Natura Impact Statement Rosses Point Pier Enhancement

Report for Sligo County Council

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd Main Street, Ballisodare Co Sligo Ireland

Tel: 0719140542 Email: [email protected] January 2015

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

Will Woodrow – qualifications: HND – Conservation Management

MSc – European Environmental Policy and Regulation

MSc (Arch) – Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies

David McNicholas – qualifications:

BSc – Environmental Science

MSc – Environmental, Health & Safety Management

Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Requirement for a Natura Impact Statement ...... 1 1.3 Structure/ Layout of the report ...... 1 1.4 Main Sources of Consultation and information ...... 2 2.0 DESCRIPTION AND FEATURES OF THE PROJECT AND AREA ...... 3 2.1 Location ...... 3 2.2 General layout and details of proposal ...... 3 2.3 Location in the context of Natura 2000 sites ...... 12 2.3.1 General area ...... 12 2.3.2 Proximity to Natura designated areas ...... 12 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF NATURA 2000 SITES IN THE PROXIMITY OF THE PROPOSAL ... 14 3.1 Cummeen Strand SPA (Site Code: 004013) ...... 14 3.1.1 Conservation Objectives ...... 14 3.1.2 Screening Matrix ...... 20 3.1.3 Conclusion of significant effect ...... 20 3.2 Cummeen Strand/ Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) Special Area of Conservation (Site Code: 000627) ...... 22 3.2.1 Conservation Objectives ...... 22 3.2.2 Screening Matrix ...... 32 3.2.3 Conclusion on significant effect ...... 32 4.0 CONCLUSIONS OF SCREENING ASSESSMENT ...... 38 4.1 Cummeen Strand SPA ...... 38 4.2 Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC ...... 38 5.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ...... 39 5.1 Habitat description ...... 39 5.1.1 Overall habitat description ...... 39 5.1.2 Habitat descriptions at proposed infrastructure locations...... 42 5.2 Potential Impacts on the Cummeen Strand SPA ...... 47 5.2.1 Potential for disturbance ...... 47 5.2.2 Potential for impact on feeding habitat ...... 49 5.3 Potential Impacts on the Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC ...... 50 5.4 Summary of Potential Impacts ...... 52 6.0 CONSIDERATION OF DIRECT, INDIRECT, CUMULATIVE AND IN-COMBINATION EFFECTS WITH OTHER PLANS & PROJECTS ...... 53 6.1 Context ...... 53 6.2 In-combination Assessment ...... 53 7.0 MITIGATION OF EFFECTS ...... 54

iii

7.1 Cummeen Strand SPA - Potential for impact on feeding and / or roosting populations of species for which the SPA is designated as a result of temporary disturbance...... 54 7.2 Cummeen Strand SPA - Potential risk of direct impact on intertidal feeding areas as a result of tracked or wheeled vehicles driving on intertidal areas during construction activity...... 55 7.3 Cummeen Strand SPA - Potential risk of localised pollution due to hydrocarbon spillage resulting from inappropriate re-fuelling methods (and potential knock-on impacts on bird prey availability)...... 55 7.4 Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC - Potential risk of direct impact on intertidal areas as a result of tracked or wheeled vehicles during construction activity...... 56 7.5 Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC - Potential risk of localised pollution due to hydrocarbon spillage resulting from inappropriate re-fuelling methods...... 56 7.6 Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC - Potential risk of localised intertidal impact from inappropriate placement of mixed sediments arising from excavation of slipway...... 57 7.7 Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC and Cummeen Strand SPA – Ensuring compliance...... 57 7.8 Consideration of impact concerns raised by NPWS ...... 57 8.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 59 9.0 REFERENCES ...... 60 Appendix I – Site Synopses ...... 62

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Woodrow Sustainable Solutions was approached by Sligo County Council to undertake a Natura Impact Statement (NIS) for the extension of an existing jetty at Rosses Point, County Sligo. This report provides the information necessary to fulfil that requirement.

1.2 Requirement for a Natura Impact Statement The Habitats Directive was transposed into Irish law by the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997 and European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (the Habitats Regulations). Regulation 42 of the 2011 Regulations requires that any proposal likely to have a significant effect on a European Site, alone or in combination with other operations or activities, needs to be assessed with respect to its potential impact in the site’s conservation objectives.

Regulation 42 (9) of the 2011 Habitats Regulations states: Where a public authority is required to conduct an Appropriate Assessment pursuant to paragraph (6) in relation to a plan or project that it proposes to undertake or adopt, it shall—  prepare a Natura Impact Statement,  compile any other evidence including, but not limited to, scientific evidence that is required for the purposes of the Appropriate Assessment, and  submit a Natura Impact Statement together with evidence compiled under subparagraph (b) to the Minister not later than six weeks before it proposes to adopt or undertake the plan or project to which the Natura Impact Statement and evidence relates.

Section 177AE of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2001 (as inserted by section 57 of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010) set out the appropriate procedure for Local Authority projects with potential to impact on Natura 2000 sites. This requires that, where an Appropriate Assessment is required in respect of a development by a local authority that is a planning authority, they will prepare, or cause to be prepared, a Natura Impact Statement. The Natura Impact Statement shall then be provided to An Bord Pleanála for them to undertake an Appropriate Assessment.

This report comprises a Natura Impact Statement as required under Regulation 42(9) of the European Communities (Birds and Natural habitats) Regulations 2011. The Statement incorporates a screening (sections 2 to 5) of Natura 2000 sites potentially affected by the proposal with sections 6 to 8 providing an assessment of the proposal considering potential impacts on conservation features within them and provides mitigation proposals to avoid impact on the integrity of Natura 2000 sites (a Natura Impact Statement). This allows for an audit trail through Article 6 of the EU Habitats Directive to facilitate an Appropriate Assessment by a competent authority.

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

1 the context of sequential requirements of Article 6 of the EU Habitats Directive. As detailed above sections 2 to 5 (stage one) of the report provide a description of the project and a screening assessment. The screening assessment is aimed at ascertaining the Natura 2000 and designated features within them potentially affected by the proposal. Sections 6 to 8 (stage two), provide an assessment of the potential impacts (a Natura Impact Statement) and provide mitigation proposals to ensure that the proposal will not, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, adversely affect the integrity of any European site (Natura 2000 site) whether directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

1.4 Main Sources of Consultation and information The following information sources were consulted:

 DAU / NPWS consultation (consultation response dated 13th January 2015);  Site visits and surveys – 17th July 2013, 23rd January 2015;  National Parks and Wildlife Services online MapViewer - http://www.npws.ie/mapsanddata/ ;  National Biodiversity Centre Database - http://maps.biodiversityireland.ie/#/Home .

2.0 DESCRIPTION AND FEATURES OF THE PROJECT AND AREA

2.1 Location The site is located between the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) lifeboat station and Rosses Point pier in Rosses Point, Co Sligo lying southwest on the Rosses Point peninsular (Figure 1). The site can be found at grid reference IG 630 397. The proposal is for the upgrade of the mooring and boat launch facilities at the site. This should allow for existing mooring arrangements to be regularised and will not increase the overall capacity of the harbour. Figures 2a to 2c show the existing overcrowding at the harbour. .The proposal includes the installation of moorings, provision of an improved slipway and to allow vital health and safety access improvements to vessels via a floating pontoon with an articulated access ramp from the RNLI forecourt.

This report provides an assessment of the potential impacts associated with the upgrade and extension of the existing slipway and raised walkway along with the installation of seabed moorings (either concrete blocks or metal weights) below low watermark and the insertion of gabions with associated mooring ropes. The proposal is situated within and adjacent to Cummeen Strand SPA (SPA Site Code: 004013) and Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) Special Area of Conservation (SAC 000627).

2.2 General layout and details of proposal The proposal is for regularisation of moorings, improved slipway and vital health and safety access improvements to vessels via a floating pontoon and articulated access ramp adjacent to the RNLI lifeboat station at Rosses Point, Co. Sligo. Figures 3-5 provide detailed drawings of the proposed works. The following improvements have been proposed:

 Extend and re-profile existing minor slipway to facilitate landing at low tide and to improve traction.  Repair / replace wall located above mean high water spring (MHWS), at top of beach between pier and slipway (as detailed in figures 3 & 9).  Provide access and endless rope type mooring arrangement for small craft/dinghies to east of RNLI station and include small undercliff path and fixings for endless ropes above the mean high water spring (MHWS) level as detailed in figures 3 and 8. MHWS is the average highest level that spring tides reach on over a period of time.  Provide floating pontoon and an access bridge from west side of RNLI station to facilitate all tidal safe boarding of craft. It has been proposed that in order for the existing slipway to reach the low water mark, an extension of 13 metres is likely to be required. It is envisaged that gabions will be used to provide the shore-side frame of the new walkways and then filled with rock or rapid set concrete so as to prevent any water contamination resulting from a new poured concrete extension works. The proposed extension to the slipway is situated to the west of the RNLI lifeboat slipway (which extends below the low water mark) and to the east of the existing pier (which extends further into the low water mark). Effectively the slipway is enclosed within an active boating area and the proposed alterations to the existing facility will provide for a safer and more user-friendly marina.

The site location is shown in figure 1 and the proposed site modifications are shown in figures 3, 4 and 5. Figures 2a to 2c show current arrangements and highlight the need for the works. Figures 6 – 10 also show the location of proposed works within the site in a photographic context. The location of the jetty in relation to Natura 2000 sites is shown on figure 11.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 3 Figure 1 - Site location on the Rosses Point peninsula

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 4 Figure 2a – Overcrowding at the existing harbour

Figure 2b – Overcrowding at the existing harbour

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 5 Figure 2c – Overcrowding at the existing harbour

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 6 Figure 3 – Layout of proposal elements

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 7 Figure 4 – Layout limited to new proposal elements

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 8 Figure 5 – Sections associated with proposal layout (Figure 3)

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 9 Figure 6 – Location of the proposed floating pontoon and extension to the slipway in relation to the existing RNLI lifeboat station at high tide

Figure X – Proposed location of

Location of articulated link to proposed floating

pontoon

Location of existing slipway

Figure 7 – Photo showing the limitations of the existing slipway and jetty at low tide with the existing pier to the west of the RNLI slipway

Extent of the existing slipway

Intertidal area used by trailers and boats beyond existing slipway

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 10 Figure 8 – Location of proposed new seaward wall with incorporated mooring fixings outlined in red (constructed of gabions) located to the east of the RNLI station

Figure 9 – Location of proposed replacement / reinstatement of existing concrete wall above MHWS. It is proposed that this will be constructed with rock filled gabions, in-situ concrete, pre-cast concrete or masonry concrete.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 11 The proposed extension to the existing slipway and raised walkway is situated between the existing pier to the west and the RNLI lifeboat slipway to the east thereby confining any potential impacts to the SAC or SPA to within a somewhat small and enclosed area that has historically been altered in order to facilitate local watercraft. Figure 10 shows the outline of the existing marine structures at the site and highlights the enclosed nature of the proposed slipway extension.

