigations Appendix E – Photomontages Appendix F – Costs Appendix G – Sutton to Sandycove Merrion Gate – Feasibility Study

January 2009

Dublin City Council and Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council S2S – Sutton to Sandycove

Appendix A List of Consultations

January 2009

LIST OF CONSULTATIONS

Type Organisation Contact Address Phone/Fax/email Requirements

Emergency Services Irish Coast Guard Claire O'Gorman Coast Guard Headquarters, Tel: 01 678 2000 Access information, safety requirements Dept of Transport, Fax: 01 678 3459 Leeson Lane, Dublin 2 Emergency Services Marine Rescue Captain Geoff Livingstone Marine Rescue Co-ordination Ctr. tel: 01 6783441 Access information, safety requirements Coast Guard Headquarters, Dept of Transport, Lesson Lane, Dublin 2 Emergency Services Harbour Police Gary Kelly, Superintendent of Ferry Terminal, Tel: 01 2808074 Access information, safety requirements Harbour Police Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company, Fax: 01 2808062 Dub Laoghaire.

Emergency Services Irish Water Safety John Leech Irish Water Safety Tel: 091 534973 Edge treatments, emergency access, railings, wall Organisation The Long Walk [email protected] www.iws.ie heights, drop to water level, ring buoys Galway

Emergency Services Ambulance Operations & Dave Sherwin/Niall Keogh Fire Brigade HQ, Townsend St., Dublin 2Dave Sherwin: 01 6734132 Access information, safety requirements Fire Truck

1 Emergency Services Garda Siochana Seamus Gallagher Dun Laoghaire Garda Station, Mob: 086 828 2030 Tel: Access information, safety requirements, security Corrig Avenue, 01 666 5000 considerations, patrolling arrangements Dun Laoghaire, Fax: 01 280 1285 Co Dublin

Utility ESB Peter Hore ESB Tel: 01 6042680 Maps, service locations, supply for lighting etc. South Lotts Road Fax: 01 Ringsend Dublin 4 Utility Eircom Gerry Mc Namara 112-114 St Stephen's Green West Maps, service, locations Dublin 1 Utility An Bord Gais Peadar O'Mahony Bord Gais Energy Supply, Tel: 01 602 1212 Maps, service locations, safety requirements Foley Street, Fax: 01 602 1462 Dublin 1

Utility ESAT/BT The Malt House, Tel: 01 661 6010 Maps, Service locations Grand Canal quay, Fax: 01 670 4608 Dublin 2 ESAT Digifone, 76 Baggot St, Dublin 2

Utility Meteor Meteor Mobile Communications Ltd, Tel: 01 430 7000 Maps, Service locations 4030 Kingswood Avenue, Fax: 01 430 7010 Citywest Business Park, Naas Road, Dublin 24

Cycling Dublin Transport Office John Henry Dublin Transport Office, Tel: 01 477 8100 Guidelines, best practice, safety, transport, co- Hainault House, Fax: 01 478 5935 ordination, construction access, linkages, signage, width 69-71 St Stephen's Green, email: [email protected] of cycleway/volume of traffic Dublin 2 Cycling Dublin Cycling campaign David Maher 086 347 5357 (D Maher) Guidelines, local knowledge, volumes of cyclists, cyclist Derek Peppard routes (formal and informal) cyclist behaviour, safety, 086 811 8447 (Derek Peppard) promotion, signage)

2 Transport/Rail Irish Rail Stephen Hirsch Specialized Projects: Tel: 01 703 2595 Access, clearance requirements, existing bridges, new Transport 21 email: [email protected] o verhead crossings, interface of stations and Iarnrod Eireann, Tel: 01 703 4494 promenade, flood defenses, construction impact, Connolly Station, Fax: 01 703 1789 powerlines, heritage features, volumes of users, Dublin 1 cycle/train combinations, vandalism, moving stanchions, Tel: 01 703 3651 architectural features, surface interfaces, level changes - Major Projects: Fax: 01 703 3591 existing and proposed Third party Co-coordinator, Infrastructure Track and signalsHQ, Iarnrod Eireann, Inchicore, Dublin 8

Minor Projects: Divn. Engineer's Office, Iarnrod Eireann, Pearse Stn Westland Row, Dublin 2

Heritage The Heritage Council Colum Murray The Heritage Council, Tel: 056 777 0777 Archaeology, built heritage, landscape heritage, Rothe House, Fax: 056 777 0788 promotion, information boards Kilkenny email: [email protected]

Heritage Heritage Council Coastal Beatrice Kelly 4 Castle St, Tel: 056 777 0777 Coastal archaeology, international examples of similar Section (Coastal Officer) Dublin 2 Fax: 01 475 0550 schemes, built heritage, landscape heritage, promotion, information boards Heritage Dun Laoghaire Borough Colin Scudds (secretary) 7 Northumberland Park, Tel: 01 280 6213 Local history, local knowledge, design inspiration, Historical Society Dunlaoghaire promotion, information boards Heritage An Taisce John Ducie Tailor's Hall, Tel: 01 454 1786 Ecology, heritage, information boards Back Lane, web@ www.antaisce.org Dublin 8

3 Heritage Dept of Environment, Nessa Roche (Architectural Officer) Dun Sceine, Harcourt Tel: 01 888 2000 Heritage and Local Lane, Dublin 2 Government Heritage Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Julie Craig (Conservation Officer) Old Town Hall, Dun Laoghaire Tel: 01 205 4700 Heritage Dept of Environment, Chris Corlett (Archeologist) Dun Sceine, Harcourt Lane, Dublin 2 Tel: 01 888 3187 archeology Heritage and Local Government Ecology Booterstown Marsh, An Maurice Bryan Tel: 01 493 1877 Booterstown Marsh, ecology, access, promotion, Taisce Group Veronica Heywood (Chair) Tel: 01 280 3204 protection Ecology Heritage Coastwatch Karin Dubsky Coastwatch Ireland, Tel: 053 94 25843 Coastal heritage and ecology, promotion protection, Linda O'Dwyer Civil Engineering, Mobile: 086 811 1684 access Trinity College, Dublin 2

Ecology Bird Watch Ireland Olivia Crowe O Crowe Tel: 086 0673680 Niall Hatch

Ecology Bird Watch Ireland South Chairperson Ruth Mann 1 Springmount, R Mann Tel: 01 282 5236 Bird ecology, habitats, impacts, opportunities to Dublin branch Michael Ryan Newtownmountkennedy, (Mobile : 087 2747669) improve habitats, monitoring impact, construction Cttee member Brian Gormley Co Wicklow period, access - existing and proposed, information M Ryan Mobile: 085 705 7964 boards, promotion Tel: 01 2819878

B Gormley Tel: 01 6315333 (work) Tel: 01 2601568 (home) www.birdwatchireland.ie www.birdweb.net

Ecology The Irish Wildlife Trust Sarah Fields Irish Wildlife Trust Tel: 01 8602839 Wildlife ecology, habitats, impact, opportunities to Development Officer Sigmund Business Centre, Fax: 01 8308914 improve habitats, monitoring impact, construction 93A Lagan Road, email: [email protected] or period, access-existing and proposed, information Dublin Ind Estate, [email protected] boards, promotion Glasnevin Dublin 11

4 Ecology National Parks & Wildlife Terry Doherty (Ranger) 7 Ely Place Mobile: 087 679 5862 (T Wildlife ecology, legislative issues, statutory Service Linda Patten (Ecologist) Doherty) requirements, impacts, opportunities to improve Laura Gaynor Tel: 01 888 2000 habitats, monitoring impact, construction period, Fax: 01 888 3272 access - existing and proposed, information boards, email: promotion [email protected]

Geology Geology Survey of Ireland Geological Survey of Ireland, Tel: 01 678 2000 Geometric features, underlying rock, mapping, Beggars Bush Fax: 01 668 1782 information boards, design inspiration Haddington Road Tel: 01 678 2868 Dublin 4 Fax: 668 2549

Land Owner Dun Laoghaire Harbour Simon Coates Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown Tel: 01 280 1018 Impact on harbour workings- land and water, land company Margaret Madigan Co. Council ownership issues, construction impacts, materials, traffic management, user volumes, promotion, branding

Local Authority DLRCC Parks Dept Aidan French Co-ordination with council masterplans, frameworks, (Blackrock Park masterplan) objectives, local knowledge of site, security and safety

Local Authority Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown Tim Carey (Heritage Officer) County Hall, Tel: 01 205 4700 extn 3027 Co-ordination with Council masterplans, frameworks, county council Julie Craig (conservation officer) Marine Road, objectives, local knowledge of site, plans for Baths site, Mary Henchy (Senior Planner) Dun Laoghaire, plans for Carlisle Pier. Jim Hayes (Traffic) Co Dublin Eileen Brady (South East Area)

Local Authority Dublin City Council Siobhan Egan (Biodiversity Officer) Co-ordination with Council masterplans, frameworks, Charles Duggan (Assistant Heritage objectives, local knowledge of site, plans for Blackrock Officer) baths. Eoghan Madden (Roads) Peter Morley/Ray Earle (Liaison officer in Ringsend River Basin District Advisory council)

Local Authority Councillors

5 Government Office of Public works 51 St Stephen's Green Tel: 01 647 6000 Co-ordination with OPW masterplans, frameworks, Dublin 2 Local : 1890 213 414 objectives, land ownership, promotion, flooding Fax: 01 661 0747 email: [email protected] Web: ww.opw.ie Government Dept of communications, Coastal Protection Works 29-31 Adelaide Road Tel: 01 678 2000 Marine and ecology matters, statutory issues, flooding Marine and Natural Geraldine Farrell Dublin 2 Local : 1890 44 99 00 Resources Fax: 01 678 2449 email: [email protected]

Government Dept of the Environment, Chris Corlett (Archaeologist) Head Office Tel: 01 888 2000 Ecology, heritage, statutory issues Heritage and Local Custom House www.npws.ie Government Dublin 1 www.beritagedata.ie [email protected]

S2S C/O Dublin Docklands Cyril Forbes Custom House Quay, Tel: 01 818 3300 Origins of Scheme, previous consultations Development Authority Michael Collins Dublin 1 Fax: 01 818 3399 Paul Burke-Kennedy Anne Brady Sarah Robertson

6 Dublin City Council and Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council S2S – Sutton to Sandycove

Appendix B Preliminary Health and Safety Plan

January 2009

Dublin City Council

SUTTON TO SANDYCOVE PROMENADE

PRELIMINARY SAFETY AND HEALTH PLAN

April 2008

SC06049

Prepared for:

Dublin City Council Civic Offices Wood Quay DUBLIN 8

Sutton to Sandycove Preliminary Safety and Health Plan

PRELIMINARY SAFETY AND HEALTH PLAN

This Preliminary Safety and Health Plan has been prepared in accordance with Article 12 (1) (a - c) of S.I. 504 of 2006, Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations 2006. This Safety and Health Plan must be used as a basis for the management of health and safety issues during the detailed design development phase and updated to incorporate issues which may have arisen.

1.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT

1.1 Client:

Dublin City Council Civic Offices Wood Quay DUBLIN 8 Mr A Conroy Phone No: 01 2222 410 Fax No: 01 2222 300

1.2 Project Manager for the Design Process:

Scott Wilson Unit B, 1st Floor Bracken Court Bracken Road Sandyford Business Park DUBLIN 8

Mr M Le Roux Phone No: 01 295 3100 Fax No: 01 295 3282

1.3 Project Description:

The works entail the construction of a high class promenade and cycleway from Sean Moore Park in Dublin to the East Pier in Dun Laoghaire, a distance of approximately 8 km.

The works are to be carried out along an existing promenade and natural shoreline and comprises of the following elements:

· Widening of the existing promenade. · Provision of a cycle lane. · Relocation of street lighting. · Construction of a Wave Return Wall. · Construction of a Stepped Revetment. · Construction of rock armoured earth embankment. · Construction of an elevated walkway situated offshore. · Construction of Carparks

Scott Wilson Page No 1 April 2008

Sutton to Sandycove Preliminary Safety and Health Plan

The designers have sub divided the project into sections according to the spatial disposition of existing roads, buildings, sections of promenade/shoreline and to the potential methodology required for construction at each section. These are as follows (refer to the relevant chapters of the Design report – sections 4.0 - 7.0):

Section A -Sean Moore Park To Merrion Gates. Section B – Merrion Gates to Seapoint Station Section C – Seapoint Station to the Gut. Section D – The Gut to Dun Laoghaire.

Each section is further subdivided according to the proposed construction methodology see section 3.0 Particular Risks below.

1.4 Site Location:

The works are to be carried out on a site approximately 8 km in length stretching from Sean Moore Park, along the existing promenade adjacent to Shore Road, Dublin, along the shoreline from Merrion Gates past Blackrock to the existing promenade at Seapoint and the Harbour / Railway station area of Dun Laoghaire to the East Pier.

1.5 Drawing and Specifications:

The preliminary design drawings and specifications for this project have been prepared by the following parties:-

Civil and Structural Scott Wilson Engineer: Beechill House Beechill Road BELFAST BT8 7RP Northern Ireland

Engineering Liaison: Mr J Armstrong Phone No: 028 9070 5111 Fax No: 028 9079 5651

Project Supervisor Design Process: Scott Wilson Beechill House Beechill Road BELFAST BT8 7RP Northern Ireland

PSDP Liaison is: Mr S Powell Phone No: 028 9070 5111 Fax No: 028 9079 5651

The complete set of drawings, specification and other supplementary information should be provided at a future stage as part of the Tender Documentation.

Scott Wilson Page No 2 April 2008

Sutton to Sandycove Preliminary Safety and Health Plan

The Contractor must comply with all Client’s requirements in respect of specified Health and Safety goals and procedures when working adjacent to footpaths, access roads etc. The Contractor shall be advised in advance of any activities organised by the Client on site which might affect his activities which are not known at the stage of preparing the Safety and Health Plan.

1.6 Restrictions on Working Hours:

Subject to other requirements of the Contract, and to the need to work within the constrains of the tides in Dublin Bay the normal working hours on the site shall be Monday to Saturday between 8.00am and 6.00pm. No works will be permitted on Sundays or on Public holidays unless a written approval has been granted by the Project Manager or as at such times where works may be required in the interests of Health and Safety.

Works along the shoreline will be influenced by the available working time between tides. Information on tides along the promenade will be provided with the Tender documentation. These works should be agreed in advance with the Client and appropriate / alternate arrangement must be put in place to minimise disruption on the activities of the general public.

1.7 Site Restrictions:

The works involve working in the close proximity of the railway line and safe working procedures must be adopted and enforced at all time. The Contractor must liaise with the Railway Company of Ireland regarding rules and restrictions on working in the close proximity of railway lines. There may be restrictions imposed by the Harbour (Commissioners) for Dun Laoghaire depending on the final design proposed for The Gut area of Dun Laoghaire Harbour.

1.8 Existing Services:

Information on the existing underground services will be provided at the detailed design stage, however there are overhead electricity cables at Merrion Gates both for the DART supply and for normal domestic properties. The Contractor must liaise with the various service providers to confirm and verify their services on site. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to locate, scan and mark up the location of these services on site and to ensure that they are not damaged during the construction phase.

1.9 Ground Conditions:

A site investigation was carried out in September 2007 by the geotechnical engineers, Site Investigation Ltd and their report will be provided as part of the Contract documentation. Generally the site is overlain by made ground of fill / clay overlying natural dense sands / gravels and firm clays, with bedrock principally comprising Limestone of the Calp and Ballysteen Formations at a depth of 2 – 10m north of Blackrock, and to the south Granite from the Northern and Upper Liffey Pluton exposed along the shore. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to make his own interpretation of the report and further clarification can be sought from the soil investigation engineers, however should the Contractor feel the necessity to carry out further soil investigations, a written approval from the Project Manager must be obtained before these works are carried out.

The Contractor is expected to make his own reasonable evaluations of the ground conditions during the construction period to ensure that his choice of equipment / plant and his construction methods will not compromise the health and safety of

Scott Wilson Page No 3 April 2008

Sutton to Sandycove Preliminary Safety and Health Plan

this operatives, visitors and members of the public in general who may have a cause to be in the vicinity of the site.

1.10 Relevant Adjoining Land Uses:

The site is surrounded by private residential houses, public paths, amenity sites, and the Harbour at Dun Laoghaire.

1.11 Intended Contract Commencement Date:

The project has yet to develop to the detailed design stage and no start date for construction has been determined.

1.12 Intended Contract Completion:

To be confirmed following the detailed design process.

Scott Wilson Page No 4 April 2008

Sutton to Sandycove Preliminary Safety and Health Plan

2.0 OTHER WORKS ACTIVITIES

The proposed project is at preliminary design stage and until an accurate design and construction programme has been produced it is not possible to determine if or what development may become apparent along the route of the promenade.

There may be a number of proposed housing or other development sites along and adjacent to the route of the promenade, which may precede any promenade works.

Scott Wilson Page No 5 April 2008

Sutton to Sandycove Preliminary Safety and Health Plan

3.0 PARTICULAR RISKS

The significant Construction Stage Hazards or work sequences identified by the designers, which could not be designed out are included in Appendix A of this Safety and Health Plan, and may indicate the precautions assumed for dealing with them. These are for guidance purposes only; the Contactor must prepare his own method statements and carry out risk assessments of the site activities.

As outlined in section 1.0 of this Preliminary Safety and Health Plan, the overall project has been subdivided into four different sections, as follows

Section A -Sean Moore Park To Merrion Gates. Section B – Merrion Gates to Seapoint Station Section C – Seapoint Station to the Gut. Section D – The Gut to Dun Laoghaire.

Each section is further subdivided into subsections according to the differing methods of construction proposed to overcome the pertaining site conditions.

Section A - Sean Moore Park to Merrion Gates.

Part 1 – From Sean Moore Park to the Existing Promenade at Sandymount – this entails the provision of an 8.0m wide promenade and cycleway to the seaward side of the existing sea wall, using rock armour as protection against wave action. The main hazards associated with this work involves working adjacent to the shore, the placing of rock armour and the use of cementicious products.

Part 2 – The existing promenade from Sandymount to Strand House/173 Strand Road, involves the removal of sections of the existing promenade, the construction of a 7.5 metre wide fibre reinforced concrete promenade with exposed aggregate finish, the provision of a new low level reinforced concrete flood wall to protect the nearby car park area and provision of reinforced concrete up stands with timber seats.

Part 3 – This section extends from Strand House/ 173 Strand Road – Merrion Hall and entails the construction of the 8m wide promenade supported by 100mm x 250mm timber beams and timber/concrete piles with handrails on either side of the promenade.

Part 4 – This section of the promenade will continue from the rear of the property opposite Merrion Hall to the beach adjacent to Merion Gates. The width of the promenade is 6.5m and is supported by a compacted fill material. The works also include the construction of a reinforced concrete/masonry faced retaining wall and steps connecting the back gardens of the properties and the promenade.

Section B

Part 1

The construction of the promenade and cycleway will continue from the Merrion Gates for a distance of 1520 metres to Martello Tower at Seafort Parade. The works also include the construction of 3 new ramped access bridges at Booterstown station, Ashcastle site and the south end of Williamstown Park to improve access to the promenade; the primary and secondary rock armouring with concrete toe beam will be provided for flood protection.

Risks involved are as follows:

· Manual handling · Working in the close proximity of the sea waves. · Working with concrete, cement containing products and bitumen products.

Scott Wilson Page No 6 April 2008

Sutton to Sandycove Preliminary Safety and Health Plan

Part 2

The works will be carried out from Martello Tower at Seafort parade to a tunnel south of Boat Harbour, and involves the construction of an 8.0 metre wide reinforced concrete promenade with exposed aggregate finish with a stainless steel handrail on the seaward side and a 2.4m high security fence fixed to wall on the other side. The flood protection is to be provided by a mass concrete foundation with a precast wave return wall on top. The existing granite paving will be removed to allow for foundations of the sea defence system.

Risks involved are as follows:

· Manual handling · Working in the close proximity of the sea waves. · Working with concrete, cement containing products and bitumen products. · Lifting operations especially during the placing of the precast wave return wall.

Part 3

This section of the cycleway and promenade will be carried out between the tunnel and House No 20, Maretimo Gardens East. The works entails the construction of a reinforced concrete retaining wall on the landward side to match the existing and the erection of a fence.

Risks involved are as follows:

· Manual handling · Working with concrete, cement containing products and bitumen products.

Part 4

The works extends from House No 20, Maretimo Gardens East to Seapoint station and the works entails the construction of an 8.0metre wide reinforced concrete promenade with exposed aggregate finish with stainless steel handrail on the seaward side. The flood protection is to be provided by a mass concrete foundation with precast wave return wall on top.

Risks involved are as follows:

Section C

Part 1

The works are to be carried out from Seapoint Station to house No 95 Seapoint Avenue. The works comprise the construction of a 6.5metre wide reinforced concrete promenade with exposed aggregate finish with stainless steel handrail on seaward side. The wave protection is to be provided by a mass concrete foundation with precast wave return wall on top and reinforced concrete wall is to be constructed on the landward side to match the.

Risks involved are as follows:

· Manual handling · Working in the close proximity of the sea waves.

Scott Wilson Page No 7 April 2008

Sutton to Sandycove Preliminary Safety and Health Plan

· Working with concrete, cement containing products and bitumen products. · Lifting operations especially during the placing of the precast wave return wall.

Part 2

This section of works extends from House No 95, Seapoint Avenue to Monkstown station car park. The works entails the construction of a reinforced concrete promenade with exposed aggregate finish with varying width. The flood protection is to be provided by the existing masonry wall. Works also include the construction of reinforced concrete steps connecting the promenade and the foreshore.

Risks involved are as follows:

· Manual handling · Working in the close proximity of the sea waves. · Working with concrete, cement containing products and bitumen products.

Part 3

The works will be carried out from Monkstown Station car park to West Pier Road and entails the removal of the existing security fence to allow for the promenade widening and breaking up the existing bitmac promenade. The new promenade is an 8.0metre wide fibre reinforced concrete promenade with exposed aggregate finish with new security fence on both sides.

Risks involved are as follows:

· Manual handling · Working in the close proximity of the sea waves. · Working with concrete, cement containing products and bitumen products.

Section D

Part 1

The works extends from West Pier Road to Slip road at Dun Laoghaire Harbour and entails relocation of handrails and construction of an 8.0m wide fibre reinforced promenade with exposed aggregate finish. The existing single lane road will also be widened to provide two-way traffic. The works also include the construction of a reinforced concrete retaining wall faced in stone on the seaward side.

Risks involved are as follows:

· Manual handling · Working in the close proximity of the sea waves. · Working with concrete, cement containing products and bitumen products. · Working at height during the construction of the retaining wall.

Part 2

The works extends from the Dun Laoghaire harbour to the new Irish Lights Building, and entails removal of the existing wall and footpath, to allow the construction of the 6.5m wide fibre reinforced concrete promenade with exposed aggregate finish, and construction of reinforced concrete retaining wall on each side of Coal Quay Bridge to match the existing.

Scott Wilson Page No 8 April 2008

Sutton to Sandycove Preliminary Safety and Health Plan

Risks involved are as follows:

· Manual handling · Working with concrete, cement containing products and bitumen products. · Working at height during the construction of the retaining wall.

Part 3

The works extends from the new Irish Lights Building to the HSS Ferry Terminal Road and Harbour Road Junction and entails realignment of the Harbour road, removal of the existing footpath to allow the construction of the 6.5m wide fibre reinforced concrete promenade with exposed aggregate finish. The works includes the provision of additional car parking spaces for the Yacht Club.

Risks involved are as follows:

· Manual handling · Dust and noise during the demolition works. · Working with concrete, cement containing products and bitumen products. · Working adjacent to a listed building.

Part 4

The works extends from the HSS Ferry Terminal Road to the Queen’s road slip way/East Pier junction. The works entail the regrading of the area between the car park and the existing promenade to allow the construction of a wider promenade and construction of a reinforced concrete 8.0m wide promenade, and the construction of a reinforced concrete retaining wall faced with stone. A hand rail is also to be installed on top to the retaining wall.

Risks involved are as follows:

· Manual handling · Working with concrete, cement containing products and bitumen products.

Note: At this design stage the preferred options for construction have been proposed. However future design changes may become apparent and some of the risks outlined below may or may not be applicable depending on the final design.

3.1 Works which put persons at risk of falling from a height, burial under earthfalls, or engulfment in swampland, where the risk is particularly aggravated by the nature of the work or processes used or by the environment at the place of work or site.

The works will involve working at height during the construction of elevated walkways, bridges or other elevated platforms along the Promenade. The operatives must be trained to work at height and site inductions must be provided to all operatives and site visitors. This risk may be aggravated by the need to work over standing water or tidal conditions. See note 3.5 below. It is possible that if the promenade diverts within the nature reserve in Blackrock Park there may be a potential for engulfment in swampland if excavations of any depth are required.

Scott Wilson Page No 9 April 2008

Sutton to Sandycove Preliminary Safety and Health Plan

3.1 Work which puts persons at risk from chemical or biological substances constituting a particular danger to the safety and health of such persons or involving a legal requirement for health monitoring.

None.

3.2 Work with ionising radiation requiring the designation of controlled or supervised areas as defined in Directive 96/29/ Euratom²

None.

3.3 Work near High Voltage Power Lines

There are high voltage catenary cables located along the route of the Dart, which is very close the site; the Contractor must take all appropriate control measures to avoid contact with these cables. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to confirm, locate, verify and mark up these service cables and others in the close proximity of these works prior to any excavation works being carried out on site.

3.4 Work exposing Persons at work to the Risk of Drowning

The works involve working in or over standing water or tidal conditions. The Contractor’s operatives must therefore be trained to deal with risks associated with working over or near deep or moving water. The contractor must provide appropriate safety equipment in event of an accident and it must be regularly serviced to ensure it is in good working order and that operatives are trained on how to use it.

3.5 Work on Wells, Underground Earthworks and Tunnels

None.

3.6 Work carried out by Divers at Work having a system of Air Supply

None.

3.8 Work carried out in a Caisson with a Compressed-Air Atmosphere

None.

3.9 Work involving the use of explosives

None.

3.10 Work involving the Assembly or Dismantling of Heavy Prefabricated Components.

The works will entail the construction of an elevated promenade with steel / timber beams which will require specialised lifting equipment. At the detailed design stage the Designers will consider modular structures with integral lifting eyes. The Contractor must prepare method statements to ensure the safety of his operatives during these lifting operations.

3.11 Non Schedule Risks

The following risks may be present and the Contractor must put in place measures to eliminate or manage them.

Scott Wilson Page No 10 April 2008

Sutton to Sandycove Preliminary Safety and Health Plan

· There is the potential for conflict between the Contractor’s Plant/equipment and traffic/pedestrians along the existing promenade and Strand Road, Brighton Vale Road, Dunleary Road, Harbour Road and Queen’s Road. The Contractor must put in place traffic management proposals for all works which are adjacent to or involve entering or leaving the public roads. Conflict must be minimised by restricting the Contractor’s plant to a designated route and all equipment not in use must be parked at the Contractor’s compound.

· Adequate and appropriate signage must be erected on and around the site to advise the operatives and pedestrians about the hazards associated with his works.

· Potential for collision between contractor’s plant and operatives. The Principal Contractor must use alternative roads if available along the promenade for the delivery of materials and the removal of excavated material off site. Access is only available at one end therefore to minimise reversing adequate passing bays and turning circles must be provided. The Contractor must consider the use of flagmen in his traffic management proposals.

· The Contractor must put in place necessary measures to minimise the nuisance of noise and dust as this may affect adjacent private dwellings or road users. Cutting, demolition etc tools must be fitted with appropriate dust suppression devices. Contractor’s plant/equipment which is not in use must be switched off and parked in such a way which will not obstruct others along the promenade.

The Contractor’s attention is also drawn to his obligations under Schedule 2 of the Safety and Health at Work (Construction Regulations) 2006 in respect of the Non- Exhaustive list of Matters to be considered in Particular as regards the Application of the General Principles of Prevention to Construction Work under these Regulations.

Scott Wilson Page No 11 April 2008

Sutton to Sandycove Preliminary Safety and Health Plan

4.0 MISCELLANEOUS

4.1 Contractor’s Design

The Designs and drawings of this project have been prepared by various designers named in Section 1.5 of this Preliminary Safety and Health Plan. There are no designs prepared by the Contractor during the preparation of this Plan and any future designs by the Contractor for temporary works, false works, form work etc must be submitted to the Project Supervisor for the Design Process to ensure that health and safety issues are addressed in accordance with the regulations.

4.2 Ongoing Design

The Designers, including any Contractor’s Designers, may notify the appointed Project Supervisor for the Design Process of any relevant design decisions or changes made during the construction of the works. The health and safety issues arising during construction must be referred to the Project Supervisor for the Construction Stage.

4.3 Health and Safety Passes

All employees on the site must have completed an approved Safety and Health Course and carry Safety and Health Passes (FAS Safe Pass or approved equivalent) whenever on site, as required by Schedules 3 and 4 and Regulation 4 of the Regulations.

The information contained in this Preliminary Safety and Health Plan has been prepared before the commencement of the detailed design or works on site. It does not take account of any matters that may become known after that time.

Scott Wilson Page No 12 April 2008

Sutton to Sandycove Preliminary Safety and Health Plan

APPENDIX A

DESIGNER’S HAZARD INVENTORY

Scott Wilson April 2008

Record of Risk Assessment

Project name: Sutton to Sandycove Project no. SC06409

Ass't Sheet Component or aspect: Promenade and Flood Defence no. 1 no. 1

Ass'ed Residual Serial no. Nature of hazard Possible effect of hazard Severity Prob'ty Precautions or remedial action risk risk Emergency plans to be in place with out of hours contact phone Risk of inadequate numbers and emergency service numbers. Unrestricted access to 1 Emergencies provisions in the event of an H M H L be available to emergency vehicles at all times. All personnel to emergency be informed of emergency procedures.

Collision/crushing to personal/vehicle Traffic management and clear signage. Dedicated pedestrian 2 Risk of severe injury H M H M during construction routes.

Injury due to unauthorised access, i.e. Risk of injury to people not 3 H L M Security fencing (as appropriate) and clear signage. L security measures etc. authorised to be on site

Contractor to undertake risk assessments on removal and disposal Uncontrolled Collapse during 4 Risk of injury / crushing H M H of materials as well as providing relevant method statements. Demolition M PPE to be provided and worn.

Design to minimise depth and extent of excavation. Sides of excavations to be adequately supported with control of Risk of injury due to 5 Collapse during Excavation M M M groundwater as required. Excavations to be covered or cordoned L flooding, falling or collapse off when unattended. Existing services to be identified before excavation commences.

All statutory service information to be collected before commencement of work. Area to be surveyed and services Electrocution from live Existing Risk of injury/death or 6 H M H located by hand prior to machine excavation. Contractor to M Services damage to services undertake risk assessments and provide relevant method statements.

Assessment by: Date: Reviewed by: Date: Sheet Proj. no. BC06409 no. 1 of 5 JRB April 2008 J.Armstrong April 2008

Record of Risk Assessment

Project name: Sutton to Sandycove Project no. SC06409

Ass't Sheet Component or aspect: Promenade and Flood Defence no. 1 no. 2

Ass'ed Residual Serial no. Nature of hazard Possible effect of hazard Severity Prob'ty Precautions or remedial action risk risk Concrete burns, dermatitis, respiratory problems due to dust Risk of injury personnel and Contractor to prepare and risk assessments on use of materials 7 hazards when handling Cementitious M M M L public and provide method statements. PPE to be provided and worn. Products (e.g. concrete, mortar)

Contractor to provide suitable method statements and restrict access to working area. Contractor to comply with BS5531 1988 Unintended collapse of Steelwork Risk of fatality or damage to (Safety In Erecting Structural Frames) 8 H M H L Erection vehicles/plant etc Steel framing to be temporarily braced during construction to prevent partial collapse of the structure.

Contractor to carry out risk assessments and provide appropriate Risk of people or equipment 9 Working At Height/Falls H M H method statements. Safe working platforms should be provided M falling with suitable edge protection. PPE should be provided and used.

Contractor to ensure design is to an approved standard, checked Risk of injury through and maintained. Safe access must be maintained with working Scaffold collapse sue to 10 inadequate design, erection H M H areas kept tidy and clear of obstructions with stockpiling limited. L overloading/poor erection or use A lifting hoist should be provided to take items to higher levels. Protection to bridge and adj roofs required if scaffolding on them.

Contractor to carry out risk assessments and provide suitable Risk of serious injury or 11 Collision of cranes/ dropping of load H L M method statements. Lifting should only take place with a trained L damage to plant/equipment banksman / slinger and crane co-ordinator.

Assessment by: Date: Reviewed by: Date: Ass't Sheet Proj. no. BC06409 1 2 of 5 JRB April 2008 J.Armstrong April 2008 no. no. Record of Risk Assessment

Project name: Sutton to Sandycove Project no. SC06409

Ass't Sheet Component or aspect: Promenade and Flood Defence no. 1 no. 3

Ass'ed Residual Serial no. Nature of hazard Possible effect of hazard Severity Prob'ty Precautions or remedial action risk risk Problems associated with Site waste to be safely disposed, noise and vibrations to be 12 Pollution / Contamination noise, dust, fuel spillages and L M M minimised, dust to be controlled and fuel spillages to be L site waste. contained. PPE should be provided and used.

Contractor to comply with Safety Health and Welfare at Work. PPE should be provided and used. Survey must be undertaken, Hazardous Materials (e.g. sealants, and any unsafe material is to be appropriately removed prior to 13 Risk of injury M L M M mastics, solvents, mortar additives) any demolition.