Figure 10 – Current extent of the slipway and raised walkway in relation to the RNLI slipway to the east and the pier to the west

2.3 Location in the context of Natura 2000 sites

2.3.1 General area The site is situated within a much used man-made boat harbour enclave that is located within or adjacent to both an SPA and SAC, falls within a wider landscape largely comprising coastal habitats, including saltmarsh, sand and mudflats that can be found at various distances from the proposal. The development is not connected to or necessary for the conservation status of the Natura 2000 sites.

2.3.2 Proximity to Natura designated areas The site is situated partly within Cummeen Strand SPA (SPA 004013) and wholly within Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) Special Area of Conservation (SAC 000627). The location of the proposal in relation to the Natura 2000 suites is shown in figure 11.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 12 Figure 11 - Site location in relation to designated areas (Natura 2000 sites)

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 13 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF NATURA 2000 SITES IN THE PROXIMITY OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1 Cummeen Strand SPA (Site Code: 004013) Cummeen Strand SPA comprises of both intertidal and terrestrial habitats. The slipway and associated works lie within the intertidal area of Cummeen Strand SPA.

3.1.1 Conservation Objectives The conservation objectives for Cummeen Strand SPA are outlined below. To maintain the special conservation interests for this SPA at favourable conservation status of the SPA for:  Light-bellied Brent Goose (Branta bernicla hrota) [A046]  Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) [A130]  Redshank (Tringa totanus) [A162]  Wetlands & Waterbirds [A999]

The interest features of Cummeen Strand SPA are listed in table 1, together with the seasonal population to which the interest relates.

Table 1 – Interest features of Cummeen Strand SPA (Site Code: 004013) Code Species common name Scientific name Status A046 Light-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota wintering A130 Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus wintering A162 Redshank Tringa totanus wintering

Table 2 - Population data for non-breeding waterbird Special Conservation Interest Species of Cummeen Strand SPA Site Special Conservation Baseline Period Recent Site Data Interest (SCIs) (1995/6 – 1999/00)1 (2006/07 – 2010/11)2 Light-bellied Brent Goose 223 (i) 481 (i) Oystercatcher 680 (n) 792 (n) Redshank 408 (n) 280

1 Baseline data is the 4-year mean peak for the period 1995/96 – 1999/00; 2 Recent site data is the mean peak for the 5-year period 2006/07 – 2010/11 (I-WeBS). (i) Denotes numbers of international importance; (n) Denotes numbers of all-Ireland importance. Note that thresholds differ for the baseline and recent time periods used (refer to Crowe et al. (2008) and Wetlands International, 2002 and Wetlands International, 2012 for national and international respectively).

Threats to interest features found within the Cummeen Strand SPA, having been generically identified in NPWS Article 12 reporting, have been further developed within the Cummeen Strand SPA Conservation Objectives Supporting Document (NPWS 2013c). These are set out below in Table 9 and considered in the screening matrix in Table 10. These detail the levels of usage by the designated species in specific areas within the SPA. As shown in figure 12 below, the SPA is divided into different sections, known as subsites. The proposal is situated within subsite 0C485 as shown in figure 13.

Table 3 shows the relationship between a species‟ long-term site trend and the current national trend for the 12-year period 1998/99 to 2010/11. The colour coding used represents the following cases:-

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 14  Green – species whose populations are stable or increasing at both site level and national level.  Orange – species whose populations are declining at both site level and national level. Therefore there is a potential for factors at a larger spatial scale to be influencing the observed trend at site level.

Table 3 – Species of Conservation Interest of Cummeen Strand SPA – Current Site Conservation Condition (Source: NPWS 2013). Special BoCCI Site Site Current Current Conservation Categorya Population Conservation National International Interests Trendb Condition Trendc Trendd Light-bellied Amber + 116 Favourable + 62.3 Increase Brent Goose Oystercatcher Amber + 17 Favourable + 14.5 Decline Redshank Red - 31 Unfavourable - 4.8 Stable/Increase aAfter Lynas et al. (2007) Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland (BoCCI); b Based on the comparison between baseline and recent means; cRecent national trend is for the 12 year period 1998/99 to 2010/11; d International trend after Wetland International (2012).

Table 4 - Cummeen Strand SPA sub site assessment (relevant sub-site highlighted in yellow) – total numbers during low tide surveys (across all behaviours and habitats) (L Low, M Moderate; H High V Very high) (Source: NPWS 2013a). Species Subsite Light- bellied Brent Goose Oystercatcher Redshank 0C445 H H H 0C446 M M V 0C447 L M 0C462 L L H 0C463 V M M 0C466 V V V 0C478 H H M 0C479 L 0C482 V M M 0C485 H M M

Table 5 - Cummeen Strand SPA sub site assessment (relevant sub-site highlighted in yellow) – total numbers roosting/other behaviour during LT surveys, intertidalI and subtidalII (L Low, M Moderate; H High V Very high) (Source: NPWS 2013a). Species Subsite Light- bellied Brent Light- bellied Brent Oystercatcher Redshank GooseI GooseII 0C445 V V 0C446 V 0C447 0C462 L 0C463 V H M V 0C466 H V V 0C478 H V 0C479 0C482 V V H V 0C485 V L

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 15 Table 6 - Cummeen Strand sub site assessment (relevant sub-site highlighted in yellow) – highest rank obtained (roosting/other behaviour) during either one of the high tide survey, intertidalI and subtidalII (Source: NPWS 2013a). Species Subsite Light- bellied Brent Light- bellied Oystercatcher Redshank GooseI Brent GooseII 0C445 3 4 0C446 1 3 0C447 0C462 1 5 0C463 2 6 0C466 2 1 1 0C478 1 2 2 0C479 0C482 1 2 2 0C485 6 1

Table 7 - Cummeen Strand Subsite assessment (relevant sub-site highlighted in yellow) – highest rank obtained during either one of the high tide surveys (Source: NPWS 2013a). Species Subsite Light- bellied Brent Oystercatcher Redshank Goose 0C445 4 4 4 0C446 3 2 3 0C447 6 0C462 1 1 6 0C463 2 6 5 0C466 7 1 1 0C478 3 3 2 0C479 0C482 1 3 7 0C485 6 7 4

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 16 Table 8 - Qualifying Features of Cummeen Strand Special Protection Area* Qualifying Habitats / interest Extent and Character

Light- bellied Brent Goose - Branta The conservation value is to be considered ‘A’ (Excellent). bernicla hrota (A046) The population is described as ‘C’, meaning it accounts for between 0% and 2% of the national population. The isolation is described as ‘C’, meaning the population is not isolated within the extended distribution range. The site supports an Internationally Important flock of Brent Geese (peak of 232 individuals in the winter of 1999/00, with the mean of peak monthly counts in the period 1996/99 (except 1998) being 228, peaking at 309) Oystercatcher - Haematopus The conservation value is to be considered ‘A’ (Excellent). ostralegus (A130) The population is described as ‘C’, meaning it accounts for between 0% and 2% of the national population. The isolation is described as ‘C’, meaning the population is not isolated within the extended distribution range. The site supports oystercatcher, with an average peak of 891 for the period. Redshank - Tringa tetanus (A162) The conservation value is to be considered ‘A’ (Excellent). The population is described as ‘C’, meaning it accounts for between 0% and 2% of the national population. The isolation is described as ‘C’, meaning the population is not isolated within the extended distribution range. The site supports Redshank, at an average peak of 501 for the period. Wetlands & Waterbirds (A999) Other species which occurred in significant numbers included Shelduck 80, Wigeon 178, Teal 70, Mallard 170, Red-breasted Merganser 17, Golden Plover 567, Lapwing 734, Knot 18, Sanderling 18, Dunlin 601, Bar-tailed Godwit 57, Curlew 546, Greenshank 18 and Turnstone 80. Whooper Swans also occurred (9), though they are not regular visitors. * - Extent and character details obtained from Site Synopsis Table 9 - Proximity of proposed development to qualifying interests of Cummeen Strand Special Protection Area Natura 2000 Site Interest Feature Closest Proximity Main Threats* Cummeen Light- bellied Brent As stated above, the Direct and indirect impacts to the Strand Special Goose - Branta proposal is located habitats of the bird species of Protected Area bernicla hrota within and adjacent to conservation interests (loss of the SPA. habitat) (SPA Site Code: Oystercatcher - 004035) Haematopus Direct loss of habitat to ostralegus development Redshank - Tringa Water quality/pollution totanus Disturbance including Wetlands & recreation/amenity use Waterbirds Introduction of alien invasive species Illegal Dumping Persecution (Poisoning) Disturbance from recreational/amenity use Inappropriate land management * - From Cummeen Strand SPA Conservation Objectives Supporting Document (NPWS 2013c)

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 17 Figure 12 - Waterbird distribution (dot-density diagrams) recorded during low tide surveys for light-bellied brent goose, redshank and oystercatcher (October 2010 – February 2011) (NPWS 2013a)

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 18 Figure 13 - Number of roosting birds and roost size for Cummeen Strand SPA (November 2010) (NPWS 2013a)

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 19 3.1.2 Screening Matrix Having set out the site features and known threats above, the Significance of Impact Matrix (Table 10) provides an analysis of the potential for the proposal to result in a significant adverse effect on the SPA taking account of the known threats to the site listed above. It is important to note at this stage that a potential significant effect can only be ruled out if there is considered to be no risk. Any uncertainty must result in potential significant effect being assumed.