Contractor to provide method statements to minimise manual Manual Handling in block wall, 14 Risk of injury M L M handling, Adequate lifting facilities and crane access should be L timber elevated walkway provided. Contractor to provide suitable method statements for connections 15 Bacterial hazards, dangerous gases Risk of injury and infection ( H L M to existing sewers by trained personnel. PPE should be provided M and used. Leptospriosis – adequate welfare facilities Contractor to provide suitable method statements. PPE should be Risk of injury, or damage to 16 Piling H M H provided and used. Adjacent property should be protected to M adjacent property prevent damage. Risk of illness or 17 Exposure to Elements M L M Contractor to provide facilities for all site personnel. L hypothermia

Assessment by: Date: Reviewed by: Date: Ass't Sheet Proj. no. BC06409 no. 1 no. 3 of 5 JRB April 2008 J.Armstrong April 2008

Record of Risk Assessment

Project name: Sutton to Sandycove Project no. SC06409

Component or aspect: Comp’nt Ass't Sheet Promenade and Flood Defence code no. 1 no. 4

Ass'ed Residual Serial no. Nature of hazard Possible effect of hazard Severity Prob'ty Precautions or remedial action risk risk Design to ensure that all construction activities can be carried out safely. Contractor to carry out risk assessments, provide method 18 Construction (General) Risk of injury or damage M M M L statements and ensure all plant and equipment is operated by trained and competent personnel. Risk of accident due to poor 19 communication and liaison between Risk of injury or damage H M H Contractor to co-ordinate and communicate all activities on site. L parties on site

20 Steel Reinforcement Risk of injury H L M Contractor to ensure safe storage and handling. L

Contractor to ensure safety standards are as high as those for 21 Temporary Works Risk of injury or damage H M H permanent works. Risk assessments to be carried out and method L statements to be provided.

Unexpected problems during Ground Investigation carried out and ground water levels 22 Existing Ground Conditions M M M L construction identified to be considered in design.

Risk of injury (particularly Provide welding shelter or shed to limit visibility. Contractor to 23 On-Site Welding burns and arc-eye), fire M L M ensure compliance with General Application Regulations. PPE to L and/or explosion be provided and used.

Mechanical And Electrical Items 24 (Including Installation And Risk of injury electrocution H L M Method statements to be produced. L Commissioning)

Assessment by: Date: Reviewed by: Date: Ass't Sheet Proj. no. BC06409 no. 1 no. 4 of 5 JRB April 2008 J.Armstrong April 2008

Record of Risk Assessment

Project name: Sutton to Sandycove Project no. SC06409

Ass't Sheet Component or aspect: Landing Deck building and external stair access. no. 1 no. 5

Ass'ed Residual Serial no. Nature of hazard Possible effect of hazard Severity Prob'ty Precautions or remedial action risk risk Compliance with Safety Health and Welfare at work (construction regulation 2006 and General Application Regulations 2007. Contractor to ensure all necessary information Accidents due to Maintenance is provided for the Health And Safety File (e.g. record drawings, 25 Risk of injury H M H M Procedure operating and maintenance manuals, test certificates). Client is responsible for maintenance and should ensure risk assessment procedures, PPE and training requirements are identified and established.

Injury due to insufficient Appropriate access/egress routes such as walkways and 26 Access – During Use H M H L access/egress provisions staircases to be incorporated into design.

Working At Height – During Handrailing to be provided around walkways with removable 27 Risk of injury due to falling H L M L Maintenace panels included as necessary to allow access. Method Statements Contractor/client to provide all staff with lifejackets, Contractor Working Above Water/ during Risk of Injury/ Death by 28 H H H construction and Maintenance Drowning to provide rescue boat and qualified driver at all times. All in accordance with General Application Regulations 2006.

Assessment by: Date: Reviewed by: Date: Ass't Sheet Proj. no. BC06409 no. 1 no. 5 of 5 JRB April 2008 J.Armstrong April 2008

Safety check list — R Residual risks Sheet 1 of 1 Project no. Project name: S2S Sutton to Sandycove SC06409 Component code: Project component: S2S Sutton to Sandycove

Date of completion of check list: . April 2008 List the residual risks remaining on completion of the design process and for each give references to any item(s) in the Health and Safety Plan, the Health and Safety File or other document in which attention is drawn to that risk. ( C = risk affecting construction; U = risk affecting use or maintenance; D = risk affecting demolition or decommissioning )

Nature of residual risk C,U,D Remarks Reference Collision/crushing to Traffic management and clear signage. Dedicated C,U,D personal/vehicle during construction pedestrian routes. Contractor to undertake risk assessments on removal and Uncontrolled Collapse during C,D disposal of materials as well as providing relevant Demolition method statements. PPE to be provided and worn. All statutory service information to be collected before commencement of work. Area to be surveyed and Electrocution from live Existing C,U,D services located by hand prior to machine excavation. Services Contractor to undertake risk assessments and provide relevant method statements. Contractor to carry out risk assessments and provide appropriate method statements. Safe working platforms Working At Height/Falls C,U,D should be provided with suitable edge protection. PPE should be provided and used. Contractor to comply with Safety Health and Welfare at Hazardous Materials (e.g. sealants, Work. PPE should be provided and used. Survey must C,U,D mastics, solvents, mortar additives) be undertaken, and any unsafe material is to be appropriately removed prior to any demolition Contractor to provide suitable method statements for connections to existing sewers by trained personnel. Bacterial hazards, dangerous gases C,D PPE should be provided and used. Leptospriosis – adequate welfare facilities Contractor to provide suitable method statements. PPE Piling C,D should be provided and used. Adjacent property should be protected to prevent damage. Compliance with Safety Health and Welfare at work Accidents due to Maintenance U (construction regulation 2006 and General Application Procedure Regulations 2007.

File original in project records. Designer: (Name): J.Bradshaw (Signed): Date: April 2008

Date of issue to QMS: Reviewer: (Name): J.Armstrong (Signed): Date: April 2008

...... PM: (Name): (Signed): Date:

Dublin City Council and Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council S2S – Sutton to Sandycove

Appendix C Ecology Report

January 2009

SUTTON TO SANDYCOVE PROMENADE AND CYCLEWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

AUGUST 2008 REPORT WITH REVISIONS

Waterbirds roosting on sand spit off Booterstown

Prepared for

SCOTT WILSON by BIOSPHERE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (in association with EcoServe) 29 La Touche Park, Greystones, Co. Wicklow

S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

CONTENT

PREFACE 4

SECTION A : CONSERVATION DESIGNATIONS 5

SECTION B : MARINE ECOLOGY 8

1.0 Context 9 2.0 Methodology 9 3.0 Description of receiving environment 10 4.0 Discussion 14 5.0 Characteristics of the proposal 15 6.0 Potential impacts of the proposed design 15 6.1 Construction phase 15 6.2 Operation phase 16 7.0 Recommendations and mitigation measures 17 7.1 Construction phase 17 7.2 Operation phase 18

SECTION C : TERRESTRIAL AND SHORELINE ECOLOGY 19

1.0 Introduction 20 2.0 Materials and Methods 20 3.0 Descriptions and evaluations of habitats and flora 21 3.1 Beach adjacent to Sean Moore Park 21 3.2 Beach along promenade at Sandymount 22 3.3 Section from promenade to Merrion Gates 22 3.4 Beach at Merrion Gates 23 3.5 Beach/dunes off Booterstown 23 3.6 Booterstown marsh 24 3.7 Booterstown to Salthill 25 3.8 Overview of conservation interests 26 4.0 Potential impacts of proposed design 28 5.0 Mitigation and recommendations 29

SECTION D : ORNITHOLOGY 30

1.0 Introduction 31 2.0 Survey methodology 31 3.0 Results and discussion 33 3.1 Brief review of historical and recent data on waterbirds in the study area 33 3.2 Results of surveys 34

Biosphere Environmental Services 2 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

3.3 Conservation status of waterbirds recorded in the study area 38 4.0 Potential impacts of proposed S2S design on waterbirds 41 4.1 Loss of feeding and roosting habitat 41 4.2 Disturbance to waterbirds during operation 41 4.3 Disturbance from construction works 43 4.4 Possible long-term control of disturbance 44

5.0 Mitigation and recommendations 45 5.1 Mitigation for loss of feeding and roosting habitats 46 5.2 Mitigation for disturbance by users 46 5.3 Mitigation for disturbance during construction 47 5.4 Measures for general management of bay 47

SECTION E : OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS 48

SECTION F : REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 51

APPENDIX A : Marine Biotope Maps APPENDIX B : Marine Ecology Tables APPENDIX C : Marine Biotope Descriptions APPENDIX D : Marine Photographs APPENDIX E : Scientific names of bird species mentioned in text APPENDIX F : Terrestrial and Shoreline Photographs

Biosphere Environmental Services 3 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

PREFACE

As part of the Feasibility Study for the Sutton to Sandycove Promenade and Cycleway - Phase 2, Biosphere Environmental Services was commissioned by Scott Wilson to carry out appropriate baseline ecological surveys that could be used to assess potential impacts arising from the proposed project.

The present report brings together the various baseline studies that were carried out between August 2007 and March 2008. The studies are presented as separate sections, as follows:

• Marine & intertidal ecology (sediments, macroinvertebrates etc.)

• Shoreline habitats (beaches, dunes etc.)

• Ornithology (geese, ducks, waders, gulls, terns)

A preliminary section gives an overview of the nature conservation designations relevant to the study area, while a final section presents some concluding remarks relating to the principal identified constraints.

The ecological studies were co-ordinated by Dr Brian Madden, Biosphere Environmental Services. Principal personnel involved were as follows:

Mr John Brophy, EcoServe Marine ecology Dr Tom Curtis Shoreline habitats Mr Oscar Merne Birds

In addition to the above studies, useful information is available to the assessment from the Dublin Eastern Bypass Feasibility Study, which included detailed surveys carried out in the area between Irishtown/Ringsend and Williamstown, from early August 2006 to late September 2007 (final baseline report prepared for Thoir Consult, BES 2008 – permission from National Roads Authority to use data is gratefully acknowledged). Similar survey/census methodologies were used for both surveys (and same survey team).

Biosphere Environmental Services 4 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

SECTION A

CONSERVATION DESIGNATIONS

Biosphere Environmental Services 5 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

The nature conservation designations relevant to the study area are as follows:

• South Dublin Bay candidate Special Area of Conservation (code: IE0000210)

Designated as a candidate Special Area of Conservation under EU Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC). The designated site comprises all of the intertidal area of south Dublin Bay. The seaward boundary is marked by the low tide mark, while the landward boundary is now almost entirely artificially embanked (sea walls, rock armour etc.). The site is selected specifically for the following habitat:

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide (EU Habitat code 1140).

The site is also being considered for selection for the following habitats (information supplied by NPWS):

Annual vegetation of driftlines (EU Habitat code 1210)

Embryonic shifting dunes (EU Habitat code 2110)

Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand (EU Habitat code 1140)

• South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary Special Protection Area (code IE0004024)

Designated under Article 4 of the European Union Directive on the conservation of wild birds (Directive No. 79/409/EEC), commonly known as the Birds Directive. It has been so designated because of its international importance for migratory waterbirds, including a number of species listed in Annex 1 of the Directive. The SPA has been specifically selected for the following species: Bar-tailed Godwit, Roseate Tern, Common Tern and Arctic Tern, all of which are listed in Annex I of the Directive. It is also selected for Pale- bellied Brent Goose, which occur in internationally important numbers. The site is also important for several other species of waders which occur in nationally important numbers, notably Oystercatcher, Ringed Plover, Knot, Sanderling, and Dunlin.

The site includes all of the intertidal area of south Dublin Bay, as well as the shallow marine zone. Within the south bay, the landward boundary is the high tide mark. The adjoining Booterstown Marsh and Williamstown Creek, on the landward side of the Dublin-Rosslare railway line, are currently proposed for inclusion in the SPA.

Biosphere Environmental Services 6 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

• South Dublin Bay proposed Natural Heritage Area (code: 0210)

Area and interests similar to the cSAC. May be designated under the Wildlife Amendment Act 2000.

• Booterstown Marsh proposed Natural Heritage Area (site code: 01205)

Formerly a brackish marsh but recently fully estuarine. It is the only significant salt marsh in south County Dublin. Of particular note is that the site has the legally protected (Flora Protection Order 1999) species Borrer’s salt marsh-grass Puccinellia fasciculata. The marsh is of importance for birds, especially as a high tide roost and to some extent a feeding area for waterbirds from Dublin Bay. Booterstown Marsh is managed by An Taisce as a (non-statutory) Nature Reserve.

South Dublin Bay also qualifies for listing as a Ramsar Site, i.e. an internationally important wetland recognised under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (1971). Under the terms of this Convention, wetlands qualify as Ramsar Sites if they regularly support >20,000 wetland birds and/or 1% or more of the flyway populations of individual wetland bird species – Light-bellied Brent Goose in the case of South Dublin Bay.

The National Parks & Wildlife Service of the DEHLG has prepared a Conservation Plan for both the cSAC and SPA site. Draft no. 2 (dated December 2005), which is still in preparation, is for the period 2005-2010. The plan provides ecological information about the site and outlines the main objectives for the conservation of the special features of the site. The Management Framework section outlines the management necessary for the conservation of the site. A list of Notifiable Actions relevant to each selected habitat within the site is given.

These conservation designations highlight the great importance of the area for wildlife (particularly waterbirds) and their habitats, and any proposed developments in or affecting the designated areas must be subject to an appropriate environmental assessment.

Biosphere Environmental Services 7 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

SECTION B

MARINE ECOLOGY

Biosphere Environmental Services 8 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

1.0 CONTEXT

Ecological Consultancy Services Ltd (EcoServe) was commissioned to prepare an assessment of the marine ecology of Sandymount Strand from Irishtown to Seapoint, to assess the potential impact of the proposed S2S promenade and cycle path, the feasibility of the proposed design and to provide recommendations and mitigation measures to minimise the impact of the development on marine ecology.

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

Study area Sandymount Strand is an extensive sand/mudflat covering a large portion of the south side of Dublin Bay. The area is bounded by the Great South Wall to the north and extends south to Dún Laoghaire. The northern section is the most extensive, while the flats narrow towards the south.

Sandymount Strand forms the South Dublin Bay Special Area of Conservation. This site was designated based upon the extensive mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide (code 1140) present, an Annex I habitat of the EU Habitats Directive. The flats support polychaetes, such as Arenicola marina and Lanice conchilega, as well as bivalves including Cerastoderma edule and Angulus tenuis, providing feeding for numerous waterfowl. Dwarf eelgrass Zostera noltii occurs on the mudflats at Merrion Gates, which is the largest eelgrass bed on the east coast (Madden et al. 1991).

The study area for the field survey extended from the top of the shore to 50 m down the shore, along the entire length of Sandymount Strand. The study area was limited to the area below the high water mark, although marine lichens were examined on hard substrata in the supralittoral (splash) zone.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

A survey of the intertidal marine habitats, fauna and flora, between Ringsend and Seapoint was completed on the 27th September 2007 during morning and evening low water spring tides.

Marine littoral floral and fauna The littoral habitats and communities (biotopes) and fauna and flora along the length of Sandymount Strand were examined. The biotopes along the shore were mapped in accordance with the procedures detailed by Davies et al. (2001) and Emblow et al. (1998) (Appendix A Figures 1 –9). Different survey methods were applied to the rocky and sediment biotopes as outlined below.

Biosphere Environmental Services 9 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

Rock and mixed biotopes The hard substrata within the survey area were examined following procedures detailed by Davies et al. (2001) and Emblow et al. (1998). Surveyors walked along the rocky areas in order to identify the habitat and communities (biotopes) and flora and fauna present on the rocks. Biotope identification was carried out in the field and species lists for each biotope were compiled. The relative abundance of each species was also recorded following the six point abundance scale of Hiscock (1996). Biotopes and species lists were then compared to existing data and interpreted using the biotope classification (Connor et al., 2004) (See Appendix C for biotope descriptions). Fauna that could not be identified in the field were preserved in 70% Industrial Methylated Spirits (IMS) and transported back to the laboratory for identification. Algae that could not be identified in the field were pressed while fresh and returned to the laboratory for identification.

Sediment biotopes Sediment biotopes were surveyed by taking core samples along the shore to identify any infauna living within the sediment. Four replicates were taken with a core sampler with a diameter of 10.5 cm to a depth of 20 cm. The samples combined and passed through a 1 mm mesh sieve. The samples were preserved in 70% IMS and returned to the laboratory for identification and counting. Species lists were compiled for each site. Species were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible. Biotopes were then assigned to each site using the biotope classification (Connor et al., 2004) (See Appendix C for biotope descriptions). Epifauna within 1 m2 of each station were also recorded.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

Sandymount Strand supports predominantly sedimentary biotopes, sand and muddy sand, with hard substrata occurring in some areas in the form of sea walls and flood defences, as well as natural cobbles, boulders and bedrock.

Sediment core samples were taken at nine locations along the proposed route of the S2S cycle path. The core sites are numbered non-sequentially due to constraints imposed by the tides. Infaunal analysis of these core samples, combined with the mapping of the hard substrata areas, resulted in 20 biotopes being recorded from the survey area (Appendix C).

Rock biotopes The hard substrata biotopes were mainly restricted to areas along the upper shore, and consisted for the most part of flood defence structures, with some areas of bedrock, boulders and cobbles. The area along the shore north of the car park at Seapoint has a cobble and boulder substratum, supporting the biotope Fucus vesiculosus on mid-eulittoral mixed substrata (LR.LLR.F.Fves.X) (Appendix D, Plate 1). The area of large boulders lower down the shore supported Mytilus edulis, Fucus serratus and red seaweeds on moderately exposed lower eulittoral rock (LR.MLR.MusF.MytFR). The flood defence structure between the car park and the first pedestrian bridge over the railway supports a

Biosphere Environmental Services 10 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

zone of Fucus spiralis on full salinity sheltered upper eulittoral rock (LR.LLR.F.Fspi.FS), with a thin zone of Porphyra purpurea and Enteromorpha spp. on sand-scoured mid or lower eulittoral rock (LR.FLR.Eph.EntPor) occurring between it and the base of the rock area where the sandflat begins (Appendix D, Plate 2). The area of bedrock and boulders adjacent to the pedestrian railway bridge supported a number of biotopes. This included a small area of Rhodothamniella floridula on sand-scoured lower eulittoral rock (LR.MLR.BF.Rho), Pelvetia canaliculata on sheltered littoral fringe rock (LR.LLR.F.Pel), Ascophyllum nodosum on full salinity mid eulittoral rock (LR.LLR.F.Asc.FS), and a band of Semibalanus balanoides, Patella vulgata and Littorina spp. on exposed to moderately exposed or vertical sheltered eulittoral rock (LR.HLR.MusB.Sem.Sem). The northern section of this rocky area supported a zone of Mytilus edulis and barnacles on very exposed eulittoral rock (LR.HLR.MusB.MytB) above a zone of Semibalanus balanoides on exposed to moderately exposed or vertical sheltered eulittoral rock (LR.HLR.MusB.Sem) (Appendix D, Plate 3). The rock area around the Martello Tower at Brighton Vale supported a small area of Mytilus edulis, Fucus serratus and red seaweeds on moderately exposed lower eulittoral rock (LR.MLR.MusF.MytFR) that graded into a zone of LR.HLR.MusB.Sem.Sem. Just north of the Martello Tower, along Brighton Vale, there was an expanse of rock and boulders. This area supported LR.HLR.MusB.Sem.Sem, with a zone of Fucus spiralis on full salinity sheltered upper eulittoral rock (LR.LLR.F.Fspi.FS) behind it (Appendix D, Plate 4). Further along this rocky area, the biotope Ascophyllum nodosum on full salinity mid eulittoral rock (LR.LLR.F.Asc.FS) became established. The northernmost rocky outcrop supported LR.HLR.MusB.Sem.Sem, with areas of Fucus serratus on full salinity sheltered lower eulittoral rock (LR.LLR.F.Fserr.FS) to the north and west.

The area of rock and the flood defence past Brighton Vale supported LR.HLR.MusB.Sem and a large area of LR.HLR.MusB.MytB. The mussels were particularly dense in this area, while confined mainly to the cracks between the block-work of the flood defence. Above the LR.HLR.MusB.Sem was a zone of LR.LLR.F.Asc.FS and LR.LLR.F.Fspi.FS for a short distance. Beyond the bridge at Seapoint Station, these biotopes on the flood defence gave way to a 4 m wide zone of LR.HLR.MusB.Sem with a 2 m zone of LR.HLR.MusB.MytB below it (Appendix D, Plate 5). The next headland supported mainly LR.HLR.MusB.Sem, with some areas of LR.HLR.MusB.MytB and LR.LLR.F.Asc.FS.

Just west along the shore from this headland were zones of LR.LLR.F.Pel, LR.LLR.F.Fspi.FS and LR.LLR.F.Asc.FS. The flood defence and the natural rock outcrops along this section of the shore to Blackrock Baths mainly supported LR.HLR.MusB.MytB, with zones of LR.FLR.Lic.Ver.Ver (Verrucaria maura on very exposed to very sheltered upper littoral fringe rock), LR.LLR.F.Fspi.FS and LR.LLR.F.Asc.FS occurring on the rock closest to Blackrock Baths.

West of Blackrock Baths, the flood defence supported a zone of LR.HLR.MusB.MytB, which graded into narrow zones of LR.LLR.F.Fspi.FS and Fucus vesiculosus on full salinity moderately exposed to sheltered mid eulittoral rock (LR.LLR.F.Fves.FS).

The zone of LR.LLR.F.Fspi.FS continued a considerable distance along the flood defence as the only rock biotope in the area, and finally fades out at Booterstown train station.

Biosphere Environmental Services 11 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

There were no more hard substrata biotopes between this point and the beach at Sean Moore Park

Sediment biotopes The identification of sediment biotopes was largely restricted to areas where cores were taken and infaunal species identified. Apart from these, the biotope Shingle (pebble) and gravel shores (LS.LCS.Sh.BarSh) was recorded on the upper shore at the Seapoint car park. Below this was a zone of Talitrids on the upper shore and strand-line (LS.LSa.St.Tal), which then graded into sandy/muddy sediment biotopes. Areas of Barren littoral coarse sand (LS.LSa.MoSa.BarSa) were recorded at Merrion Gates, and again from the small beach at the southern end of the grass/car park area along Strand Road to the northern end of this area and again at the beach at Sean Moore Park.

An area of Zostera noltii beds in littoral muddy sand (LS.LMp.LSgr.Znol) was recorded along the shore close to the houses at Merrion Gates (Appendix D, Plate 6). This eelgrass bed was dense and extended to within 10 m of the sea wall in some places.

The core samples taken along Sandymount Strand were examined for infauna and biotopes applied to the sample sites using the principal of best fit.

Core 1 This was the most southerly sample site located just north of Seapoint car park. The substratum was one of rippled, fine muddy sand with Redox Potential Discontinuity (RPD) layer at a depth of approximately 6 cm. Casts of Arenicola sp. and Lanice conchilega were common. Six species of macroinvertebrate were recorded from the core samples: the bivalve Angulus tenuis, the polychaetes Nephtys cirrosa, Nephtys hombergii and Lumbrineris latreilli and an unidentified oligochaete. This site was assigned the biotope Polychaetes and Angulus tenuis in littoral fine sand (LS.LSa.FiSa.Po.Aten).

Core 2 This site was located midway between the car park at Seapoint and the Martello tower at Brighton Vale. The substratum was one of rippled, fine muddy sand, covered by a layer of decomposing ephemeral green algae. No distinct RPD was recorded. Three species of macroinvertebrate were recorded from the core samples: the bivalve Donax vittatus, the gastropod Littorina littorea and the amphipod Corophium volutator. This site was assigned the biotope Polychaete/bivalve-dominated muddy sand shores (LS.LSa.MuSa).

Core 3 This site was located between Merrion Gates and the Elm Park Stream. The substratum was very compact, flat sand with shell debris necessitating the use of a spade to take the sample. The RPD was less that 1 cm from the surface. Only one species of macroinvertebrate was recorded from the core samples, which was the gastropod Hydrobia ulvae. This site was assigned the biotope Polychaete/bivalve-dominated muddy sand shores (LS.LSa.MuSa).

Core 4 This site was located just north of Core 3. The substratum was one of flat, firm, fine sand. The RPD was at a depth of approximately 2 cm. Two species of macroinvertebrate were

Biosphere Environmental Services 12 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

recorded from the core samples: the polychaete Nereis diversicolor and the gastropod Hydrobia ulvae. This site was assigned the biotope Hediste diversicolor, Macoma balthica and Scrobicularia plana in littoral sandy mud (LS.LMu.MEst.HedMacScr), though with a sparse fauna.

Core 5 This site was located just off the southern car park off Strand Road. The substratum was one of firm, rippled, fine sand. The RPD was at a depth of less than 1 cm. Only one species of macroinvertebrate were recorded from the core samples: the polychaete Nereis diversicolor. This site was assigned the biotope Hediste diversicolor in littoral mud (LS.LMu.UEst.Hed).

Core 6 This site was located just off the Martello Tower at Saint John’s Road. The substratum was one of rippled, fine sand. The RPD was at a depth of approximately 2 cm. Lugworm casts were common. Only one species of macroinvertebrate was recorded from the core samples: the polychaete Arenicola marina. This site was assigned the biotope Polychaetes in littoral fine sand (LS.LSa.FiSa.Po).

Core 7 This site was located at the start of the sea wall along Strand Road, north of the grass/car park area. The substratum was one of flat sand. No RPD was recorded to a depth of 20 cm. No fauna were recorded at this site. This site was assigned the biotope Barren littoral coarse sand (LS.LSa.MoSa.BarSa).

Core 8 This site was located just off the junction of Martello View and Strand Road. The substratum was one of rippled, fine sand. No RPD was recorded to a depth of 20 cm. Only one species of macroinvertebrate was recorded from the core samples, an unidentified oligochaete. This site was assigned the biotope Littoral sand (LS.LSa).

Core 9 This site was located north of Seapoint Dart station. The substratum was one of rippled, fine sand. The RPD was at a depth of approximately 3 cm. Lanice conchilega casts were common on the surface. This site was the most species rich of the sites samples with eight macroinvertebrate species recorded from the cores samples: the polychaetes Sigalion mathildae, Owenia fusiformis and Nephtys cirrosa, the crustaceans Crangon crangon and Gammarus sp., the bivalves Angulus tenuis and Tellina fabula and a brittlestar from the family Amphiuridae. This site was assigned the biotope Polychaetes in littoral fine sand (LS.LSa.FiSa.Po).

4.0 DISCUSSION

The predominant habitat within the study area is the sandflat of Sandymount Strand. This extensive sandflat is comprised mainly of fine sand with shell debris, though in some areas muddier sediment occurs, which is reflected in the fauna present. The large expanse of the

Biosphere Environmental Services 13 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

sandflat supporting molluscs and polychaetes provides a rich feeding ground for waterbirds. Hard substrata are restricted to the upper shore mainly to the south and north. Although the communities and biotopes present within the survey area would not be considered particularly good examples of hard substrata communities, they do contribute to the diversity of habitats, species and communities present in the area.

One of the most notable features of the area is the presence of the dwarf eelgrass (Zostera noltii) bed located close to Merrion Gates. Eelgrass beds are recognised internationally as important coastal ecosystems and are included in the Dublin City Biodiversity Action Plan 2008-2012 (Dublin City Council, 2008) and in a Habitat Action Plan under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (Tyler-Walters, 2005). Eelgrass beds are highly productive ecosystems, which support diverse epifauna and infauna. They are grazed upon by wildfowl and their detritus is used by the surrounding benthic communities. Zostera beds are important sediment traps and stabilise the sediment. They have a high sensitivity to substratum loss, smothering and changes in wave exposure; with a low recoverability rate (Tyler-Walters, 2005). The extent of the eelgrass bed on Sandymount Strand varies seasonally and annually and is likely to depend on environmental conditions, as well as grazing pressure by Brent geese.

None of the other species recorded in the course of the survey were of specific conservation interest, but all contribute to the functioning and integrity of the sandflat ecosystem.

Recent survey work on the infauna of the broader Sandymount Strand area was carried out by EcoServe (EcoServe, 2007, BES 2008). This survey comprised of core samples taken at 25 sites forming in a 500 m x 500 m grid across the sandflat. The results of this survey showed that the infauna of the area was dominated by bivalves and polychaetes, including the thin tellin Angulus tenuis, the cockle Cerastoderma edule, ragworms Nephtys spp., lugworms Arenicola spp. and sand masons Lanice conchilega, with the brown shrimp Crangon crangon recorded at over half the sites surveyed. The site with the highest species richness was Site 16, in the area sometimes referred to as Cockle Lake, where the substratum was more mixed, with mud and gravel, which is likely to have contributed to the higher species richness. Fifteen species and 135 individuals were recorded at this site.

The ecological importance of Sandymount Strand is highlighted by the number of designations that have been applied to the site. The nature of the area, a large sandflat that is not covered by seawater at low tide, makes it highly suitable for supporting waterfowl and this habitat is listed under Annex I of the Habitats Directive.

In summary, Sandymount Strand is of high ecological value with a number of conservation site designations that must be protected from negative impacts from anthropogenic sources.

5.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSAL

The current proposed design for the proposed cycle path varies along the route depending on the local environment. From Sean Moore Park to the existing Sandymount promenade

Biosphere Environmental Services 14 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

the cycle path with involve infilling an area seaward of the existing sea wall, with rock armour lining the seaward edge of the cycle path. For the extent of the existing Sandymount promenade, the proposed cycle path will fall within the existing footprint, with the existing rock armour retained. A cantilever design is being proposed to connect the section from the existing Sandymount promenade to the section to Merrion Gates. It is proposed that the section along the rear of the houses at Merrion Gates will comprise an area of infilling, with a seawall and stone pitching to the seaward side of the cycle path. The section from the Merrion Gates to the Martello Tower will require infilling seaward of the existing seawall and the installation of sloping rock armour. From the Martello Tower to the Maritimo Headland, it is proposed that the cycle path will fall almost entirely within the footprint of the existing granite paving, with a pre-cast wave return wall along the seaward edge of the cycle path. From the Headland to Seapoint Station, the proposed cycle path will also largely fall within the footprint of the existing structures and will have a precast wave return wall along the seaward edge. Along Brighton Vale it is proposed that an area of the upper shore will be infilled and a pre-cast wave return wall will form the seaward side of the cycle path. From the Martello Tower at Brighton Vale to the car park at Seapoint it is proposed that the cycle path will largely fall within the footprint of the existing structures with a new reinforced step revetment on the seaward side.

6.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DESIGN

6.1 Construction phase

The carrying out of construction works adjacent to or on the foreshore has the potential to impact upon the aquatic ecology of the area. These potential impacts include the following:

Removal and alteration of habitats and species During the construction phase, habitats and species will be removed from the seashore along the footprint of the cycle path. In addition, the movement of construction machinery and personnel will disturb the surrounding seashore resulting in a change in habitat and species loss. The movement of machinery on the shore in particular can lead to the compacting of sediments, altering the nature of the sediment and its suitability for supporting its existing fauna.

Along the proposed route of the cycle path from Irishtown to Seapoint, there are a number of stretches where it will not be possible to construct the cycle path landward of the high tide mark, while maintaining the route along the shore. In particular, the stretches from Sean Moore Park along Strand Road to the junction with Gilford Avenue, to the rear of the houses of Merrion Gates to Blackrock Baths and along Brighton Vale have little in the way of dry land areas on which to construct the cycle path, therefore the construction would necessitate the loss of marine habitat in these areas. Other stretches have some areas of land that may be exploited to prevent loss of marine habitat.

Biosphere Environmental Services 15 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

Of particular importance from a marine perspective is the eelgrass bed off Merrion. The extent of the eelgrass bed varies annually and seasonally depending on environmental conditions and grazing pressure from waterfowl. At the time of the current survey, the eelgrass extended to within 10 m of the existing sea wall in some places. Any loss of this important habitat by the construction of the promenade and associated rock revetment would be of concern. Also of concern would be possible loss through alteration in environmental conditions in the area as a result of the new structure.

Increased sedimentation and suspended solids There may be an increase in the turbidity of the water during the construction of the cycle path. This could result in increased siltation, smothering of organisms and a reduction of light for phytoplankton and seaweed. This is likely to be localised and restricted to the immediate area along the cycle path during the construction period and for a short time afterwards.

The marine environment at Sandymount Strand is primarily sedimentary with macrofaunal species that favour these conditions. Therefore, it is envisaged that any temporary increase in suspended solids and settling sediment is likely to have minimal impact on this component of the aquatic ecology.

Zostera noltii is highly sensitive to smothering, showing high intolerance and low recoverability (Tyler-Walters, 2005), therefore any activity that would have an impact on this area of the shore would need to be carefully considered.

Pollution The operation of machinery and the execution of construction works adjacent to the sea shore carry the risk of pollutants entering the marine ecosystem. Substances such as diesel, oil, hydraulic fluid, cement, etc, can have toxic effects on aquatic organisms, leading to lethal and sub-lethal effects.

6.2 Operation phase

The operation of the proposed cycle path has the potential to have an impact on the marine environment, its species and habitats.

Loss and alteration of habitats and species The permanent loss and alteration of habitats and species during the construction of the cycle path will continue into the operation phase. The structure of the cycle path is likely to provide some form of habitat for marine organisms to colonise, however its artificial nature is unlikely to compensate for any loss of natural habitat.

Change in hydrological conditions The construction of the cycle path may result in a change in water patterns along the upper shore. The addition of hard substrata lower down the shore may cause an increase in scouring and ultimately a change in habitat and species composition. The construction of a wave return wall along some sections of the cycle path could alter the wave patterns along

Biosphere Environmental Services 16 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

the upper shore at high water. A full evaluation of such possible changes in hydrological conditions would need to be carried out.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

7.1 Construction phase

A number of mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce the potential impact of the proposed development on the marine environment.

Loss or alteration of habitat and species To minimise the loss of the littoral sandflat habitat and species, the area of construction should be kept to the minimum required. Construction should be approached where possible from the landward side to avoid disturbing neighbouring sandflats within the cSAC. It is estimated that approximately 39,500 m2 of the proposed cycle path will be built upon the existing foreshore, while the remaining area will be landward of the existing upper shore an on existing structures. This area constitutes approximately 0.5% of the area of area covered by the cSAC designation.