The Significance of Impact Matrix uses a number of specific terms to conclude on the potential for significant effect. The term ‘Likely Significant Effect’ is used where a plan or project is likely to undermine any of the site’s conservation objectives, the term ‘Potential Significant Effect’ is used where a plan or project has an indicated potential to undermine any of the site’s conservation objectives, but where doubt exists about the risk of a significant effect in the current context. Nevertheless where doubt exists about the risk of a significant effect, use of the precautionary principle requires this effect to be considered appropriately within the screening process. The term ‘No Potential Significant Effect’ is used where it can be concluded with confidence that there is no potential causal link.

3.1.3 Conclusion of significant effect It is considered in the screening matrix that the avoidance of any potential for significant effects on the Cummeen Strand SPA cannot be guaranteed at this stage. Although the works are within an area that has already undergone significant modification in terms of infrastructure and is already a working marina, the precautionary principle and the very nature of some aspects of the work (notably the slipway extension) is occurring within the Natura 2000 sites (and specifically within the intertidal zone), means that the potential for significant effect cannot be ruled out.

Potential impacts on the designation features of the Natura 2000 sites relate to the loss of potential feeding habitat as a result of building the slipway extension and disturbance during the construction period. Since the works are not intended to increase the capacity of operations at the site, there is not considered to be any potential for increased disturbance from the on-going operation of the proposal.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 20 Table 10 - Significance of Impact Matrix for Cummeen Strand Special Protection Area Potential Conservation Interest feature Impact type Potential Cause Significant objective Effect? Cummeen Strand Special Protection Area Light- bellied Brent To maintain the special Potential disturbance The works are within an area that has already undergone significant Goose - Branta conservation interests from the new modification in terms of infrastructure and is already a working marina. Since bernicla hrota for this SPA at development. the works are not intended to increase the capacity of operations at the site, Oystercatcher - favourable there is not considered to be any potential for increased disturbance from the Haematopus conservation status. on-going operation of the proposal since it will not result in an increased Potential ostralegus capacity of the marina area. Significant Effect The construction works themselves are not likely to increase the level of

activity significantly over and above current use of the area. However, some stages of construction, notably site preparation, have the potential to result in a temporary change in the nature and levels of noise in the area. It is considered that there is potential for an increase in disturbance in the area therefore, as a result of construction. Redshank - Tringa Direct loss of habitat The works at and above the intertidal area, comprising the access walkways totanus to ‘endless rope’ moorings and the floating jetty will not result in an impact on Wetlands & feeding habitats. The extension of the slipway will result in the loss of an Waterbirds area of intertidal habitat. Although degraded through compaction as a result Potential of continued movement of trailers in and out of the water, this area does Significant Effect have potential as a feeding resource for the bird species for which the SPA is designated. On this basis, and in line with the precautionary principle, it is considered that a significant effect on the SPA cannot be ruled out in this regard and should be assumed.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 21 3.2 Cummeen Strand/ Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) Special Area of Conservation (Site Code: 000627)

The jetty lies within the intertidal area of Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) Special Area of Conservation (SAC 000627).

3.2.1 Conservation Objectives Conservation objectives for the site are provided below. Objective: To maintain or restore the favourable conservation condition of the Annex I habitat(s) and/ or the Annex II species for which the SAC has been selected:

 Marsh Snail (Vertigo angustior) [1014]  Estuaries [1130]  Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide [1140]  Harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) [1365]  Embryonic shifting dunes [2110]  Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes) [2120]  Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes) [2130]  Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands [5130]  Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion) [7220]  Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus  River Lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) [1099]

Threats to interest features found within Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) Special Area of Conservation have been identified at a generic level in the 2013 NPWS Article 17 report ‘The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland’ (NPWS 2013d) and have been adapted from the Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC Conservation Objectives Supporting Documents (NPWS 2013b and c). Potential site threats as identified include:

 Decrease in water quality/Increased pollution  Development of marinas and ports  Disturbance to marine mammals  Direct loss of habitat to development  Recreational/amenity use  Erosion (natural and anthropogenic)  Tourism related development

These threats are further outlined in Table 11 and taken into account in the screening matrix in Table 13. The closest proximity of the proposal to the site selection features is provided in Table 12 and is derived from measurements taken from a geographic information system (GIS) measuring the site locations to the nearest known/ recorded location of each site selection feature.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 22 Table 11 - Qualifying Features of Cummeen Strand/ Drumcliff Bay SAC Qualifying Habitats / interest Extent and Character Estuaries (1130) This habitat is recorded in 151 10km squares in Ireland. The Habitat covers around 14% of the SAC, and representation is classified as ‘A’ which is Good representation.

Threats Impacts arising from fishing, coastal development and water pollution are considered the principal threats.

Conservation Status The overall conservation status of this habitat is considered to be Inadequate although future prospects are Favourable (NPWS 2013). Mudflats and sandflats not This habitat is recorded in 160 10km squares in Ireland. The covered by seawater at low tide Habitat covers around 46% of the SAC, and representation is (1140) classified as ‘A’ which is Good representation.

Threats The most serious threats arise from fishing, land claim and coastal protection works. In addition, there is some concern at the potential impact that hard coastal defence structures may have, in combination with sea-level rise, for the long-term extent of this habitat.

Conservation Status The overall conservation status of this habitat is considered to be Inadequate although future prospects are Favourable (NPWS 2013). Embryonic shifting dunes (2110) This habitat is recorded in 129 10km squares in Ireland. The Habitat covers around 1% of the SAC, and representation is classified as ‘B’.

Threats Many sites are subject to natural erosion processes and susceptible to removal by storms or high tides; human activities such as recreation and sand extraction can exacerbate this problem. Construction of coastal protection works or other infrastructure projects can also cut off the supply of sand that is vital for the natural functioning of this habitat.

Conservation Status The overall conservation status of this habitat is considered to be Inadequate (NPWS 2013). Shifting dunes along the shoreline This habitat is recorded in 129 10km squares in Ireland. The with Ammophila arenaria (white Habitat covers around 1% of the SAC, and representation is dunes) (2120) classified as ‘C’.

Threats Threats to this habitat include natural and man-made pressures. High visitor pressure on dunes causes trampling, which damages the plant cover. Interference with the supply of sand at a number of sites has negatively impacted on the natural functioning of this habitat, leading to a loss of area.

Conservation Status The overall conservation status of this habitat is considered to be Inadequate (NPWS 2013).

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 23 Qualifying Habitats / interest Extent and Character Fixed coastal dunes with This habitat is recorded in 130 10km squares in Ireland. The herbaceous vegetation (grey Habitat covers around 1% of the SAC, and representation is dunes) (2130) classified as ‘C’.

Threats Many sites have been significantly modified in the past for developments such as sports pitches, golf courses, caravan parks, coniferous plantations, housing, roadways and airstrips. This habitat continues to suffer intense pressure from development. Many sites suffer from the impacts of recreation. Pedestrian traffic and vehicle use can lead to the destruction of the vegetation cover, eventually leading to the exposure of bare sand, which becomes mobile.

Conservation Status The overall conservation status of this habitat is considered to be Bad (NPWS 2007). Petrifying springs with tufa This habitat is recorded in 445 10km squares in Ireland. The formation (Cratoneurion) (7220) Habitat covers around 1% of the SAC, and representation is classified as ‘B’.

Threats Negative actions such as land reclamation, turf cutting, and drainage continue to impact on the habitat, degrading its structure and functions. Only limited measures have been introduced to address these damaging activities, which are likely to have increased in severity since the 1990’s.

Conservation Status The overall conservation status of this habitat is considered to be Inadequate (NPWS 2013). Juniperus communis formations This habitat is recorded in 191 10km squares in Ireland. The on heaths or calcareous Habitat covers around 1% of the SAC, and representation is grasslands (5130) classified as ‘C’.

Threats Overgrazing, fire, agricultural expansion and poor regeneration are all threats to the habitat.

Conservation Status The overall conservation status of this habitat is considered to be Inadequate (NPWS 2013). Common Seal Phoca vitulina This habitat is recorded in 81 10km squares in Ireland. (1365) Threats The main threats to the species are continued by-catch in fishing gear, occasional illegal culling, competition for prey resources with fisheries and disturbance at key breeding and moulting haul-out sites.

Conservation Status The overall conservation assessment for this species is Favourable (NPWS 2013). Narrow-mouthed Whorl Snail This species is recorded in 32 10km squares in Ireland. Vertigo angustior (1014) Threats Threats to this species include drainage of wetlands, sheep

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 24 Qualifying Habitats / interest Extent and Character grazing and over-exploitation of dune sites.

Conservation Status The overall conservation assessment for this species is Inadequate (NPWS 2013). Lamprey species Sea lamprey are recorded in 35 10km squares in Ireland.  Sea Lamprey River lamprey are recorded in 203 10km squares in Ireland. Petromyzon marinus (1095)  River Lamprey Lampetra Threats fluviatilis (1099) Threat to these species have not been identified within the conservation objectives supporting documents for the site. Threat identified within the most recent Article 17 reporting are generally the same for each species and include dredging / removal of limnic sediments, changes in siltation rates and dumping / deposition of sediments, barriers to migration and point source pollution to surface water.

Conservation status The overall conservation assessment for Sea lamprey is Bad (NPWS 2013). The overall conservation assessment for River Lamprey is Favourable (NPWS 2013).

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 25 Table 12 - Proximity of proposed development to designated features of Cummeen Strand/ Drumcliff Bay SAC.

Natura 2000 Site Interest Feature Closest Proximity

Cummeen Strand/ Estuaries The proposed works are located within and adjacent Drumcliff Bay SAC to the SAC. At its nearest this feature occurs some (Site Code: IE 1.3 kilometres to the east of the proposal. This is 000627) further indicated in figure 14.

Mudflats and sandflats not The proposed alterations to the existing pier are covered by seawater at low located within the SAC and around 850 metres from tide this feature at the closest point.

Embryonic shifting dunes It is considered likely that this feature occurs at its nearest point in the vicinity of Lower Rosses, around along the shoreline with 2 km from the proposed works. Ammophila arenaria (white dunes)

Fixed coastal dunes with It is considered likely that this feature occurs at its herbaceous vegetation (grey nearest point in the vicinity of Rosses Point beach, dunes) around 600 metres from the proposed works.

Petrifying springs with tufa The springs occur along seepage zones in clay sea formation (Cratoneurion) cliffs on the northern side of Sligo Harbour.

No tufa springs occur in the vicinity of the proposal.

Juniperus communis This feature occurs within terrestrial parts of the formations on heaths or SAC landward of Rosses Point. calcareous grasslands This feature does not occur in the vicinity of the proposal.

Phoca vitulina Common Seal This species has the potential to be recorded throughout the marine areas of the SAC and occurs in the channel adjacent to the proposal.

Vertigo angustior Narrow- This species been recorded from sand dunes at mouthed Whorl Snail Killaspugbrone, north of Strandhill.

There is no suitable habitat for this species in the vicinity of the proposal.

Lamprey species These features may occur within the main tidal  Sea Lamprey channel adjacent to the proposed works. No Petromyzon information exists within the SAC Conservation marinus (1095) Objectives supporting documentation on their known  River Lamprey distribution or status within the site. Lampetra fluviatilis (1099)

The mapped distribution of designated habitats and species in relation to the site, as taken from the NPWS 2013 ‘Conservation objectives supporting document – Marine habitats and species’ document and are provided in figures 14 to 17.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 26 Figure 14 - Extent of Estuaries in Cummeen Strand/Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC (Source: NPWS 2013a)

Site location -

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 27 Figure 15 - Extent of Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide in Cummeen Strand/Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC (Source: NPWS 2013a)

Site location -

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 28 Figure 16 - Distribution of marine community types in Cummeen Strand/Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC (Source: NPWS 2013a)

Site location -

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 29 Figure 17 - Known breeding sites (left) and known resting haul-out sites (non-breeding) (right) of harbour seal in Cummeen Strand/Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC (Source: NPWS 2013a)

Site location -

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 30 Figure 18 – Location of important coastal habitats within the SAC, mapped during a coastal monitoring project 2004 -2006, as highlighted in the NPWS conservation objectives supporting document - coastal habitats (NPWS 2013b)

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 31 3.2.2 Screening Matrix Having set out the site features and known or likely threats above, as derived from NPWS data and site surveys, the Significance of Impact Matrix (Table 13 below) provides an analysis of the potential for the proposal to result in a significant adverse effect on the Natura 2000 site taking account of the known threats to the site listed above. It is important to note at this stage that a potential significant effect can only be ruled out if there is considered to be no risk, any uncertainty must result in potential significant effect being assumed.

3.2.3 Conclusion on significant effect Table 13 below concludes a finding of ‘Potential Significant Effect’ on the Cummeen Strand/ Drumcliff Bay SAC as a result of the potential impact on the site as a whole. Although the proposal is distant from the conservation feature habitats and species within the SAC, it will result in direct loss of some intertidal habitat.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 32 Table 13 - Significance of Impact Matrix of Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay SAC

Conservation Potential Significant Interest feature Impact type Potential Cause objective Effect? Cummeen Strand/ Drumcliff Bay SAC: IE 000627 Estuaries (1130) Aquaculture, fishing, coastal There will be a small loss in intertidal / sub-

development and water pollution. tidal habitat associated with the extension of an existing slipway within the SAC. As can be No Potential Significant seen from figure 14 the site is not situated in Effect the vicinity of habitat classified as Estuaries (1130).

Mudflats and sandflats Aquaculture, fishing, bait digging, No reasonable potential link – This habitat is not covered by seawater removal of fauna, reclamation of found over 800m to the south and east of the at low tide (1140) land, coastal protection works and proposed works and will not be directly No Potential Significant Maintain habitat at invasive species. affected. The works are too small to have any Effect favourable conservation potential for indirect impact. The recorded status. distribution of this habitat type is shown in figure 15.

Embryonic shifting dunes Natural erosion processes, human No reasonable potential link – the habitat does

(2110) activities such as recreation and not occur at or near the location and there will sand extraction, construction of be no increase in recreation or amenity use No Potential Significant coastal protection works, associated with the development. The location Effect pressures of recreation and of this habitat in relation to the proposal is coastal stabilisation. shown in figure 18.

Shifting dunes along the High visitor pressure on dunes No reasonable potential link – the habitat does shoreline with Ammophila causes trampling. not occur at or near the location and there will No Potential Significant arenaria (white dunes) be no increase in recreation or amenity use Effect (2120) associated with the development.

Fixed coastal dunes with Modification for developments No reasonable potential link – the habitat does No Potential Significant herbaceous vegetation such as sports pitches, golf not occur at or near the location. The location

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 33 Conservation Potential Significant Interest feature Impact type Potential Cause objective Effect? (grey dunes) (2130) courses, caravan parks, of this habitat in relation to the proposal is Effect coniferous plantations, housing, shown in figure 18. roadways and airstrips. Impacts of recreation, pedestrian traffic and vehicle use, overgrazing and undergrazing as well as the

introduction of non-native plant Maintain habitats and species. species for which the SAC Petrifying springs with Land reclamation, turf cutting, and No reasonable potential link – the habitat does has been selected at No Potential Significant tufa formation drainage. not occur at or near the location. favourable conservation Effect (Cratoneurion) (7220) status. Juniperus communis Overgrazing, fire, agricultural No reasonable potential link – the habitat does formations on heaths or expansion and poor regeneration. not occur at or near the location. No Potential Significant calcareous grasslands Effect (5130)

Phoca vitulina Harbour Continued by-catch in fishing No potential link – The site is not located close Seal (1365) gear, occasional illegal culling, to a known haul-out site. The recorded competition for prey resources distribution of harbour seal as shown in figure with fisheries and disturbance at 17 above shows that the site is not situated No Potential Significant key breeding and moulting haul- close to any known resting haul-out sites (non- Effect out sites. breeding) of harbour seal.

There will be no increased disturbance of potential impacts on food availability (fisheries)

Lamprey species Dredging / removal of limnic There will be no impact on limnic sediments –  Sea Lamprey sediments. Changes in siltation all works are within tidal waters. The works Potential Significant Effect Petromyzon rates and dumping / deposition of will not result in any potential barriers to marinus (1095) sediment (riverine). migration.  River Lamprey

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 34 Conservation Potential Significant Interest feature Impact type Potential Cause objective Effect? Lampetra Barriers to migration The construction works will involve the use of fluviatilis (1099) machinery that have potential to leak Point source pollution to surface hydrocarbons. waters

Vertigo angustior Narrow- Drainage of wetlands, sheep No reasonable potential link – the feature does No Potential Significant mouthed Whorl Snail grazing and over-exploitation of not occur at or near the location. Effect (1014) dune sites.

Entire Site Maintain the Annex I Potential for an decrease in water Potential for spillage during construction phase habitats for which the SAC quality/ Increased potential for due to the use of machinery on or adjacent to Potential Significant Effect has been selected at pollution the site. favourable conservation status Development of marinas and ports There will be a small loss in intertidal / subtidal habitat associated with the extension of Potential Significant Effect an existing slipway within the SAC as outlined in section 2.2.

Disturbance to marine mammals No potential link – no increase in recreation or Maintain the Annex II other potentially disturbing activity (including No Potential Significant species for which the during construction) in the vicinity of marine Effect cSAC has been selected mammal key areas (see above). at favourable conservation status Dumping at sea No potential link – there will be no seaward No Potential Significant works associated with the proposal. Effect

Direct loss of habitat to There will be a small loss in intertidal / sub- development tidal habitat associated with the extension of Potential Significant Effect an existing slipway within the SAC.

Recreational/amenity use The proposal is to regularise current levels of No Potential Significant use rather than increase recreation or other Effect

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 35 Conservation Potential Significant Interest feature Impact type Potential Cause objective Effect? potentially disturbing activity.

Agricultural No reasonable potential link – there is no No Potential Significant improvements/Reclamation management link between the proposal and Effect agriculture within the SAC.

Drainage / Changes in local No potential link. No Potential Significant hydrology including water Effect abstraction

Erosion (natural and Although the proposal includes the extension anthropogenic) of an existing slipway by 18 metres, this is not No Potential Significant considered to have potential for impact on Effect sediment budgets or changes to erosion or accretion processes within the estuary.

Agricultural abandonment No potential link – no link to land management No Potential Significant within the SAC. Effect

Overgrazing / undergrazing No potential link – no link to land management No Potential Significant within the SAC. Effect

Bracken and scrub encroachment No potential link – no link to land management No Potential Significant within the SAC. Effect

Tourism related development The structure is intended for use by primarily private and some limited commercial watercraft. There will be no increase in usage No Potential Significant of the area by watercraft as the proposed woks Effect are for alterations to insure the safety of those using the slipway and associated moorings

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 36 Conservation Potential Significant Interest feature Impact type Potential Cause objective Effect? etc.

Introduction of alien invasive No reasonable potential link – there is no No Potential Significant species management link between the proposal and Effect the SAC.

Illegal Dumping No reasonable potential link– no significant No Potential Significant waste arising. Effect

Burning No reasonable potential link– no burning of No Potential Significant waste arising from the proposal. Effect

Quarrying/removal of sand No reasonable potential link– no significant No Potential Significant removal of materials from the site. Effect

Aquaculture No potential link – no link to aquaculture No Potential Significant operations or land use within the SAC. Effect

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 37 4.0 CONCLUSIONS OF SCREENING ASSESSMENT

4.1 Cummeen Strand SPA On the basis of the screening assessment and application of the precautionary principle, indicators of significance highlighted the following potential direct and localised interference with the structure and function of the Cummeen Strand SPA:

 The area of intertidal habitat that will be lost to the extension of the slipway has become compacted over years of use for launching boats and is likely to be of limited use for feeding birds. However, as a loss of potential feeding habitat within the intertidal zone of the SPA, in line with the precautionary principle, it is concluded that a potential significant effect cannot be conclusively ruled out at this stage.