Should it be necessary for construction of the cycle path to occur on the seaward side of the site, vehicles movements on the sandflats should be kept to the minimum required and follow the same tracks as much as is practicable to minimise the area of littoral sediment exposed to compacting.

The area of eelgrass at Merrion Gates is very close to the existing sea wall and the current proposed design risks causing direct loss of an area of this habitat through the construction of the cycle path and the operation of machinery in the area. In addition to direct loss, the construction of the cycle path following the proposed design may result in an alteration to the water movement and substratum type in the area making it less suitable for supporting eelgrass thus causing indirect loss of this habitat. It is recommended that a design should be chosen for this section that would not alter the existing environmental conditions as much as the currently proposed design.

Compensatory habitat Should the proposed cycle path proceed, and the construction of same results in the net loss of intertidal habitat, it may be possible to compensate for the loss of habitat caused by the development by creating areas of intertidal habitat where this habitat does not currently exist. Due to the built up nature of the coastline along Sandymount Strand, including the railway line that runs close to the shore for over half the length of the strand, the extent of land available for use in creating compensatory habitat is limited. There is an area of amenity grassland adjacent to the car park at Seapoint, and also along Strand Road, that might be available for this purpose, as well as undeveloped land on the Poolbeg Peninsula. The practicalities of creating compensatory habitat at these locations have not been considered here, and it is known that some of the areas mentioned exist as planning conditions related to other developments.

Biosphere Environmental Services 17 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

Increased suspended solids To minimise the amount of suspended solids released into the water column during construction, efforts should be made to minimise the area disturbed. Construction should be carried out when water levels are below the construction site and any storage of unconsolidated sediment should take place away from the water’s edge.

Pollutants and waste To prevent chemical pollution during construction, all fuels or chemicals kept on the construction site should be stored in bunded containers away from the shoreline. All refuelling and maintenance should be carried out away from the site. Oil interceptors should also be installed in appropriate locations. Equipment should be regularly maintained and leaks repaired immediately away from the site. Accidental spillages should be contained and cleaned up immediately with appropriate oil spill kits available on- site, with suitably trained staff present to implement the necessary procedures. Remediation measures should be carried out in the event of pollution of the adjacent shoreline in accordance with consultant’s recommendations.

During the construction phase, contained portable chemical toilets should be used and all sewage should be removed from the site to an authorised treatment works.

7.2 Operation phase

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

SECTION C

TERRESTRIAL & SHORELINE ECOLOGY

Biosphere Environmental Services 18 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

Biosphere Environmental Services 19 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Biosphere Environmental Services (BES) was commissioned by Scott Wilson to carry out a study of the various beach and dune habitats in the area of proposed Sutton to Sandycove Promenade and Cycleway, Phase 2.

The study area extends from Irishtown to Dun Laoghaire, though essentially beach and dune habitats only occur as far south as the Booterstown area. All areas with sand dune and shingle (drift line) habitats were surveyed, as well as Booterstown Marsh.

The present study identifies all of the shoreline habitats, vegetation and plant species of nature conservation relevance for where potential impacts could apply, as well as areas where species diversity is high and disturbance to them could be detrimental. Where sensitive areas were identified, data on species and habitats were also collected with a view to possible, future mitigation measures.

2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

A list of all potential areas was first compiled through a preliminary desk study, using the conservation sites and species archive held at the National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government.

Subsequently a general investigation in the field was carried out along the length of the proposed route during mid-late Spring 2008, which is within the optimal period for describing coastal habitats. Sensitive areas were identified and, at each, data on species and habitats were collected with a view to assessing their conservation value and ultimately potential constraints to development. Survey was by Dr Tom Curtis and Dr Brian Madden.

All of the significant habitats encountered were classified according to the scheme presented in the Interpretation Manual of European Habitats (Anon., 1996), as this is the appropriate one in the context of the cSAC designation. However, for ease of use, the more general habitat categories described in Fossitt (2000) are used with the appropriate Habitats Directive name given in brackets (see table of linked habitats at start of baseline descriptions).

Plant nomenclature follows Scannell and Synnott (1987).

Biosphere Environmental Services 20 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

3.0 DESCRIPTIONS AND EVALUATION OF HABITATS AND FLORA

There follows specific descriptions and a conservation assessment for each of the beach sites (listed from north to south).

These assessments were made against the background of the nature conservation designations covering this area of Dublin Bay.

A summary of the habitats present and the linkages between the two classification systems is given below.

Habitat Classification Systems Used (for relevant habitats) ______Fossitt Habitats Directive ______CD1 Embryonic dunes 2110 Embryonic shifting dunes CD2 Marram dunes 2120 Shifting dunes with Ammophila arenaria CD3 Fixed dunes 2130 Fixed dunes

CM1 Lower salt marsh 1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand

CW2 Tidal rivers 1130 Estuaries

LS2 Sand shores 1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines LS3 Muddy sand shores 1140 Mudflats and sandflats (intertidal) ______

3.1 Beach adjacent to Sean Moore Park (grid ref. 319083:233066)

The small area of dune in the corner between Irishtown Park and Beach Road contains CD1 Embryonic dunes (Embryonic shifting dunes) and incipient LS2 Sand shores (Annual vegetation of drift lines) (see Plate 5, Appendix F). At the time of the field visit, the drift line vegetation was in the very early stages of its life cycle and full maturity cannot be expected until high summer. However, sea rocket Cakile vulgaris, the oraches, Atriplex prostrata and A. laciniata, and some sea sandwort Honkenya peploides were present. Behind, there is a zone of Embryonic dunes in which sea couch and lyme grass Leymus arenarius dominate. Scutch grass Elymus repens occurs at the upper limit of this zone. The disturbance from past dumping of beach detritus on this zone, as well as the planting of lyme grass upon it, has resulted in a very weedy element having been introduced here and smooth sow-thistle Sonchus oleraceus, dandelion Taraxacum officinale, scutch grass and creeping bent are very common especially towards the back. The habitat is approximately 14 m in width here and 20 m wide.

Biosphere Environmental Services 21 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

Conservation assessment This area of dune and drift line vegetation has been somewhat compromised by past activities and is rated as having from Low to Moderate conservation interest. However, with appropriate management, the value of the area could be increased.

3.2 Beach along promenade at Sandymount (grid ref. 319550:232033)

Incipient dune building is occurring along a stretch here between a point just north of the entrance to the car park and the area of beach opposite the filling station on Strand Road (see Plate 4, Appendix F). The most southerly section occurs amidst the boulders fronting the beach and consists mostly of sand couch and the larger clumps of Lyme-grass Leymus arenarius. Though in the early stages of development, this equates with CD1 Embryonic dunes (Embryonic shifting dunes). In the intervening area between the 2 car parks, this becomes much more developed and some clumps of marram grass Ammophila arenaria occur. Some planted sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus occurs behind this zone along the edge of the path. There are few other species present other than scattered plants of sea beet Beta matitima and dandelion Taraxacum officinale. The width of the zone between the edge of the promenade and the HWM is approximately 30 m.

Conservation assessment This is a fine example of recent development of pioneer dune vegetation with potential for further development. In its present state it is rated of Moderate conservation value.

3.3 Section from promenade to Merrion Gates (grid ref. 3197:2314)

A small sandy inlet between the promenade and the row of houses which back onto the strand has little in the way of significant shoreline vegetation (see Plate 3, Appendix F). The sandy beach here is c.10 m in width. However, annual driftline vegetation (LS2 Sand shores/Annual vegetation of driftlines) is present, with frosted orache, sea sandwort, sea beet and sea mayweed. An inflowing drain in the south corner creates damp conditions with creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera and hairy willowherb Epilobium hirsutum. The retaining wall has some plant interest, with species more typical of sea cliffs finding a niche, such as rock samphire Crithmum maritimum, rock spurrey Spergularia rupicola and rock sea-lavender Limonium binervosum are found. The retaining sea wall in front of the line of houses running southwards to the level crossing supports a mixture of weedy species, garden escapes and common maritime species (see Plate 6, Appendix F). These are ivy-leaved toadflax Cymbalaria muralis, rosemary and the plantains, buck’s-horn plantain Plantago coronopus and sea plantain Plantago maritima.

Conservation assessment Overall, this is a small beach with limited potential for growth and is rated only of Low interest.

3.4 Beach at Merrion Gates (grid ref. 319721: 231037)

Biosphere Environmental Services 22 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

At Merrion Gates, the upper part of the shore has been put under grass and is subject to regular management by mowing. The basic sward is of red fescue Festuca rubra, perennial rye grass Lolium perenne, daisy Bellis perennis and white clover Trifolium repens. There are weedy elements apparent in the presence of ragweed Senecio jacobaea. Exotic, planted elements are present in the form of cordyline Cordyline australis, New Zealand flax Phormium tenax, butterfly bush Buddleja davidii and pampas grass Cortaderia selloana. Further planting has taken place along the area of beach just inside its entrance and adjacent to the wall bordering the houses along the sea side of Strand Road. Here those species occur with the addition of red hot pokers Kniphofia spp., and lauarastinus Viburnum tinus amongst which a number of weeds are found including red valerian Centranthus ruber, scutch grass Elymus repens and smooth sow-thistle Sonchus oleraceus. This area can be accommodated within GA2 Amenity grassland (improved) and WS3 Ornamental/non-native shrub. The only elements of coastal vegetation seen in this north-western corner are one or two plants of sea-rocket Cakile maritima and sea beet Beta maritima.

However, in front of the line of boulders retaining the amenity grassland, elements of the habitat, LS2 Sand shores (Annual vegetation of driftlines 1210), are apparent with the presence of frosted orache Atriplex laciniata, sea mayweed Matricaria maritima and sea beet Beta maritima, together with sand couch Elymus farctus (see Plate 2, Appendix F). However, scutch grass is a major component of the vegetation here. There has been some disturbance to this habitat arising from the collection of debris along the beach and its deposition in the upper parts adjacent to the grassland. Due to this a number of weedy species are present in the zone between the High Water Mark and the grassed area. The commonest species are groundsel Senecio vulgaris, shepherd’s purse Capsella bursa pastoris, and creeping thistle Cirsium arvense. A few shore elements are evident in the occurrence of the sea and buckshorn plantains Plantago maritima and P. coronopus and sea sandwort Honkenya peploides.

Further south, the retaining wall contains a number of maritime species growing in the cracks and fissures,

Conservation assessment In general, the beach here is only of marginal interest at present (Low conservation value) due the disturbance it has undergone in the past. This area has been the focus recently for coastal defence works to prevent flooding from high tides.

3.5 Beach/dunes off Booterstown (grid ref. 3202: 2306)

South of Merrion Gates, the retaining wall contains a number of maritime species growing in the cracks and fissures, chiefly sea aster Aster tripolium, sea plantain Plantago maritima, sea pink Armeria maritima, rock sea lavender Limonium binervosum, rock samphire Crithmum maritimum, and rock sea spurrey Spergularia rupicola.

Biosphere Environmental Services 23 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

However, of high significance is that over the past 10 years or more what was formerly inter-tidal beach has been rapidly colonized by coastal vegetation and today it continues to grow seawards. This significant area of dune building, approximately 25 metres long and 5-7.5 metres wide, occurs south of Merrion gates and just above Booterstown DART station (see Plate 1, Appendix F). This now contains three Annex 1 habitats, namely Annual vegetation of Driftlines, Embryonic Shifting Dunes and Shifting dunes along the shoreline. The first here consists of sea rocket Cakile maritima, frosted orache Atriplex laciniata and sea beet Beta maritima in which annual sea blite Suaeda maritima is also found. The second habitat consists chiefly of sea couch and lyme grass Leymus arenarius together with sea mayweed Matricaria maritima and scurvy grass Cochlearia officinalis. A small amount of marram grass Ammophila arenaria occurs in the uppermost area adjacent to the sea wall and represents the third of the Annexed habitats.

The habitat of Tidal rivers CW2 is represented here by the small stream which flows from Booterstown Marsh and bisects the dune here. The vegetation is mostly brackish in nature and consists of grey club rush Scirpus tabernaemontani and sea club rush S. maritima, with sea arrow grass Triglochin maritima, watercress Nasturtium officinale and celery-leaved buttercup Ranunculus sceleratus also present. The uncommon reflexed saltmarsh grass Puccinellia distans occurs here in some quantity.

Just to the north and north-east of the dune an area of salt marsh is developing in the lee. The principal species here are greater sea spurrey Spergularia media, common salt marsh grass Puccinellia maritima with scattered sea aster Aster tripolium. There are also extensive beds of sea glasswort Salicornia sp. developing here. This represents the incipient stages of the Annexed habitat Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand (Lower salt marsh CM1 of Fossitt).

Conservation assessment This formation comprises the largest beach/dune area in south Dublin Bay. This assessment suggests it is still evolving and is of High nature conservation value.

3.6 Booterstown Marsh

This marsh, which occurs to the landward side of Booterstown DART station is a Nature Reserve, managed by An Taisce and is a proposed Natural Heritage Area (it is also part of the revised South Dublin Bay SPA). The marsh was formed when the Dublin to Kingstown Railway cut across a small inlet between Blackrock and Merion in 1834. Two streams (Elm Park and Trimlestown) entered the sea at this point and they were redirected into a saline ditch that ran along the railway line and exited into the sea through a sluice at Williamstown. The marsh was cultivated for allotments during the World Wars, the ‘lazy beds’ of which are still visible in the marsh centre. During the 1950s and 60s an area at the south west corner was infilled to form the car park for Booterstown train station. At the northern edge of the marsh the Trimlestown Stream was culverted to discharge directly into the sea and the land infilled to become a field.

Biosphere Environmental Services 24 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

The marsh remains under the influence of the sea, which gains access to the marsh via a system of sluices. However, there is freshwater coming in at the northern and north- western sides. Consequently, the vegetation ranges from near marine, through brackish to freshwater. One species of protected flora occurs here, Borrer’s salt marsh grass (Puccinellia fasciculata), which is listed in the Irish Red Data Book for plants as declining. Over the past few years, the marsh had been too flooded and eutrophic for populations of the grass to survive here except as seeds in the soil but a recent (2007) survey showed it to be still present as mature plants though in a very restricted area (R. Dwyer, (former) Biodiversity Officer, DLR Co.Co., pers. comm.).

Overall the habitat can be categorised as Lagoons and saline lakes CW1. Currently, the marsh is too flooded and eutrophic for populations of the grass to survive here except as seeds in the soil. In addition, the plant diversity has been affected by recent disturbance, in particular the creation of a number of islands in the marsh through the dumping of soil in order to facilitate habitats for birds. Some management measures are now required to restore the vegetation cover and the population of the protected species, which occurs here.

Conservation assessment Currently compromised due to lack of management. Also recent infill within marsh has destroyed some habitat. Supports the legally protected Borrer’s salt marsh grass.

3.7 Booterstown to Salthill

The proposed route of the cycle track from this point would follow the sea wall through Blackrock, around the small headland east of Maretimo Gardens East and follow the sea wall past Seapoint DART station to Salthill beach. This section currently has no public pathway (there is private access over the railway line from Ardenza Terrace and Maretimo Gardens East).

The stretches of sea wall above Blackrock DART station have a similar assemblage of maritime species as has been described for the retaining wall south of Merrion Gates. In particular, rock sea lavender Limonium binervosum is abundant. This flora continues along the landward sides of the wall south of Blackrock station and close to Maretimo pier, sea purslane Halimione portulacoides is found on rocks.

The area around the pier and the ruins of the viewing point consists of drift material, originally piled here during railway excavation, and it consists, in the lower parts, of maritime grassland with scrub above. The grassland has red fescue Festuca rubra, sea pink Armeria maritima, rest harrow Ononis repens, and birds foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus. There is occasional Danish scurvy grass Cochlearia danica found here. Coarse grassland, principally of false oat grass Arrhenatherum elatius, is found up the steep slopes whilst a scrub of small leaved elm Ulmus minor occurs on the upper parts.

The remaining stretches of coast to Brighton Vale consist of sea wall with no emergent vegetation whilst in the area north of the Martello Tower at Seapoint, the coast is rocky to

Biosphere Environmental Services 25 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

the wall. There is no vegetation of any significance to be found along the stretch to the beach at Salthill.

Conservation assessment There are no beach or dune habitats along this section of the route. The various sea walls and banks support a range of maritime and coastal species, which add to the biodiversity of the area.

3.8 Overview of conservation interests

The present study represents a comprehensive assessment of dune and beach habitats in South Dublin Bay.

As noted earlier, the South Dublin Bay cSAC is selected currently for only one habitat, Mudflats and Sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide. It is understood, however, that further habitats may be selected for this site following a review by NPWS (namely, Annual vegetation of drift lines, Embryonic shifting dunes, and possibly Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand and Shifting dunes along the shoreline). Examples of these habitats occur within the beach sites described in this study - a summary is given in Table 1.

The formation at Booterstown strand is by far the largest and most diverse of these sites, with four Annex 1 habitats (lower salt marsh, drift lines, embryonic dunes and marram dunes) represented. The fact that this area is still developing actively is of particular ecological and geomorphological interests. It is noted that this formation is also of value in the context of coastal protection.