 It is considered that there will be no increased disturbance to the designation features of Cummeen Strand SPA as a result of the ongoing use of the proposed alterations/extension of the existing slipway, jetty and moorings. Due to the existing use of the area, the enclosed nature of the proposal in relation to the SPA, and the fact that the proposal will formalise existing arrangements and make mooring easier rather than increasing capacity, it is considered that there is no potential for significant adverse effects on the SPA designation features as a result of disturbance from ongoing use.

 The construction works have the potential to result in a temporary increased level of noise and change in the nature of noise in the area during certain stages of the construction process, notably relating to sudden loud noises associated with site preparation and use of heavy machinery. It is considered that there is potential for temporary adverse effects on the SPA designation features as a result of disturbance during construction operations at the site.

4.2 Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC On the basis of the screening assessment and application of the precautionary principle, indicators of significance show that there is potential for direct and localised interference with the structure and function of the Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC:

 The construction works have the potential, without appropriate mitigation, to result in localised pollution events due to leakage or spillage of fuel associated with construction machinery. Although unlikely, localised pollution events have the potential to adversely affect lamprey and other aquatic species. It is considered that, although unlikely, potential for temporary adverse impact through pollution events on river and sea lamprey cannot be ruled out at this stage.  The area of intertidal habitat that will be lost to the extension of the slipway has become compacted over years of use for launching boats and is of limited ecological value compared to other areas of intertidal habitat within the SAC. However, considered as loss of an area of intertidal habitat within the SAC, in line with the precautionary principle, it is concluded that a potential significant effect cannot be conclusively ruled out at this stage.

Based on the findings of the screening assessment (stage one), there is a need for a more detailed assessment of the potential impact on both Cummeen Strand SPA and Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC resulting from the proposal, in order to inform an Appropriate Assessment. This is provided in sections 5 to 8 of this report. These sections should be considered in conjunction with the screening information in previous sections.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 38 5.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS The screening assessment concluded that, potential significant effects on the Cummeen Strand SPA and Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC could not be ruled out at the screening stage. Specifically, there was considered to be a potential significant effect on the following designation features of the SPA and SAC:

Potential impacts on Cummeen Strand SPA

 Loss of up to 65m2 of intertidal feeding habitat due to the extension of the slipway. The area has become compacted over years of use for launching boats and is likely to be of limited use for feeding birds. However, as a loss of potential feeding habitat within the intertidal zone of the SPA, in line with the precautionary principle, it has been concluded that a potential significant effect cannot be conclusively ruled out at this stage.

 A temporary enhanced level of noise and change in the nature of noise in the area during certain stages of the construction process, notably relating to sudden loud noises associated with site preparation and use of heavy machinery. It has been considered that there is potential for temporary significant adverse effects on the SPA designation features as a result of disturbance during construction.

Potential impacts on Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC

 Loss of up to 65m2 of intertidal habitat to the extension of the slipway. The area has become compacted over years of use for launching boats. However, considered as loss of an area of intertidal habitat within the SAC, in line with the precautionary principle, it has been concluded that a potential significant effect cannot be conclusively ruled out at this stage.

 Potential pollution of intertidal habitat and surface waters resulting from spillage or pollution events during construction, resulting in potential temporary impacts on intertidal habitats and aquatic fauna including sea and river lamprey.

The assessment below considers the potential effects on designation features of the SPA and SAC. Specific issues relating to the direct loss of habitat within the Natura 2000 sites, disturbance arising from noise during construction operations, the potential pollution from hydrocarbons and cement are addressed. The assessment is concentrated on the features and potential impacts highlighted in the screening assessment.

5.1 Habitat description

5.1.1 Overall habitat description The harbour lies on the northern side of a tidal channel leading in to Sligo Bay. The channelled and protected nature of the area means that it has a somewhat truncated zonation from terrestrial through to subtidal habitats. This, together with the existing protection afforded by the piers and slipways has resulted in habitats aligned with sheltered coastal areas. The intertidal habitat includes a mix of substrates including sands and gravels, pebbles and cobbles with larger boulders in some areas. The angular nature of these (as shown in figure 19) suggests a relatively immobile accumulation and places the intertidal habitats within the wider Fossitt classification of Littoral Rock (LS).

The area holds a zonation of habitats from terrestrial through to sublittoral habitats. The terrestrial habitat at the site includes vegetated banks, scrub and amenity grassland. This makes a sharp transition (as is usual with protected shore areas) into the supralittoral zone, characterised by a high

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 39 incidence of lichens. This ‘lichen’ zone is truncated at the location, again typical of sheltered shore areas. The upper intertidal area holds limited seaweed cover and mainly includes channel wrack Pelvetia canaliculata and some occasional bladder wrack Fucus vesiculosus and spiral wrack Fucus spiralis. The mid intertidal area is dominated by bladder wrack with areas of sparse cover of sea lettuce Ulva sp.. The lower intertidal areas are more sparsely covered in seaweed but include areas of serrated wrack Fucus serratus (notably attached to the rockier areas adjacent to the RNLI slipway) and occasional sugar kelp Saccharina latissimi in the mixed sediment areas. Flat periwinkle Littorina littoralis, limpet Patella species, Spirorbis species, the barnacle Semibalanus balanoides and unidentified tube-dwelling polychaete worms were among invertebrate species noted during surveys.

Figure 19 – Intertidal habitat substrate within the existing harbour area showing angular rock and mixed sediments

Although the intertidal habitat at the site shares significant attributes with the habitat classification Sheltered Rocky Shores LR3 (in terms of seaweed and faunal species found within the various intertidal zones), the mixed nature of the substrate classifies it as Mixed Substrata Shores LR4. The exception to the is the area bordering the RNLI slipway which, despite originating from placed boulders to protect the slipway, has been classified as Sheltered Rocky Shores LR3 due to its high resemblance of that natural habitat. These habitats do not correspond to Annex I habitat types.

The site was surveyed at low tide on a 0.20m low, allowing areas below Mean Low Water Springs (sublittoral fringe habitats) to be surveyed. These habitats fall within the Marine Sublittoral (Subtidal) categories within Fossitt Classification. The habitat within this zone includes areas that are less consolidated and hold finer sediments. Characterised by a reduced aggregation of seaweeds, with different species occurring, such as sugar kelp Saccharina latissimi, compared to the intertidal habitat, they fall into the Fossitt category Infralittoral Mixed Sediments SS4. Fossitt (2000) states that this habitat may correspond to the Annex I habitat ‘Estuaries’ (1130). However, as detailed in the NPWS site conservation objectives, this annexed habitat occurs at the nearest point 1.3km to the east as shown in figure 14.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 40 The terrestrial habitat bordering the site generally comprises steep vegetated banks backed by a fuchsia hedge (in the case of the harbour itself), hawthorn and elder scrub (in the case of the area to the east of the RNLI station).

Figure 20 - Intertidal area that will be affected by the slipway extension. Note the reduced seaweed cover in comparison to adjacent areas due to use of intertidal area by trailers and vehicles over time.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 41 5.1.2 Habitat descriptions at proposed infrastructure locations Figure 21 below marks the location of various elements of the project.

Figure 21 – location of project elements described below

1 4

Figure 22 - Image of harbour at extreme low water springs (low tide at a 0.20m tide). Showing approximate location in habitat context of concrete anchors (orange), approximate extent of floating pontoon (blue), approximate line of connecting chains (yellow) and approximate extent of slipway extension (red).

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 42 Proposed walkway to north of existing harbour (location 1 on figure 21)

The proposed path to the north of the existing harbour lies within an area holding an existing concrete wall backing onto an area of grassy bank. The bank largely comprises grasses such as red fescue, and is backed by a planted fuscia hedge. The vertical aspect of the small concrete wall holds the truncated lichen zone at the top of the intertidal zone.

Figure 23 – Location of proposed replacement of concrete wall and pathway (location 1 on figure 21)

Proposed extension to existing slipway (location 2 on figure 21)

The area that will be lost to the extension of the slipway comprises mixed substrate intertidal habitat. The area lies directly down slope from the existing slipway and the access by trailers and vehicles has resulted in a noted lack of seaweed cover in comparison to habitat either side (as can be seen in figure 20). This area holds limited value in habitat terms. The area appears compacted to other habitat in the area, with gravels, pebbles and cobbles largely pressed into the softer sediments by vehicle and trailer movements as shown in figure 24. Where seaweeds occur, they are more limited in growth and are dominated by bladder wrack Fucus vesiculosus and some small areas of sea lettuce Ulva sp..

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 43 Figure 24 – Substrate at location of proposed slipway extension

Proposed location of floating pontoon (location 3 on figure 21)

The floating pontoon will connect to the west side of the RLNI station along the line of existing gabions. The pontoon will not connect to any intertidal habitat but will lie above both Mixed Substrata Shores and Infralittoral Mixed Sediment habitats. The concrete anchors will be placed within the latter habitat although these specific locations comprise fairly soft muddy sand. The concrete blocks will attach to the floating pontoon via 20m long anchor chains. These will lie along Infralittoral Mixed Sediment habitat.

Proposed walkway and endless rope moorings to east of existing harbour (location 4 on figure 21)

The proposed path and moorings to the east of the existing harbour lies within an area above mean high water springs where the lichen splash zone undergoes a short transition into a steep bank holding hawthorn scrub with some elder. The Bottom of the bank is populated by a dense stand of tree mallow Lavatera arborea. There is an existing rubble wall in an advanced state of disrepair and a small storage shed at the location.