Some of the sites have been interfered with or disturbed to some extent though all have potential for improvement with appropriate management.

It is noted that even if the various additional coastal habitats were not formally selected for the South Dublin Bay cSAC, Objective 3, of the Conservation Plan for the cSAC and SPA states the requirement ‘to maintain other habitats at favourable conservation status namely shingle shores, embryonic dunes, marram dunes etc’, which implies that each habitat within the cSAC should be treated as of conservation value.

Booterstown Marsh is currently a proposed Natural Heritage Area (and within the revised SPA boundary). While the main conservation importance is the presence of a legally protected plant (Borrer’s salt marsh grass), it has general ecological interest as a brackish marsh/lagoon. Management is, however, required to realise its conservation potential and indeed to ensure the long-term presence of the rare plant.

Biosphere Environmental Services 26 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

Table 1: Summary of the designated habitats present and assessment of their current and potential conservation values for each of the beach areas surveyed within South Dublin Bay.

Location Annex I habitats Assessment of current Assessment of potential present conservation value conservation value Beach adjacent to Embryonic Dunes currently Habitats have Sean Moore Park shifting dunes compromised through past reasonable potential for spreading of beach detritus further growth and and planting. High weed improvement, though complement. require appropriate Annual management. vegetation of Rated between Low and drift lines Moderate conservation value.

Beach along Embryonic Recent development of Likely to develop promenade shifting dunes pioneer dunes, which further, with increase in at Sandymount provide stabilisation for conservation value. coastal protection. Of Moderate conservation value.

Inlet south of Annual Fine, though relatively Due to limited area promenade at vegetation of minor example and only of unlikely to develop Sandymount drift lines Low value much more than at present. Beach at Merrion Annual Currently of Low value as Has potential for some Gates vegetation of partially maintained as improvement by drift lines amenity area and disturbed removal of disturbing through vehicle traffic, and activities as listed. spreading of beach detritus in past.

Beach and dunes at Annual Significant area of building Continued development Booterstown vegetation of dune with a developing likely, with further drift lines diversity and range of expansion of marram coastal habitats. The dunes and salt marsh Embryonic evolution of this system probable. shifting dunes may produce a lagoon to the north together with a Marram dunes range of inter-tidal habitats. The most dynamic area in Lower salt South Dublin Bay and of marsh the greatest value for nature conservation. Of Tidal rivers High value.

Biosphere Environmental Services 27 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

Booterstown Marsh Characters of Currently compromised Urgently in need of a Lagoons & due to inadequate management strategy to Saline Lakes management. Also recent restore the diversity of infill has destroyed some the habitats and habitat. vegetation and in particular for the recovery of the protected plant species, Borrer’s salt marsh grass

4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED DESIGN

The proposal to construct a promenade and cycle path, would lead, in places, to the direct loss of beach and inter-tidal habitat estimated up to a maximum width of between 14 and 16 metres (this includes the placing of protective rock armour).

There could also be indirect impacts across a wider area of shoreline habitat during the construction phase – such indirect impacts may include damage to flora within the construction strip arising from the use of machinery, potential for spillage of toxic materials such as fuels, oils, or concrete products etc.

The areas where significant negative direct and indirect impacts may occur are at the beach adjacent to Sean Moore Park, the beach along Sandymount strand, and on the active dune area off Booterstown. These areas contain Annex I habitats for which the cSAC site is selected for.

It appears that the existing beach and dune habitats at Irishtown would be heavily affected by the access/view platform and the start of the new promenade. However, this area is presently compromised by disturbance. The design would have little permanent impacts on the dunes off the Sandymount promenade, as the existing rock armour would be retained. However, mitigation would be required during construction works to minimise possible disturbance.

Undoubtedly, the impact of highest significance relates to the stretch of dune at Booterstown carrying the Annex 1 habitats of lower salt marsh, drift lines, embryonic dunes and marram dunes – this complex of habitats is of considerable conservation importance being the largest area of beach and dunes in South Dublin Bay. In addition, the sand formation has a role in coastal protection. The proposed design will result in the direct loss of habitats, with possibly a wider area being affected by indirect impacts (disturbance etc.).

The only other areas where some loss of habitat and species would occur are along the stretches of sea wall north and south of Booterstown station and at the back of the properties at Merrion Gate. As described, a community of plants, rich in maritime elements, occurs on these walls and the proposed design would reduce local biodiversity

Biosphere Environmental Services 28 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

(though none of the species are rare). Appropriate mitigation or restoration measures could ensure that most of these species retain a presence in the south bay.

Whilst Booterstown Marsh will not be directly affected by the proposed design, it is possible that the marsh and its flora could be indirectly affected through hydrological impacts from the new construction works (though it is understood that the proposed scheme should not cause any hydrological changes to the Williamstown Creek/Booterstown system).

There are no further negative impacts expected on habitats, vegetation or flora along any other stretch of the proposed route.

5.0 MITIGATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is considered that the proposed design for the promenade and cycleway will have significant negative impacts on designated coastal habitats within the South Dublin Bay cSAC at several locations from Sean Moore Park to Booterstown.

As the proposal involves construction largely by infill and rock armour, it seems that mitigation for losses of beach habitats above the High Water Mark would be difficult. The loss of most concern is at Booterstown as this dune complex is the largest in the south bay and still in its formative stage.

For a full evaluation of impacts, modelling would be necessary to determine future growth of the various beaches and especially the dune complex at Booterstown, with and without the proposed scheme in place. Should the modelling show that substantial net losses of beach habitats will occur as a result of the proposed scheme, then the consideration of an alternative route at the most sensitive location(s) may be required.

Biosphere Environmental Services 29

SECTION D

ORNITHOLOGY

S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Biosphere Environmental Services (BES) was commissioned to carry out an assessment of ornithological interests in the area for the proposed Sutton to Sandycove Promenade and Cycleway, Phase 2.

This report summarises the results of surveys of the coastal waterbirds occurring between Irishtown and Salthill. The main surveys were carried out between 28th August 2007 and 30th March 2008, the period when the greatest numbers and diversity of waterbirds occur in south Dublin Bay. Fortuitously, a similar survey of waterbirds was carried out recently for the Dublin Eastern Bypass project, covering the area between Irishtown/Ringsend/ Poolbeg and Williamstown, from early August 2006 to late September 2007 (report prepared for Thoir Consult, BES 2008). As similar survey/census methodology was used for both surveys (and same survey team), it has been possible to combine the Irishtown-Williamstown data to provide a more comprehensive overview of waterbird utilisation of this major section of the S2S project.

As this is a Feasibility Study, the report concentrates on providing baseline information on the waterbirds of the area, with an evaluation of the conservation status of the area and the waterbird species recorded, their habitat utilisation, and likely impacts of the proposed design. An indication of mitigation measures which might be required is given.

2.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

For field recording purposes in relation to the waterbird surveys/censuses between Irishtown and Salthill, the study area was defined as a 300 m wide band of intertidal mudflats and sandflats extending along the shore of south Dublin Bay. The band width of 300 m was deemed to represent the “footprint” of the walkway, i.e. the area affected by the walkway itself together with the area of flats where feeding and roosting waterbirds are likely to be subject to disturbance from activities on and near the walkway.

In order to establish the relative importance to waterbirds (for feeding and/or roosting) of different parts of the walkway route, the Irishtown to Salthill stretch was divided into nine sub-sections, corresponding approximately with the sub-sections defined in the Feasibility Report.

These are as follows:

Section A1 Irishtown – N of Sandymount Promenade Section A2 Sandymount Promenade Section A3 S of Sandymount Promenade – Merrion Gates Section B1 Merrion Gates – Booterstown Station, including sand dune spit Section B2 Booterstown Station – Williamstown Section B3 Williamstown – Maretimo Point Section B4 Maretimo Point – N of Brighton Vale

Biosphere Environmental Services 31 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

Section C1 Brighton Vale – Seapoint Martello Tower Section C2 Seapoint Martello Tower – Salthill/Dun Laoghaire West Pier

Field survey maps showing these sub-sections and topographical landmarks were prepared and used during each survey/census to record species, numbers and positions of waterbirds found during the course of each survey.

The survey/census fieldwork was carried out by two experienced ornithologists (Oscar Merne covering the Irishtown-Williamstown stretch, and Brian Porter covering the Williamstown- Salthill stretch), using high-quality binoculars and telescopes, and carrying out the survey work in weather conditions suitable for identifying and counting the waterbirds present.

Visits to the study area were made at approximately weekly intervals during the main study period (end August 2007 to end March 2008), and also to the Irishtown-Williamstown area between early August 2006 and end September 2007, when fieldwork was being carried out for the Dublin Eastern Bypass project.

During each visit, stops were made at carefully selected viewing points, from where all waterbirds using each sub-section for feeding and roosting could be seen, identified, and counted. Their locations were plotted on the field survey maps. Also recorded on the maps were dates and times of visits, weather conditions, times of high and low tides, and other pertinent information such as disturbance activities.

At the end of the fieldwork period the data on the field survey maps were used to establish the usage by each waterbird species of each sub-section of the study area throughout the study period. For the Irishtown-Williamstown section this was early August 2006 to end March 2008, while for the Williamstown-Salthill section it was end August 2007 to end March 2008.

Note re. roosting terns

The sandbanks off the Merrion Gates/Booterstown area of south Dublin Bay had been known since 1960 (Pettit 1972) as a night roosting area for large numbers of terns, between the end of the breeding season and their departure for wintering grounds in Africa (mid-July to early October). In order to monitor the use of this area by the terns in late summer/autumn 2006, and again in 2007, a series of 44 visits (21 in 2006 and 23 in 2007) were made to the area from late afternoon/evening until dusk. During these visits, flocks of terns were recorded (using high powered telescopes and binoculars) in the vicinity of the roosting grounds. Observations were made between the Martello Towers at Sandymount and Williamstown to establish the locations of the roosting areas in relation to tidal variation and disturbance. Also, observation points were located at Poolbeg and Dun Laoghaire Harbour, and from these points the terns could be seen and counted as they entered Dublin Bay from fishing grounds outside the bay.

Biosphere Environmental Services 32 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Brief review of historical and recent data on waterbirds in the study area

The first systematic surveys and censuses of wintering waterbirds in Dublin Bay were carried out between the 1971-72 and 1974-75 winters as part of the Irish Wetlands Enquiry (Hutchinson 1979). However, most of the waterbird counts carried out for this project were made at the North Bull Island, on the north side of the bay, around high tide, when it was considered most of the waterbirds were concentrated there. Also, most of the counts were carried out between September and March, so that waterbird numbers and distribution during the remainder of the year were not recorded.

A similar survey and census of waterbirds, named the Winter Wetlands Survey (Sheppard 1993), was carried out between the 1984-85 and 1986-87 winters. A series of 13 waterbird counts was carried out in Dublin Bay and this time Sandymount Strand was included in coverage. The report noted that Sanderlings1 were most frequent at Sandymount Strand, while Light-bellied Brent Geese were recorded in Internationally Important numbers.

From 1994-95 to the present day, the Irish Wetland Bird Survey (I-WeBS) has been carried out, with monthly counts of waterbirds being made mainly between September and March. The results of this survey, from its inception in 1994-95 to 2000-01, are reported in Crowe (1995). During this period, the south side of Dublin Bay (South Wall to Dun Laoghaire West Pier) was surveyed and censused on 60 occasions, but the data are presented in combination with those from north Dublin Bay. Little mention is made of the waterbirds using south Dublin Bay, but there is references to Bar-tailed Godwits occurring at Sandymount Strand, feeding by Light-bellied Brent Geese on the Zostera beds there, and large flocks of waders (particularly Oystercatcher, Knot, Dunlin, Bar-tailed Godwit and Redshank) roosting in the Merrion Gates area, and also at Seapoint and Poolbeg.

A review of waterbirds in Dublin Bay between 1994-95 and 2003-04, based on I-WeBS data, was published by the same author (Crowe 2006). This review highlights the importance of the shore between Booterstown and Merrion Gates as a roosting site for waders. It also highlights the importance of the Zostera bed near Merrion Gates as a feeding area for Light- bellied Brent Geese (described in detail by O’Briain 1991).

All I-WeBS waterbird counts are kept on a computerised database maintained by BirdWatch Ireland, and are available for research, conservation and environmental impact assessment purposes. Data for South Dublin Bay for the 5 yr period 2001/02 to 2005/06 have been acquired for the present project and is presented below.

1 Scientific names of bird species are given in Appendix E.

Biosphere Environmental Services 33 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

Table 1. Means (i.e. average of 5 annual peaks) and peak counts over the five winters 2001/02-2005/06 for the principal waterfowl species in South Dublin Bay. The qualifying levels for national and international importance are given. Data from I-WeBS.

1% 1% Species name national international Peak Mean

Great Crested Grebe 55 4800 141 90 Brent Goose 220 220 1755 911 Oystercatcher 680 10200 4496 2324 Ringed Plover 150 730 263 212 Knot 190 4500 3503 1131 Sanderling 65 1200 556 285 Dunlin 880 13300 5000 1987 Bar-tailed Godwit 160 1200 1336 428 Curlew 550 4200 120 94 Redshank 310 1900 692 489 Turnstone 120 1000 95 71 Black-headed Gull ? 20000 2881 1955 Common Gull ? 16000 571 316 Herring Gull ? 13000 129 92

The discovery of large numbers of terns using south Dublin Bay as a post-breeding/pre- migration roosting area dates from 1959 and 1960, when over 4,000 birds were recorded in August-September (Pettitt 1973, unpublished data of O. Merne). No systematic monitoring or censusing of these terns was carried out between then and 1996-99 and 2002-04 when a series of evening counts was carried out (Newton and Crowe 1999, Coombes 2004). More recently, survey and census work in autumns 2006 and 2007 for the Dublin Eastern Bypass project revealed that up to 11,000 terns were using the area (BES 2008).

A small breeding colony of Common Terns (and some Arctic Terns) has been present in the Dublin Port area since at least the 1950s (Merne 2004). Due to conservation management of the colony, numbers have increased recently, reaching 434 breeding pairs in 2007, a nationally important breeding concentration. It is likely that adult and young terns from this colony form part of the roosting flock in south Dublin Bay in autumn.

Other relevant data and information on waterbirds in south Dublin Bay are contained in publications by Mayes (2007) and Phalan and Nairn (2007).

3.2 Results of Surveys

Because of the very different tidal regimes in the Irishtown-Williamstown and Williamstown- Salthill sections of the study area, and also because of the availability of the series of 84 Dublin Eastern Bypass project waterbird counts (August 2006-September 2007), the results have been processed separately for these two sections. These are presented in summary below in Table 2 (Irishtown-Williamstown) and Table 3 (Williamstown-Salthill).

3.2.1 Irishtown–Williamstown

Biosphere Environmental Services 34 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

Between 28th August 2007 and 29th March 2008 a series of 38 waterbird counts was carried out between Irishtown and Williamstown specifically for the S2S project. In addition, between 6th August 2006 and 22nd August 2007 (with an extension to end September for terns) a series of 84 waterbird counts was carried out at Sandymount/Merrion Strand for the proposed Dublin Eastern Bypass project. The methodology for this survey was similar to that used for the S2S project and it has been possible to extract the waterbird count data covering the Irishtown-Williamstown S2S corridor and combine these with the 38 counts carried out for the S2S project. (The full set of 122 counts covering this section are available for further analysis).

A total of 35 waterbird species was recorded during the combined series of 122 counts. However, 12 of these were recorded in insignificant numbers and infrequently. The other 23 species of waterbirds were recorded in significant numbers and frequently. These species are listed in Table 1, with the maximum number for each species given for each of the five sub- sections (A1, A2, A3, B1, B2) between Irishtown and Williamstown. The other 12 species, recorded in insignificant numbers, are simply listed at the end of the Table, with the maxima recorded and the frequency of occurrence between Irishtown and Williamstown indicated.

Table 2. Waterbird species (23) recorded between Irishtown and Williamstown (300m wide S2S corridor) in 122 counts between 6th August 2006 and 29th March 2008. Figures are maximum numbers on any one date. ______Species Sect. A1 Sect. A2 Sect. A3 Sect. B1 Sect. B2 ______Little Egret 8 1 2 3 1 Brent Goose 195 122 198 78 30 Oystercatcher 799 680 877 1513 308 Ringed Plover 135 225 225 171 85 Knot 240 1530 721 2700 608 Sanderling 125 265 117 475 335 Dunlin 850 950 1095 1875 104 Black-tailed Godwit 42 25 110 118 235 Bar-tailed Godwit 32 6 340 800 1200 Curlew 67 39 74 187 82 Redshank 285 72 228 295 226 Greenshank 3 2 1 9 3 Turnstone 26 78 53 48 27 Mediterranean Gull 0 0 12 42 7 Black-headed Gull 1085 1695 4152 3750 14680 Common Gull 250 80 185 268 98 Lesser Black-backed Gull 12 9 33 23 20 Herring Gull 750 107 109 192 104 Great Black-backed Gull 10 17 41 37 76 Tern species (4)** 0 4000 4000 9015 4600

Biosphere Environmental Services 35 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

** The four species of terns recorded were Sandwich Tern, Roseate Tern, Common Terns and Arctic Tern. Most observations were made close to sunset, when failing light and visibility usually made it difficult or impossible to differentiate the majority of the terns. Therefore the totals given in Table 1 represent the four species combined (though Common was by far the most numerous).