There are a number of rope and concrete anchor moorings in the vicinity.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 44 Figure 25 – Habitats at location of proposed walkway and endless moorings to the east of the existing harbour (location 4 on figure 21)

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 45 Figure 26 – Habitat map of area to Fossitt Level 3 classification

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 46 5.2 Potential Impacts on the Cummeen Strand SPA

5.2.1 Potential for disturbance All the species cited as potentially affected by the proposal during the screening process are primarily wintering and passage birds. Disturbance, whether temporary or permanent, can affect wintering birds in a number of ways. Energy budgets are critical to wintering and passage birds; there is a need for them to obtain as much food as possible during feeding periods in order to maintain energy budgets. Disturbance during feeding both reduces the feeding period, effectively reduces the feeding habitat area (by making some areas out of bounds), and increases energy expended, both as a result of the requirement to flee the disturbance and as a result of raised heart rates (eg Platteeuw et al, 1997). Disturbance can also result in species having to move to feed in less optimal areas. In a study delta in south-west Netherlands, Meire (1989) found the densities of diving ducks to be unrelated to food supply but negatively affected by coastal engineering works.

There have been many studies undertaken on disturbance of waterbirds, with many of these concentrating on recreational impacts or large scale construction activities. A useful literature review was undertaken by Cutts et al (2009) which looked at over 100 sources and summarised findings, including:

 The avifaunal community will vary in its sensitivity to disturbance on a seasonal basis;

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Ground excavation / Earthworks with tracked excavator – 78-86dB (at 10 metres)

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 47  Breaking and spreading rubble (most similar to placement of rocks) with tracked excavator – 82-86dB(A)

In general terms, species most at risk from disturbance are those using the intertidal areas adjacent to the proposed works. Disturbance would be temporary, during activities at specific parts of the tidal cycle. It is also possible that there will be temporary disturbance of the species feeding in the wider area during higher parts of the tidal cycle due to movement and sudden noise associated with placement of rocks. This could reduce the extent to which species are able to access feeding areas immediately offshore from the works during high tidal cycles during the active construction operations.

Light-bellied Brent Goose A species mainly found on coastal estuaries throughout the higher latitudes. Light-bellied brent geese are grazers and show a particular preference for sea grass, sea lettuce and algae while on their wintering grounds. The first arrivals begin in late August (Snow et al. 1998).

Status within area (taken from Cummeen Strand SPA (Site Code: 004013) Supporting Document (NPWS 2013a) – see document for methods)

Low tide (across all behaviours and habitats) sub-site assessment – High (top third of ranking placings – relating to total number of count sections the species was recorded in).

High Tide (across all behaviours and habitats) sub-site assessment – 6 (ranked 6th out of 10 subsites within which the species was recorded during high tide surveys).

The species was not recorded roosting within the sub-site during high tide roost surveys.

It is considered that light-bellied brent geese are likely to be affected by disturbance during the construction phase of the project while foraging at low tide. The site surveys noted some potential grazing areas holding sea lettuce in the vicinity of the proposed works.

Redshank A species which prefers to nest at inland wet grassland sites and on coastal salt marshes. The species forages mostly along the upper shore of estuaries and along muddy rivers on nereid worms and water snails. The birds begin to leave their breeding areas around June and move from the inland to the coastal sites (Snow et al. 1998).

Status within area (taken from Cummeen Strand SPA (Site Code: 004013) Supporting Document (NPWS 2013a) – see document for methods)

Low tide (across all behaviours and habitats) sub-site assessment – Moderate (mid-third of ranking placings – relating to total number of count sections the species was recorded in).

High Tide (across all behaviours and habitats) sub-site assessment – 4 (ranked 4th out of 10 subsites within which the species was recorded during high tide surveys) 1 (ranked 1st out of 10 subsites within which the species was recorded during high tide roost surveys).

It is considered that redshanks have the potential to be affected by disturbance during the construction phase of the project while roosting at high tide and, to a much lesser degree, foraging at low tide.

Oystercatcher A species which prefers to nest at coastal sites but occurs increasingly in inland locations in parts of its range. It primarily feeds on hard shelled marine molluscs in intertidal areas but also soft-bodied marine and terrestrial invertebrates. The species is mainly migratory, with individuals mainly arriving on moulting or wintering grounds in August to September and returning to breeding grounds between January and April (Snow et al. 1998).

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 48 Status within area (taken from Cummeen Strand SPA (Site Code: 004013) Supporting Document (NPWS 2013a) – see document for methods)

Low tide (across all behaviours and habitats) sub-site assessment – Moderate (mid-third of ranking placings – relating to total number of count sections the species was recorded in).

High Tide (across all behaviours and habitats) sub-site assessment – 7 (ranked 7th out of 10 subsites within which the species was recorded during high tide surveys) 6 (ranked 6th out of 10 subsites within which the species was recorded during high tide roost surveys).

It is considered that oystercatchers are most likely to be affected by disturbance during the construction phase of the project while foraging at low tide, although this is likely to be limited in potential extent.

As detailed above, there is potential for inappropriately scheduled construction to result in a temporary and limited adverse impact on SPA interest features. Appropriate mitigation is required in this regard in order to avoid an adverse impact on the integrity of the SPA and is set out in section 7.

5.2.2 Potential for impact on feeding habitat

The potential for impact on feeding habitat is limited to species that feed within intertidal areas, in particular mudflat and sandy habitats. The works will not result in a significant changes to subtidal habitats, however there will be a small loss of intertidal habitat associated with the slipway extension. The potential for impact is twofold:

 Potential impacts on bird prey species (eg. invertebrate populations) resulting from pollution risk from the works;  Loss of feeding habitat beneath the footprint of the proposed slipway works;  .

Pollution Works undertaken at the site will require the use of a mechanical excavator. The use of such vehicles in sensitive areas always brings with it the risk of hydrocarbon pollution if vehicles are re-fuelled on site. Such pollution events can impact on local fish and invertebrate populations, thus impacting on prey availability for birds.

In addition, the works will require the use of concrete within or in close proximity to the intertidal zone. This introduces the risk of concrete or cement spillage into the intertidal zone or water column itself.

Appropriate mitigation in the form of a works method statement to avoid any pollution potential and to ensure appropriate response to any spill or pollution event is appropriate. Appropriate mitigation in this regard is detailed in section 7.

Loss of feeding habitat Temporary and effective loss of feeding habitat, due to disturbance during construction, has been considered in section 5.2.1. In addition, the proposal will result in the loss of up to 65m2 of intertidal mixed sediment. The area affected has become somewhat compacted and denuded of seaweed growth in relation to adjoining habitat, as has been shown in section 5.1.1 and figure 24. The historic loss of seaweeds and compaction of substrate is likely to have resulted in some localised availability of invertebrate prey for species such as redshank and oystercatcher. Although the higher light conditions may result in encouragement of sea lettuce that would be grazed by light-bellied brent geese, this would be subject to the same mechanical impacts that has led to a reduced cover of other seaweeds. The field survey revealed that cover of sea lettuce on the substrate within the footprint of

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 49 the proposed slipway is extremely limited. The area is therefore considered not to be of high feeding importance for the species and the loss of the area is not considered to be significant for SPA interest features due to its limited size, the nature of the habitat, enclosed nature, level of use, and compacted nature.

While the extension of the existing slipway further into this area is not considered to be a significant impact, it is important that the works are specified and undertaken in such a way so as not to further impact on the quality of the surrounding habitat for feeding birds. Appropriate mitigation in this regard is detailed in section 7.

The placement of two concrete anchors for the pontoon will be within subtidal habitat and will have no impact on feeding habitat SPA interest features.

5.3 Potential Impacts on the Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC In stage one of this report, the screening process highlighted that there is potential for the area of intertidal habitat, which will be lost to the extension of the slipway, has become compacted over years of use for launching boats and is of limited ecological value compared to other areas of intertidal habitat within the SAC. However, considered as loss of an area of intertidal habitat within the SAC, in line with the precautionary principle, it is concluded that a potential significant effect cannot be conclusively ruled. Consequently mitigation measures will therefore need to be implemented to avoid any significant effect. These are outlined in section 8.

It also concluded that, although there were no site conservation interest habitats within the vicinity of the proposed works (as shown in figures 13-17), there is potential for the proposal to impact on the ecological functioning of the wider SAC as a result of localised habitat loss or change and pollution risk. Pollution events also have the potential to impact on local fauna, including sea lamprey and river lamprey.

Habitat loss The estimated total loss of habitat within the SAC is approximately 13 x 5 metres. With the total area of the SAC stated to be 1732.43 ha, the loss represents around 0.00052% of the SAC of which is confined within an already frequently used marina and impacted by vehicle and boat movements. Considering the size of the area, the fact that it already comprises compacted and impacted habitat, and that it does not comprise or support an SAC selection feature, it is considered that the loss of this area will not adversely impact on the integrity of the SAC. Despite this, good practice requires that the physical impact on the wider area, as a result of construction activity (such as from access by heavy machinery) should be minimised through appropriate mitigation.

Pollution risk As with all projects working in the vicinity of water and / or sensitive habitats, there is a potential for impact as a result of pollution from fuel, oil and chemical spillage during construction. A hydrocarbon spillage event has the potential to impact severely, although temporarily on intertidal habitats and aquatic fauna, including sea lamprey and river lamprey.

Appropriate mitigation in the form of a works method statement to avoid any pollution potential and to ensure appropriate response to any spill or pollution event is appropriate and must be adhered to. Mitigation in this regard is detailed in section 7.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 50 Access during construction The works will result in the need to access different areas of intertidal habitat in addition to the slipway extension area for operations such as placement of concrete anchors for the pontoon and placement of gabions at the proposed walkway locations within the upper part of the existing harbour and to the east of the RNLI station.

Schlacher and Thompson (2008) undertook studies on the impact on off-road vehicles on the ecology of sandy beaches in Australia and found that beach traffic routes overlapped to a large extent with the distribution of invertebrate infauna in the sand. There seems to be little information, however on the recovery time of invertebrate infauna after access has ceased. Anonymous (1989) suggests that the use of machinery increases the degree of compaction of beach sediment and that the use of many smaller vehicles causes more damage than fewer large vehicles. Stephenson (1999) undertook a review of vehicle impacts on the biota of sandy beaches and dunes. Notable conclusions cited in the review included that van der Merwe & van der Merwe (1991), who looked at impacts on the beach and foreshore areas, concluded that intertidal animals (including Donax species) examined in the study appeared to be safe from damage by vehicles, even at relatively high traffic intensities, provided they were buried and the sand was reasonably compact.

In general, references on vehicle movements on intertidal areas suggest that using larger vehicles and reducing the total number of trips required during works will result in a reduced potential for impact on invertebrate fauna within the intertidal area. This, in turn, will also reduce potential impacts on feeding birds in the locality.

Although the works are limited in extent and unlikely to have a significant effect on the intertidal area through compaction, good practice and the precautionary principle places an onus on reducing any effects as far as possible. Mitigation in the form of a method statement that outlines the requirement to keep tracking over intertidal habitat to a minimum and within a delineated working area is appropriate. Mitigation in this regard is detailed in section 7.

Placement of sediment The extension of the slipway will result in the removal of mixed intertidal sediment over an area of 13m by around 5m. This may result in up to 19.5m3 of material. In line with best practice, this material should be kept within the sediment cell and used beneficially, for example by beach nourishment. The approach to this is usually to place the material within the upper intertidal area (for example in the case of backshore nourishment) and allow it to naturally dissipate through wave and tide action.

Studies have shown that the thickness of the applied sand/substrate determines the degree of burial of the organisms leading to high or even total mortality of buried benthic organisms and potential loss of prey for predators feeding on those organisms (Adriaanse and Coosen, 1991; Loffler and Coosen, 1995; Peterson et al., 2000). The lethal thickness of a layer of deposited sand goes up to a maximum of 90cm for some polychaetes (Loffler and Coosen, 1995; Essink, 1999).

This is not a beach nourishment project however, and it is different from the above nourishment projects in three critical areas in this respect:

 The aim of the project is to provide a slipway extension (and other ancillary measures) and the material will be placed on intertidal areas simply to ensure its beneficial use and that it is not lost from the sediment cell. There is therefore no requirement to place the sediment in such a way as to maximise its time in situ (ie a deep placement);  Suitable donor sites exist immediately adjacent to the location where the sediment will be taken from. This means that the infauna at the donor site and the recipient sites are likely to be similar or identical, so there may be less likelihood of die-off within the donor sediment;  The amount of material to be placed is extremely small.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 51 It is considered that if placed sediment is kept to a thickness of around 20-30cm, placed as near to the site of origin as possible and placed within the same intertidal zone as the site of origin, there will be no significant impact on the intertidal infauna while the material feeds naturally into the surrounding intertidal habitat. The above requirements should be incorporated into a construction method statement in order to ensure this is the case. Mitigation in this regard is detailed in section 7.

5.4 Summary of Potential Impacts Section 5.2 and 5.3 demonstrate that there is a risk to three species for which the Cummeen Strand SPA is designated as a result of temporary disturbance during construction. These are light-bellied brent goose, oystercatcher and redshank. There is also a potential risk of impact to surrounding intertidal areas within the Cummeen Strand SPA and the Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC as a result of impact from uncontrolled approaches to construction and / or pollution incidents and the placement of arising dredged material for the slipway construction. Appropriate mitigation is therefore required in these regards in order to avoid any potential impact on the Natura 2000 sites in question. Mitigation proposals to this end are provided in section 7.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 52 6.0 CONSIDERATION OF DIRECT, INDIRECT, CUMULATIVE AND IN- COMBINATION EFFECTS WITH OTHER PLANS & PROJECTS

6.1 Context

Article 6 of the EU Habitats Directive and Regulation 28 of the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 state that any plan or project that may, either alone or in combination with other activities, plans or projects, significantly affect a Natura 2000 site should be the subject of an Appropriate Assessment. The assessment of in-combination impacts is therefore an important part of the assessment process.

In-combination impacts can particularly be an issue when proposals have a small impact on Natura 2000 sites as a result of factors such as disturbance or pollution, and when other proposals also have a small impact, the result can be a significant impact on the Natura site.

6.2 In-combination Assessment

The proposal is for regularisation of moorings, improved slipway and vital health and safety access improvements to vessels via a floating pontoon and articulated access ramp adjacent to the RNLI lifeboat station at Rosses Point, Co. Sligo. The following improvements have been proposed:

Potential impacts associated with the proposal include those resulting from temporary and permanent habitat damage and disturbance of selected features of both the SPA (various waterbird species) and the SAC (loss of intertidal habitat).

The main potential ‘in-combination impacts’ that could arise from the proposal are those that relate to direct loss of habitat within the SAC and SPA, disturbance to SPA bird species, and pollution.

The above impacts have been considered in this assessment and have been assessed as potentially significant. Mitigation for all of these potential impacts is proposed in Section 7 in order to ensure that there is no significant impact on site selection features as a result of these impacts either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

There are no other known proposals in the locality with potential to affect intertidal habitat.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 53 7.0 MITIGATION OF EFFECTS

In section 5, the following issues were determined to have a potential significant effect on the Cummeen Strand SPA and Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC, and without mitigation, have the potential to adversely affect the integrity of the designation features of the Natura 2000 sites:

Cummeen Strand SPA

 Potential for impact on feeding and / or roosting populations of a number of species for which the SPA is designated as a result of temporary disturbance during construction. Taking account of seasonal movements and feeding behaviour of the species, it is considered that this risk exists mainly from November to February inclusive and, with the exception of redshank, mainly relates to low tide conditions.

 Potential risk of direct impact on intertidal feeding areas as a result of tracked or wheeled vehicles driving on intertidal areas during construction activity.

 Potential risk of localised pollution due to hydrocarbon or cement / concrete spillage during construction activity and consequent impact on wildfowl and wading bird prey species.

Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC

 Potential risk of direct impact on intertidal areas as a result of tracked or wheeled vehicles driving on intertidal areas during construction activity.

 Potential risk of localised pollution due to hydrocarbon or cement / concrete spillage during construction activity (and knock-on impacts on interest features such as lamprey species).

 Potential temporary impact on intertidal areas due to the inappropriate placement of sediment arising from the slipway extension.

Proposed mitigation is set out in the sub-sections below.

7.1 Cummeen Strand SPA - Potential for impact on feeding and / or roosting populations of species for which the SPA is designated as a result of temporary disturbance. In order to avoid disturbance on feeding and / or roosting populations of a number of species for which the SPA is designated plus Additional Special of Conservation Interest the following approach must be followed:

 Works will be limited to the period of May to the end of October inclusive only. Count data presented within the site conservation objectives document suggests that the peak usage of this area by wintering wildfowl (particularly light-bellied brent goose) is between the months November to February (NPWS 2013). It is therefore considered that with the above required timing of works, construction noise will not result in a significant impact on the sites designation features.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 54 7.2 Cummeen Strand SPA - Potential risk of direct impact on intertidal feeding areas as a result of tracked or wheeled vehicles driving on intertidal areas during construction activity. In order to avoid a potential risk of direct impact on intertidal feeding areas as a result of tracked or wheeled vehicles driving on intertidal areas during construction activity the following approach must be followed:

 Minimise access to the intertidal areas by tracked or wheeled vehicles during the construction phase. Works should be undertaken from the landward side wherever feasible to reduce impact to the foreshore. Access will only be allowed within an agreed working area confined to the existing harbour area and the immediate vicinity of the endless rope moorings to the east of the RNLI station.

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

 There will be no storage of material of any kind within the SPA boundary excepting beneficially placed dredgings.

7.3 Cummeen Strand SPA - Potential risk of localised pollution due to hydrocarbon spillage resulting from inappropriate re-fuelling methods (and potential knock-on impacts on bird prey availability). In order to avoid a potential risk of localised pollution due to hydrocarbon spillage resulting from inappropriate re-fuelling methods or concrete / cement leakage the following approach must be followed:

 No re-fuelling will be undertaken within the SPA boundary.  All fuels, lubricants and hydraulic fluids shall be kept in secure bunded areas at a minimum of 50m from the SPA boundary. The bunded area shall accommodate 110% of the total capacity of the containers within it. Containers must be properly secured to prevent unauthorised access and misuse.  An effective spillage procedure must be put in place with all staff properly briefed. Any waste oils or hydraulic fluids shall be collected, stored in appropriate containers and disposed of offsite in an appropriate manner.  Spill kits with an appropriate capacity for the contaminants used on site and the nature of the site must be kept on site and available throughout the construction process  Measures must be taken during all aspect of construction to ensure that no cement or concrete is allowed to enter intertidal waters. The use of concrete with a suitable drying time or appropriate protection of working areas, must be used tied where tidal sequences result in any risk of tidal contact with newly concreted areas.  Run off from hard surface areas and concrete mixing areas must not enter the intertidal zone so as to reduce the potential for contaminants entering the water.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 55 7.4 Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC - Potential risk of direct impact on intertidal areas as a result of tracked or wheeled vehicles during construction activity. In order to avoid a potential risk of direct impact on intertidal areas as a result of tracked or wheeled vehicles driving on intertidal areas during construction activity the following approach must be followed:

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

 There will be no storage of material of any kind within the SAC boundary excepting beneficially placed dredgings.

7.5 Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC - Potential risk of localised pollution due to hydrocarbon spillage resulting from inappropriate re-fuelling methods. In order to avoid a potential risk of localised pollution due to hydrocarbon spillage resulting from inappropriate re-fuelling methods the following approach must be followed:

 No re-fuelling will be undertaken within the SAC boundary.  All fuels, lubricants and hydraulic fluids shall be kept in secure bunded areas at a minimum of 50m from the SAC boundary. The bunded area shall accommodate 110% of the total capacity of the containers within it. Containers must be properly secured to prevent unauthorised access and misuse.  An effective spillage procedure must be put in place with all staff properly briefed. Any waste oils or hydraulic fluids shall be collected, stored in appropriate containers and disposed of offsite in an appropriate manner.  Spill kits with an appropriate capacity for the contaminants used on site and the nature of the site must be kept on site and available throughout the construction process  Measures must be taken during all aspect of construction to ensure that no cement or concrete is allowed to enter intertidal waters. The use of concrete with a suitable drying time or appropriate protection of working areas, must be used tied where tidal sequences result in any risk of tidal contact with newly concreted areas.  Run off from hard surface areas and concrete mixing areas must not enter the intertidal zone so as to reduce the potential for contaminants entering the water.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 56 7.6 Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC - Potential risk of localised intertidal impact from inappropriate placement of mixed sediments arising from excavation of slipway. In order to avoid a potential risk of localised temporary impacts resulting from the placement of the mixed sediment that arises from excavation for the new slipway, the following approach must be followed:

 Placed sediment must be kept to a thickness of around 20-30cm, placed as near to the site of origin as possible and placed within the same intertidal zone as the site of origin.