Additional waterbird species recorded between Irishtown and Williamstown in 122 counts between 6th August 2006 and 29th March 2008

Cormorant (1/4), Grey Heron (6/32), Mute Swan (2/1), Shelduck (30/46), Teal (5/3), Red- breasted Merganser (2/2), Grey Plover (15/22), Lapwing (74/1), Little Stint (1/2), Ruff (1/1), Ring-billed Gull (1/1), Iceland Gull (1/1).

Note: Numbers in parentheses represent respectively the maxima recorded and frequency of occurrence.

3.2.2 Williamstown – Salthill

Between 29th August 2007 and 30th March 2008 a series of 58 waterbird counts was carried out between Williamstown and Salthill specifically for the S2S project. (The full set of 58 counts covering this section are available for further analysis).

Table 3. Main waterbird species (17) recorded between Williamstown and Salthill (300 m wide S2S corridor) in 58 counts between 29th August 2007 and 30th March 2008. Figures are maximum numbers on any one date. ______Species Sect. B3 Sect. B4 Sect. C1 Sect. C2 ______

Cormorant 2 0 22 3 Grey Heron 2 13 4 2 Light-bellied Brent Goose 17 19 20 16 Oystercatcher 72 148 8 16 Ringed Plover 137 126 0 0 Knot 356 1 0 0 Sanderling 73 345 185 1 Dunlin 199 329 0 0 Black-tailed Godwit 120 0 129 2 Bar-tailed Godwit 353 159 32 71 Redshank 124 216 15 29 Greenshank 2 6 9 0 Turnstone 57 18 55 29 Mediterranean Gull 1 2 1 4 Black-headed Gull 260 791 112 380 Herring Gull 58 19 3 3 Sandwich Tern 22 77 57 37

Biosphere Environmental Services 36 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

Additional waterbird species recorded between Williamstown and Salthill in 58 counts between 29th August 2007 and 30th March 2008

Great Crested Grebe (1/1), Shag (4/5), Little Egret (2/2), Mute Swan (2/2), Mallard (2/1), Red-breasted Merganser (1/1), Grey Plover (1/2), Lapwing (2/1), Curlew (7/36), Wood Sandpiper (1/1), Common Gull (6/26), Lesser Black-backed Gull (6/2), Great Black-backed Gull (6/6), Common Tern (17/6).

Note: Numbers in parentheses represent respectively the maxima recorded and frequency of occurrence.

A total of 31 waterbird species was recorded during this series of counts. Of these, 14 were recorded in insignificant numbers and infrequently. The other 17 species were recorded in significant numbers and frequently. These species are listed in Table 3, with the maximum number for each species given for each of the four sub-sections (B3, B4, C1, C2) between Williamstown and Salthill. The other 14 species are listed at the end of the Table, with the maxima recorded between Williamstown and Salthill.

3.2.3 Booterstown Marsh/Williamstown Creek

Booterstown Marsh and Williamstown Creek, which are located on the landward side of the Dublin-Rosslare railway line, are an integral part of south Dublin Bay, and are fully tidal – albeit with a time-lag in the tidal cycle. Many of the waterbirds which use the marsh and creek for feeding and roosting move freely back and forth across the railway line, depending on tides, weather conditions and disturbance. If the S2S walkway is located on the seaward side of the railway line, it is unlikely that it will have any significant adverse impacts on the waterbirds in the marsh and creek. However, possible alternative routes for the walkway in this area might have an impact, and therefore it was deemed desirable to include the marsh and creek in the survey.

As with the Irishtown-Williamstown section, waterbird count data from the Dublin Eastern Bypass project (August 2006–September 2007) covering Booterstown Marsh/Williamstown Creek are available. Additionally, during the S2S fieldwork period (end August 2007 – end March 2008), waterfowl counts were continued at weekly intervals.

Twelve waterbird species were recorded regularly and/or in significant numbers in Booterstown Marsh, as follows (figures given are peaks):

Little Egret 10 Grey Heron 10 Light-bellied Brent Goose 53 Shelduck 6 Teal 90 Moorhen 6 Knot 1130 Dunlin 645 Black-tailed Godwit 214 Redshank 381

Biosphere Environmental Services 37 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

Greenshank 13 Black-headed Gull 121

3.3 Conservation status of waterbirds recorded in the study area

The international and national conservation status of birds is defined with reference to the European Union’s Birds Directive Annex 1 (Anon. 1979), the Ramsar Convention (Anon. 1971), and the national Red, Amber and Green List scheme (Newton et al. 1999, Lynas et al. 2007). The conservation status of waterbirds recorded in the S2S project study area is given below. Note that a number of species fall into two or more categories.

3.3.1 EU Birds Directive Annex 1 species occurring in the study area

Bird species included in Annex 1 of the European Union Birds Directive are those considered to be in an unfavourable conservation status in the European Union, and therefore of particular conservation concern. Member States of the EU are obliged to implement measures for the conservation of Annex 1 species, including the designation of their habitats as Special Protection Areas (SPA). The Irish authorities have so designated the entire intertidal and shallow sub-tidal area of south Dublin Bay as an SPA, for a number of the following Annex 1 species, and also for the internationally important species listed below.

Little Egret Bar-tailed Godwit Mediterranean Gull Sandwich Tern Roseate Tern Common Tern Arctic Tern

Three additional species, Ruff, Wood Sandpiper and Kingfisher (Booterstown Marsh only), were recorded during the survey period in insignificant numbers – single individuals on only one or two occasion. Therefore they may be discounted in relation to the walkway impact assessment.

3.3.2 Internationally Important species occurring in the study area

According to Ramsar Convention criteria (Anon. 1971), a species which occurs regularly at a site in numbers which are 1% or more of the flyway population of that species qualifies for Internationally Important status. In the S2S study area the following four species were recorded in Internationally Important numbers. In parenthesis after each species are given the 1% threshold and the maximum number recorded in the present study.

Light-bellied Brent Goose (200/306) Bar-tailed Godwit (1,200/1,274) Roseate Tern (54/>100)* Common Tern (1,700/>5,000)*

Biosphere Environmental Services 38 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

* Because of the difficulties of identifying tern species at long range, in failing light and in autumn plumage, the numbers given for Roseate Terns (>100) and Common Terns (>5,000) are conservative estimates based of samples taken on a few occasions when tern identification was possible because the birds were at close range in favourable light conditions.

3.3.3 Nationally Important species occurring in study area

A species which occurs regularly at a site in numbers which are 1% or more of the national population of that species qualifies for Nationally Important status. In the S2S study area the following 10 species were recorded in Nationally Important numbers. In parenthesis after each species are given the 1% threshold and the maximum number recorded in the present study.

Oystercatcher (700/2,200) Ringed Plover (150/388) Knot (340/1,725) Sanderling (70/425) Dunlin (1,400/1,712) Black-tailed Godwit (180/235) Redshank (330/603) Mediterranean Gull (1/42)* Black-headed Gull (1,000/10,750) Herring Gull (500/950)

* There are no published data on the size of the Irish population of this species, but it is believed to be in the region of 50-100 individuals at present.

3.3.4 Red List species occurring in study area

In assessing the conservation status of breeding and non-breeding bird species in Ireland, a system has been devised whereby birds of highest conservation concern/priority are included in a Red List; those of medium conservation concern/priority are included in an Amber List; those of no particular conservation concern at present are placed in a Green List. The main criteria for identifying species for inclusion in the Red List are where a species has suffered a 50% or greater decline in its breeding or wintering population, or its range, over the previous 25 years period. More details are included in Newton et al. 1999 and Lynas et al. 2007. The study area species which qualify for inclusion in the Red List are as follows.

Lapwing (breeding population) Curlew (breeding population) Redshank (breeding population) Black-headed Gull (breeding population) Herring Gull (breeding population) Knot (passage/wintering population)

Note that with the exception of Knot, it is the Irish breeding populations of the above species which are of high conservation concern. None of these breed in south Dublin Bay, and it is

Biosphere Environmental Services 39 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology not clear whether the birds recorded in the study area are from the Irish breeding population, migrants from elsewhere, or a combination of both. The very high numbers of Black-headed Gulls recorded indicate that a large proportion were migrants from elsewhere. Knot are entirely winter visitors and passage migrants in Ireland.

3.3.5 Amber List species occurring in study area.

The main criteria for identifying species for inclusion in the Amber List are where a species has suffered a 25-50% decline in its breeding or wintering population, or it range, over the previous 25 years period (Newton et al. 1999, Lynas et al. 2007). The study area species which qualify for inclusion in the Amber List are as follows.

Cormorant Light-bellied Brent Goose Shelduck Teal Oystercatcher Ringed Plover Dunlin Black-tailed Godwit Bar-tailed Godwit Greenshank Mediterranean Gull Common Gull Lesser Black-backed Gull Great Black-backed Gull Sandwich Tern Roseate Tern Common Tern Arctic Tern

Several additional Amber List species (Great Crested Grebe, Mute Swan, Water Rail, Grey Plover, Snipe and Kingfisher) were recorded during the survey period in insignificant numbers.

Biosphere Environmental Services 40 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED S2S DESIGN ON WATERBIRDS

Two main kinds of impacts are anticipated – (a) loss of habitat caused by the walkway structure itself, and (b) disturbance to waterbirds caused both by walkway users and potential increased access to adjacent intertidal areas. In addition, there would be disturbance during the construction phase.

4.1 Loss of feeding and roosting habitat

The proposed design will involve infilling of approximately 4 ha of existing shoreline habitats (mostly intertidal flats but also some dunes and rocky shore). The width of infill varies, with use made in places of the existing sea walls or areas above the shoreline. The maximum width of infill (platform and sloped rock armour) appears to be between 14 m and 16 m (between Irishtown and Sandymount promenade).

Whilst 4 ha is a low proportion (<1%) of the total SPA, the present surveys have shown that this upper shore area is very important for feeding waterbirds when most of the extensive flats are covered by the tide (i.e. during the high tide period). Also, during the surveys substantial numbers of Turnstones, Oystercatchers, Redshanks and Light-bellied Brent Geese were seen feeding frequently on invertebrates and green algae on the sea walls and rock abutments between Merrion Gates and Seapoint Station.

The sections which would be affected by infill where significant numbers of birds (i.e. concentrations of national importance) feed within 300 m of the upper shoreline are as follows:

Section A1: Irishtown – N of Sandymount Promenade Section A3: S of Sandymount Promenade – Merrion Gates Section B1: Merrion Gates – Booterstown Station, including sand dune spit Section B2: Booterstown Station – Williamstown Section C1: Brighton Vale – Seapoint Martello Tower

In addition, Section B1, and also Section B4 (Maretimo Point – N of Brighton Vale), are used as high tide roosts. While only part of the roost at B1 would be affected, the main roost site at B4, which is a retaining wall in a secluded location, would be lost.

4.2 Disturbance to waterbirds during operation

4.2.1 Review of existing disturbance to birds

South Dublin Bay is very heavily used by people for recreational purposes. While carrying out the field surveys and censuses of waterbirds feeding and roosting along the shore between Irishtown and Salthill many disturbance events were noted. The observers recorded semi- quantitative and qualitative information on such disturbance events and this information is summarised as follows.

Biosphere Environmental Services 41 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

Disturbance was caused by a wide range of activities, including the following (arranged approximately in descending order of importance/frequency):-

* Exercising dogs off a leash, often active encouragement for them to chase flocks of birds * Walking over most parts of the flats at all times other than at high spring tide * Kite-surfing in shallows near the tideline * Exercising dogs on a leash * Running/jogging on flats * Kite-flying * Golf driving practice * Cycling over the flats * Swimming * Bait-digging (commercial scale) * Sun-bathing * Wheeling prams, buggies, etc. on the flats * A “string” of horse-riders walking and cantering along the tideline * Microlight aircraft “buzzing” flocks of gulls and waders * Football team training on the flats * Electric wheelchair traversing sandflats at full speed

The cumulative impact of frequent disturbance events on feeding and roosting birds has been a concern of conservationists for some time, and much research has been carried out on disturbance impacts on coastal waterbirds in Europe and North America. Much of this research is reviewed by Davidson and Rothwell (1973), while Phalan and Nairn (2007) have carried out a local study on disturbance to waterbirds in the intertidal area at Irishtown. Such is the concern about disturbance to birds that Article 4 of the EU Birds Directive includes a requirement that Member States take measures to prevent significant disturbance to birds within Special Protection Areas.

It was notable that regular human activities such as walking, cycling, driving, etc., which were confined to existing roads, footpaths and carparks in the Irishtown – Merrion Gates area, and also between Brighton Vale and Salthill, generally caused little or no disturbance to waterbirds on adjacent shores, nor did DART and mainline trains moving along the railway line in view of the birds.

Main areas of disturbance

During the period of this study, there were two main areas of human disturbance to waterbirds along the shore between Irishtown and Salthill. These were:

(a) the intertidal flats adjacent to the promenade extending to the north and south of Sandymount Martello Tower (sub-section A2)

(b) the intertidal flats between Seapoint Martello Tower and the small pier at Salthill (sub- section C2).

Both areas are very accessible to people, with three car parks at the former (a), and also sets of steps from the promenade down to the beach. In the latter case (b) access is aided by footbridges over the railway line and a promenade along most of the seaward side of the

Biosphere Environmental Services 42 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology railway line. This easy access appeared to prompt people to engage in many of the activities listed above, resulting in constant disturbance to flocks of waterbirds. While disturbing activities appeared to be greatest during fine weather, it was noticed that many people still used these areas in poor weather, and at all times of the day, winter and summer.

The area of least disturbance was between Williamstown and the Seapoint Martello Tower (sub-sections B3, B4 and C1), where access to the shore is very limited. Few people appeared to use the footbridges across the railway line at Williamstown and Blackrock, and there is no footpath or promenade running along this stretch of the shore. There is a short minor road (cul de sac) and footpath at Brighton Vale, but this is separated from the adjacent rocky shore by a low wall, and the relatively small numbers of people (mostly residents) using this road and path appear to have little or no disturbing impact on the waterbirds feeding and roosting on the shore.

The remaining sub-sections (A1 – Irishtown to north end of the Sandymount promenade; A3 – from south end of the promenade to Merrion Gates; B1 – Merrion Gates to Booterstown Station; B2 – Booterstown Station to Williamstown) were subject to moderate levels of disturbance. Relatively small numbers of people, with or without dogs, were seen walking here, and were causing some disturbance to feeding and roosting waterbirds. However, the numbers of people and dogs, and the frequency of their activities, appeared to be of an order of magnitude less than in sub-section A2 (off the Sandymount promenade). Much of the bait-digging occurred between sub-sections B1 and B2, where the railway footbridge at Booterstown Station made access to the shore easy. However, bait-digging disturbance was generally localised.

4.2.2 Potential disturbance caused by S2S design

Potentially, disturbance to feeding and/or roosting birds can be caused by walkway users and by increased access to adjacent intertidal and shoreline areas.

As described in section 5.2.1, there are varying degrees of existing disturbances (from a range of sources) in the study area but crucially some areas are less disturbed than others due to physical and local conditions which restrict access. It is at these less disturbed areas that additional disturbance effects will be of most concern.

4.2.2.1 Disturbance by users on the walkway

The impact on birds by the physical presence of people using the walkway would be of most concern during the high tide period when birds need to roost and/or feed on the upper shoreline during the period when the tide rises to full height and then starts to drop. This will be most acute during the spring tides – for instance, on such tides at the Booterstown roost, birds congregate along the extreme upper shoreline strip and some will also use the existing retaining sea walls. In these circumstances, human activity on the walkway could discourage or prevent birds from roosting and feeding on the small areas of uncovered intertidal flats and beaches, and they would be forced to move elsewhere. At these times, alternative roosting areas in Dublin Bay will also be greatly reduced in extent, and possibly unable to accommodate displaced birds. The loss of roosting sites and marginal feeding

Biosphere Environmental Services 43 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology areas, even for the small number of exceptional high tide events, can have serious consequences for birds in terms of the energetic demands of not being able to roost safely or feed for maximum periods. Should such a scenario occur during a prolonged cold spell of weather, mortality of birds could occur.

Also, it is noted that some bird species are intrinsically more tolerant of human activities than others, and/or become habituated to the close presence of people. For example, Brent Geese are well known to tolerate people as close as 10 m in some areas (e.g. the North Bull Island in Dublin Bay), while Curlews, Godwits and Redshanks are much less tolerant. Terns would be expected to show low tolerance to the presence of people.

Mitigation would be required to minimise the visual presence of people and also associated noise levels.

4.2.2.2 Disturbance by people gaining easy access to the intertidal and shoreline habitats

Without effective mitigation, a coastal walkway will eliminate access difficulties in areas which presently have low or moderate levels of disturbance (see section 4.2.1). Of particular concern is the impact on feeding and roosting birds of unleashed dogs in such areas. As already discussed in section 4.2.2.1, the highest degree of potential disturbance would be when birds are concentrated in the upper shoreline areas due to high water.

4.3 Disturbance from construction works

The actual construction of the works is likely to affect some adjoining habitats where birds feed and/or roost due to requirements for access by machinery etc. The actual presence of construction workers and associated noise is also likely to cause some disturbance. While this will be a temporary disturbance, mitigation would be required to minimise impacts on birds.

4.4 Possible long-term control of disturbance

The existing high levels of disturbance to birds in parts of the south bay have been highlighted in section 4.2.1. It is the opinion of the present authors that disturbance levels have increased in the last few years, undoubtedly reflecting a higher population in the immediate area of the south bay and also a general increase in amenity activities amongst the population. Undoubtedly, such activities will continue to increase in the near future.

Presently, there appears to be no effective controls or restrictions on the activities which take place in the bay. The draft NPWS Conservation Plan for the South Dublin Bay cSAC & Sandymount Strand/Tolka Estuary SPA notes under ‘Landuse’ the following: ‘Recreational users are the primary source of disturbance to roosting and feeding wintering waterfowl. Recreational activities also impact on the Eelgrass beds at Merrion Gates’.

Biosphere Environmental Services 44 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

Under Objective 2.2 of the Conservation Plan, Strategy 2.2 is to ‘Minimise disturbance to birds’. It is stated that NPWS will strive to ensure that human disturbance of birds is minimised by:

• Raising public awareness to ensure that intertidal users (walkers, joggers, water sports etc) keep away from feeding and roosting flocks and ensure that all dogs are kept under control in the vicinity of these areas.

As the proposed walkway scheme will actively/physically discourage access to certain areas and could include the introduction of a permanent ranger to patrol its length, as well as the provision of facilities for interpretation and education, it is considered that the scheme could have an important role in the long-term management of the bay (in association with the NPWS).

5.0 MITIGATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The data presented in the present report give an indication of the relative importance for waterbirds of the nine sub-sections of shore between Irishtown and Salthill, though further analysis of the existing data from the 180 counts made between August 2006 and March 2008 is required before a comprehensive impact assessment can be completed. Also, additional focused field surveys may be required. Following such an analysis, which would include consultation with the NPWS, and review of the detail design etc., full mitigating measures (including the possibility of providing compensatory habitat) can be recommended.

However, from the existing data it is clear that the sandspit lying between Merrion Gates and Booterstown Station (sub-section B1) is by far the most important area for waterbirds in south Dublin Bay. This is especially so for large numbers of Annex 1 tern species roosting from late July to the end of September, for Red List Black-headed Gulls in winter, and for a variety of waders (particularly Oystercatcher, Knot, Sanderling, Dunlin, and Bar-tailed Godwit), most of which are of high conservation priority.

Other areas of particular importance to waterbirds are:

• The Zostera beds and green algal mats in sub-sections A1 and A3 as feeding areas for Light-bellied Brent Geese and waders. The substrate in these areas is muddier than in most of the study area, has a distinct community of worms, crustaceans and shellfish, and therefore attracts large numbers of waders such as Knot, Dunlin and Redshank.

• The high tide roosting area for waders (and Sandwich Terns in autumn) between Maretimo Point and Seapoint Station.

• The flats between Booterstown and Williamstown, which appear to be muddier than most of the study area and attract most of the Black-tailed Godwit and many Dunlin and Redshank. This area is relatively undisturbed and attracts very large numbers of terns and Black-headed Gulls when not covered by the tide.

Biosphere Environmental Services 45 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

The following preliminary observations are made on possible mitigation measures to address the identified impacts on bird by the proposed development.

5.1 Mitigation for loss of feeding and roosting habitats

As all of the area below the high tide mark is within an SPA, mitigation for the net loss of habitat will require consideration and may require the provision of compensatory habitat (and such would need to be approved by the NPWS).

Of particular concern is loss of the uppermost part of the Booterstown sand spit and the total loss of the traditional roost near Seapoint. Mitigation for loss of the Seapoint roost might include creation of an engineered jetty-like feature in the same area which could provide a safe roost at high tide. However, this would need to be created without any significant loss of intertidal sand flat habitat.

Mitigation for habitat loss at the roost site at Booterstown, and of feeding habitat at the other key areas identified, may require the provision of compensatory habitat. The opportunities for the creation of intertidal habitat for feeding in Dublin Bay are limited, though potential appears to exist in the Irishtown/Poolbeg area (all of which is reclaimed land). The engineering practicalities of such works are not considered here.

Compensatory habitat for Brent Geese (herbivorous feeder) could also be provided by the provision of grazing lawns, such as already exists at Poolbeg. However, measures would need to be taken to safeguard these for bird usage only and to exclude walkers, dogs etc. Such grassland areas would also potentially attract worm-feeding species such as Oystercatcher and Black-tailed Godwit, which regularly feed on grassland areas above the shoreline inland.

There may exist other opportunities for the creation of artificial high tide roosts, such as conversion of the old baths off Sandymount to a roost (the walls of this are already used at times by oystercatchers and black-headed gulls).

5.2 Mitigation for disturbance by users

At the areas identified as being of importance to birds, the design of the walkway will need to include measures to screen users from birds on the shoreline below and also to prevent easy access to the shoreline.

The ultimate height of such ‘screens’ or ‘retaining walls’ will depend on the sensitivity of the area. Undoubtedly, the most sensitive stretch is that which skirts the roost site at Booterstown (B1), with the adjoining stretches northwards to the Zostera bed (A3) and southwards to Williamstown (B2) also highly sensitive from a feeding perspective. Whilst screening to waist height (c.1 m) to distort the human figure may be adequate for much of the length, it is unlikely that this would be sufficient at the core roost area where numbers in excess of 10,000 birds have been recorded at the extreme upper shore during the highest tide levels. Here, screening to head level is likely to be necessary. Also, it could be necessary to mitigate for noise along this stretch.

Biosphere Environmental Services 46 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

To prevent access to the beach and intertidal flats along this stretch (A3 to B2), it would seem that a physical barrier considerably higher than 1 metre would be required. Owing to the high importance of the core roost area, it is critical that the physical barrier or screen used prevents access to this shoreline.

For the section between Merrion Gates and Williamstown Creek, it is considered that unless mitigation can guarantee that roosting birds will not by disturbed, mitigation by avoidance may need to be considered.

5.3 Mitigation for disturbance during construction

To minimise disturbance to birds from construction activities, works during the main winter period (approx. November to February inclusive) should be avoided. However, at the roosting site at Booterstown, disturbance to terns during the months of August and September will also need to be avoided.

The general measures to maintain habitat quality given in the marine section of report, will also apply for the maintenance of habitat conditions for birds.

5.4 Measures for general management of the bay

In addition to the physical measures that will be taken to minimise disturbance to birds, measures should be taken to encourage the users to act responsibly and indeed to enjoy the spectacle of the wild birds. These could include:

1. The erection of formal/legal signage informing the public that the area is designated as a Special Protection Area for birds and that disturbance to birds must be avoided.

2. Informative and educational display panels erected at points along the walkway, highlighting the various bird species and aspects of their ecology.

3. Regular patrols by a conservation ranger both to enforce the legislation relating to the SPA designation and to provide information to users about the birds and their habitats.

Biosphere Environmental Services 47 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

SECTION E

OVERVIEW OF CONSTRAINTS

Biosphere Environmental Services 48 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

The baseline data presented in this report comprise the most comprehensive assessment of the habitat, flora and fauna interests associated with south Dublin Bay. The various surveys confirm the international and national importance of south Dublin Bay for marine and shoreline habitats, and for a range of waterbird species.

Owing to the nature conservation designations associated with Dublin Bay, any development proposed within or adjoining the bay must be subject to an appropriate environmental assessment. The present work identifies likely significant constraints associated with the proposed design for the S2S route from Irishtown to Salthill – these are as follows:

1. In the context of the cSAC and SPA, the sand dune and beach formation off Booterstown is of the utmost importance for habitats and birds. This is the largest dune complex in the south bay, supporting 4 Annex I listed habitats. It is a dynamic system that is still in a very active phase of development and hence is of great ecological and geomorphological interests. The area also serves as the most important roost site in south Dublin Bay for wintering waterbirds and post- breeding/pre-migratory terns. Critically, at very high tides it provides the only roost area for the terns, when numbers in excess of 10,000 can congregate here. As construction of the walkway along this section would result in the loss of various Annex I habitats, and poses a high risk of disturbance to roosting terns and wintering waterbirds, this area could present a major constraint to development. Mitigation for loss of habitat could be difficult and may require the provision of compensatory habitat. Mitigation for disturbance to birds (by screening etc.) would need to guarantee that roosting birds will not by disturbed. However, for a full evaluation of the impacts and required mitigation measures, it is considered that modelling would be necessary to determine future growth of the complex, with and without the proposed scheme in place. Should the modelling show that substantial net losses of beach habitats will occur as a result of the proposed scheme, and if it is considered that mitigation measures cannot ensure that disturbance to birds is avoided, then the consideration of an alternative route at this most sensitive location may be required.

2. A further major constraint to development is the Zostera bed which lies to the north of Merrion Gates. This is a highly diagnostic feature of intertidal mudflats, the principal Annex I habitat for which the cSAC is selected. From the perspective of the SPA, the Zostera bed is also of high significance as it provides a crucially important food source for Brent Geese, which occur here in numbers of international importance (and for which the SPA is selected). As construction of the walkway along this section is likely to have both direct and indirect impacts on the Zostera bed (and hence the Annex I habitat), and poses a risk of disturbance to feeding geese and other waterbirds, the unique ecological interests here present a major constraint to development. Again, for a full evaluation of impacts here, information on possible changes in local hydrological conditions caused by the new structure would be required. Mitigation should aim for a design with least impact on the shoreline and one that will not allow easy access by users from the walkway to the shore. Also, mitigation will need to ensure that disturbance to feeding birds would not be significant. If it is considered that mitigation measures cannot reduce habitat loss to an acceptable level and cannot ensure that there will be no significant indirect impacts on the Zostera bed, and that avoidance of disturbance to feeding birds cannot be

Biosphere Environmental Services 49 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

guaranteed, then the consideration of an alternative route at this most sensitive location may be required.

3. A further main constraint to development is the high tide roost at Seapoint. Whilst artificial in origin, it has been known as a high tide roost site since the 1950s and appears particularly important for the Sanderling and Ringed Plover populations in the south bay (which are of national importance). Mitigation would need to be provided, possibly by a similar engineered roost structure, though this would need to be in place prior to the destruction of the existing roost.

4. The shoreline between Irishtown and the start of the promenade (section A1) is relatively sheltered and comprises intertidal mudflats, which are of high importance to feeding Brent Geese and other wintering waterbirds. As development here will involve substantial infill (existing retaining wall is vertical) there will be significant loss of the Annex I intertidal mudflat habitat, which is feeding habitat for birds. Hence, the habitat and bird interests here are considered a major constraint to development. Mitigation by way of compensatory habitat may be necessary here.

5. The shoreline between Booterstown Station and Williamstown (B2) comprises intertidal flats which are used by significant numbers of wintering birds, especially Black-tailed Godwit and Bar-tailed Godwit (latter an Annex I species). As development here will involve infill, there will be loss of the Annex I intertidal mudflat habitat, which is feeding habitat for birds. Also, the scheme poses a risk of disturbance to feeding waterbirds as there is relatively low disturbance at present. Hence, the habitat and bird interests here are considered a major constraint to development. Mitigation by way of compensatory habitat may be necessary here. Also, effective measures would need to be taken to minimise disturbance to birds from users.

Biosphere Environmental Services 50 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

SECTION F

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Biosphere Environmental Services 51 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

Anon. 1971. Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat. Ramsar, Iran.

Anon. 1979. European Union Directive 79/409/EEC of 2nd April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (the Birds Directive). EU Commission, Brussels.

Anon. (1996) Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats. Version EUR, 15. European Commission, Brussels.

Biosphere Environmental Services (2008) Dublin Eastern Bypass, Baseline Ecological Survey: Marine Ecology, Shoreline Habitats & Ornithology. Prepared for Thoir Consult.

Brunton, M., Convery, F.J. & Johnson, A. (eds) (1987) Managing Dublin Bay. Resource & Environmental Policy Centre, University College, Dublin.

Connor, D.W., Allen, J.H., Golding, N., Howell, K.L, Lieberknecht, L.M., Northen, K.O. and Reker, J.B. (2004). The Marine Habitat Classification for Britain and Ireland Version 04.05 JNCC, Peterborough. ISBN 1 861 07561 8 (internet version) www.jncc.gov.uk/MarineHabitatClassification

Crowe, O. 2005. Ireland’s Wetlands and their Waterbirds: Status and Distribution. BirdWatch Ireland, Newcastle.

Crowe, O. 2006. A review of the wintering waterbirds of Dublin Bay 1994/95 -2003/04. Irish East Coast Bird Report 2002: 123-129.

Curtis, T.G.F & McGough, N. (1988) The Irish Red Data Book: Vascular Plants. Stationery Office, Dublin.

Davies, J., Bradley, M., Connor, D., Khan, J., Murray, E., Sanderson, W., Turnbull C. and Vincent, M. (2001). Marine Monitoring Handbook. Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Delany, S., Scott, D. (eds.) 2006. Waterbird Population Estimates. Fourth Edition. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Doogue, D., Nash, D., Parnell, J., Reynolds, S., & Wyse Jackson, P. (1998) Flora of County Dublin. Dublin Naturalists’ Field Club, Dublin.

Dublin City Council (2008) Dublin City Biodiversity Action Plan 2008- 2012. pp60.

EcoServe (2007). Dublin Eastern Bypass – Marine Ecological Report. Unpublished report.

Emblow, C. S., Costello, M. J. & Wyn, G. (1998). Methods for mapping seashore and seabed biotopes in Wales and Ireland - INTERREG SensMap project. In: Emergency response planning: saving the environment: 51-58.

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

Givens, J. 2006. A Guide to Dublin Bay – Mirror to the City. Liffey Press, Dublin.

Howson, C. M. & Picton, B. E., Eds. 1997. The species directory of the marine fauna and flora of the British Isles and surrounding seas. The Ulster Museum & The Marine Conservation Society, Belfast & Ross-on-Wye.

Biosphere Environmental Services 52 S2S Feasibility Study : Ecology

Hutchinson, C.D. 1975. The Birds of Dublin and Wicklow. Dublin.

Hutchinson, C.D. 1989. Birds in Ireland. T&AD Poyser, Calton.

Lynas, P., Newton, S. & Robinson, J.A. (2007) The status of birds in Ireland: an analysis of conservation concern 2008-2013. Irish Birds 8 (2): 149-166.

Madden, B.M., Jennings, E. & Jeffrey, D.W. 1993. Distribution and ecology of Zostera in County Dublin. Irish Naturalists’ Journal 24:303-309.

Mayes, E. 2007. Dublin Waste to Energy Project – Wintering waterfowl and conservation designations in Dublin Bay. Brief of Evidence, 25th April 2007.

Merne, O.J. 2004. Common Sterna hirundo and Arctic Terns S. paradisaea breeding in Dublin Port, County Dublin, 1995-2003. Irish Birds 7(3):369-374.

Mitchell, P.I., Newton, S.F., Ratcliffe, N., Dunn, T.E. 2004. Seabird Populations of Britain and Ireland – Results of the Seabird 2000 census (1998-2002). T&AD Poyser, London.

Newton, S.F., Crowe, O. 1999. Kish Bank: a preliminary assessment of its ornithological importance. BirdWatch Ireland Conservation Report No. 99/8.

Newton, S.F., Donaghy, A., Allen, D., Gibbons, D. 1999. Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland. Irish Birds 6(3):333-344.

O’Briain, M. 1991. Use of a Zostera bed in Dublin Bay by Light-bellied Brent Geese. Irish Birds 4: 299-316.

Pettit, R.G. 1973. Movements of terns observed in August 1972. Dublin and Wicklow Bird Report 1972:27-34.

Phalan, B. & Nairn, R. (2007) Disturbance to waterbirds in South Dublin Bay. Irish Birds 8: 223- 230.

Reynolds, S.C.P. (2002) A catalogue of the alien plants in Ireland. National Botanic Gardens, Dublin.

Reynolds, J.D., Reynolds, S.C. 1990. Development and present vegetational state of Booterstown Marsh, Co. Dublin, Ireland. Bulletin of the Irish Biogeographical Society: 173-188.

Scannell, M.J.P. & Synnott, D.M. (1987) Census Catalogue of the Flora of Ireland. Stationery Office, Dublin.

Sheppard, R. 1993. Ireland’s Wetland Wealth. Irish Wildbird Conservancy, Dublin.

Tyler-Walters, H., (2005). Zostera noltii. Dwarf eelgrass. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 14/09/2007]. Available from: http://www.marlin.ac.uk/species/Zosteranoltii.htm

Biosphere Environmental Services 53 Dublin City Council and Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council S2S – Sutton to Sandycove

Appendix D Site Investigations

January 2009

Dublin City Council and Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council S2S – Sutton to Sandycove

Appendix E Photomontages

January 2009

Dublin City Council and Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council S2S Sutton to Sandycove

PHOTOMONTAGES

SECTION A – OPTIMUM SCHEMES