7.7 Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC and Cummeen Strand SPA – Ensuring compliance. In order to ensure the application of the above mitigation in a coherent way, it should be incorporated into the contractor’s method statement for the works.

7.8 Consideration of impact concerns raised by NPWS The concerns highlighted in the consultation responses from National Parks and Wildlife Service are shown below together with an outline of the measures that have been taken within this assessment to address them.

Consultee Concern Measures taken

National Parks and Wildlife Service

Direct loss of benthic habitat and Surveys and studies have been undertaken to ascertain communities within the Special Area proximity of site selection features. Areas have been avoided of Conservation/Special Protection and / or construction approaches required that result in no Area due to the footprint of the impact. development The area to be lost to slipway extension has been shown not to be an SAC feature and likely to be of limited value for SPA bird features.

Damage/Destruction to adjacent Construction approaches have been required that ensure no habitats within the Special Area of risk to adjacent habitats within the SPA and SAC. Conservation/Special Protection Area due to inappropriate site preparation and construction techniques Deterioration of the water quality Construction approaches have been required that ensure no within the Special Area of risk of pollution during construction. Conservation/Special Protection Area resulting from pollution during site preparation and construction, including the pouring of concrete Damage to benthic habitat and Piling will not be used. communities from in-channel works, including any pile driving and Gabions will be placed above the mean high water mark and placement of gabions not will be used for in-channel works. Other in-channel works

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 57 have been addressed and appropriate mitigation put forward.

Changes in the natural flow The slipway will be extended at the current level of the regimes/currents in the estuary as a interidal area and is enclosed to the east and west by the result of extending the slipway main harbour pier and the RNLI slipway. There is no potential for any significant changes to natural flow regimes or currents.

Possible disturbance to natural fish Piling will not be used. migration (including lamprey species) and impacts on marine species from vibrations associated with possible pile driving Disturbance to local wildlife, including Mitigation has been put forward in the form of appropriate avifauna and Harbour Seals, during timing of works to avoid disturbance. construction and from the development, including increase The works will regularise the existing arrangements and will recreational usage of the slipway and not increase the capacity of the harbour. The harbour and its estuary use is under the control of Sligo County Council. The works will not increase the sphere of influence of the existing harbour in terms of disturbance.

The Department is strongly of the The information gathered through the screening and NIS opinion that an Ecological Impact process and presented within this report is based on Statement (EcIS) is required as part ecological field surveys as well as desktop surveys. It takes of this development. We recommend full account of the habitat and species features listed within that the EcIS should address the potential impacts to the habitats and the DAU consultation response, addresses the potential species listed above. impacts on them and provides robust mitigation measures. The results of ecological surveys as well as required The EcIS should include robust mitigation measures are set out within this NIS. measures that will avoid, reduce and mitigate for any significant impacts to It is considered that the information provided within this NIS is nature conservation. equivalent in scope to that of an EcIS with respect to the habitat and species features highlighted in the DAU consultation response. It is therefore considered that the production of a separate EcIS document would duplicate the findings of this NIS and its appendices and that this report adequately addresses DAU recommendations in this respect.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 58 8.0 CONCLUSIONS This Natura Impact Statement has identified the particular types of effect that have potential for adverse impact on the integrity of the Cummeen Strand SPA and Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC in the vicinity of the proposal. The statement identifies mitigation measures to avoid and minimise these effects so that the structure and functions of the SAC and SPA are not affected, thus demonstrating that the proposal can be mitigated to avoid significant adverse impact. These mitigation measures have been set out in Section 7. The incorporation of these measures into the proposal design and their subsequent implementation on site will ensure that there will be no significant effects, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects affecting the conservation interests or conservation objectives of the Cummeen Strand SPA and Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC, i.e. the integrity of these Natura 2000 sites. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development will not, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, adversely affect the integrity of any European Site (Natura 2000 site) whether directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 59 9.0 REFERENCES Adriaanse LA, Coosen .J (1991). Beach and dune nourishment and environmental aspects. Coastal Engineering 16: 129-146. Adnitt, C. et al (2007) Saltmarsh Management Manual. Joint Defra/Environment Agency Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management R&D Programme, Technical Report SC030220, UK http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho0307bmkh-e-e.pdf Anders, F.J.; Leatherman, S.P. (1981). The effects of off-road vehicles on beach and dune systems, fire island national seashore. University of Massachusetts/ National Parks Service Cooperative Research Unit Report No. 60. p176. Anonymous (1989) Engineer manual - engineering and design, environmental engineering for coastal shore protection. EM 1110-2-1204 US Army Corps of Engineers: Washington, DC. Cutts, N. Phelps, A., and Burdon, D (2009) CONSTRUCTION AND WATERFOWL: DEFINING SENSITIVITY, RESPONSE, IMPACTS AND GUIDANCE. Report to Humber INCA. Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies. University of Hull Border Regional Authority (2010) Draft Habitats Directive Assessment of the Draft Regional Planning Guidelines (2010-2022) Crowe, O. 2005. Ireland’s wetlands and their waterbirds. BirdWatch Ireland, Newcastle, Co. Wicklow. DEFRA (2005) Update of noise database for prediction of noise on construction and open sites DoEHLG (2009) APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT OF PLANS AND PROJECTS IN IRELAND – Guidance for Planning Authorities. Essink K., (1999) ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF DUMPING OF DIEDGED SEDIMENTS; OPTIONS FOR MANAGEMENT. Journal of Coastal Conservation 5: 69-80 Platteeuw, M, Rene, J H G., and Henkens, J. (1997) Possible impacts of disturbance to waterbirds: individuals, carrying capacity and populations. In Wildfowl (1997) 48: 225-236 European Community Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) – The Habitats Directive; European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997 European Commission Environment DG (2001). Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites: Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC; European Communities, 2000, Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The Provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC Hockin, D., Ounsted, M., Gorman, M., Hill, D., Keller, V., Barker, M.A., 1992. Examination of the eﬀects of disturbance on birds with reference to its importance in ecological assessments. Journal of Environmental Management 36, 253–286. Loffler M., Coosen J. (1995) Ecological impact of sand replenishment. In Directions in European Coastal Management, Healy MG, Doody JP (Eds) Samara NPWS (2008) The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland. NPWS. Dublin NPWS (undated) Draft Conservation Objectives for Cummeen Strand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) Special Area of Conservation and Cummeen Strand SPA NPWS 2011, Site synopsis, Site name: Cummeen Strand SPA Site Code SPA 004013, Online, Available at: http://www.npws.ie/media/npwsie/content/images/protectedsites/sitesynopsis/SY004013.pdf, Accessed: 14/03/2014 NPWS 2010, Site synopsis, Site name: Cummeen Strand/Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay), SAC 000627, Online, Available at: http://www.npws.ie/media/npwsie/content/images/protectedsites/sitesynopsis/SY000627.pdf, Accessed: 14/03/2014

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 60 NPWS 2012, Marine Natura Impact Statements in Irish Special Areas of Conservation. A Working Document. Available at: http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/2071E865-EC10-42A1-876F- 44A3C1FBF527/0/MarineNatureImpact.pdf NPWS 2013a, Cummeen Strand Special Protection Area (site code 4035) Conservation objectives supporting document, Version 1. Available at: http://www.npws.ie/publications/archive/004035_Cummeen%20Strand%20SPA%20Supporting%20D oc_V1.pdf NPWS 2013b, Cummeen Strand/Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC (site code 627) Conservation objectives supporting document - coastal habitats, Version 1. Available at: http://www.npws.ie/publications/archive/000627_Cummeen%20Strand- Drumcliff%20Bay%20(Sligo%20Bay)%20SAC%20Coastal%20Supporting%20Doc_V1.pdf NPWS 2013c, Cummeen Strand/Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) SAC (site code 627) Conservation objectives supporting document - marine habitats and species, Version 1. Available at: http://www.npws.ie/publications/archive/000627_Cummeen%20Strand- Drumcliff%20Bay%20(Sligo%20Bay)%20SAC%20Marine%20Supporting%20Doc_V1.pdf Peterson C.H., Summerson H.C., Thomson E., Lenihan H.S., Grabowski J., Manning L., Micheli F., Johnson G. ( 2000) Synthesis of linkages between benthic and fish communities as a key to protecting essential fish habitat. Bulletin of Marine Science 66(3): 759-774 Schlacher, T. and Thompson, L. (2008) Physical impacts caused by off-road vehicles to sandy beaches: spatial quantification of car tracks on an Australian barrier island. Journal of Coastal Research 24(sp2):234-242. Stephenson, G. (1999) Vehicle impacts on the biota of sandy beaches and coastal dunes - a review from a new zealand perspective. Science for Conservation 121. Department of Conservation, New Zealand. Snow, David; Perrins, Christopher M (editors) (1998). The birds of the Western Palearctic: concise edition (2 volumes). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019854099X Stillman, R.A., West, A.D. & Caldow, R.W.G. 2007. Predicting the effect of disturbance on coastal birds. Ibis 149 (Suppl. 1): 73–81. Van der Merwe, D. (1991). eFfects of off-road vehicles on the macrofauna of a sandy beach. South African Journal of Science 87: 210.213. NPWS (2013d) The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland. Habitat Assessments Volume 2. Version 1.1. Unpublished Report, National Parks & Wildlife Services. Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland. Zaremba, R.E.; Godfrey, P.J.; Leatherman, S.P. (1978). The ecological effects of off-road vehicles on the beach/backshore (drift line) zone in Cape Cod national seashore, Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts/ National Parks Service Cooperative Research Unit Report No. 29. p67.

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 61 Appendix I – Site Synopses

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 62

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 63

Woodrow Sustainable Solutions Ltd January 2015 64