Natura Impact Statement for the Development of a 1:15 Scale Test Site for Wave Energy Devices at Belmullet Co. Mayo

Produced by

AQUAFACT International Services Ltd.

On behalf of

M-WEST

December 2014

AQUAFACT INTERNATIONAL SERVICES ltd. 12 KILKERRIN PARK, GALWAY www.aquafact.ie [email protected] tel +353 (0) 91 756812 fax +353 (0) 91 756888 Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1. Requirement for an Article 6 Assessment ...... 1 1.2. The Aim of this Report ...... 1

2. Appropriate Assessment Process 2

2.1. Introduction ...... 2 2.2. Stages ...... 4 2.2.1. Stage 1. Screening for Appropriate Assessment ...... 4 2.2.2. Stage 2. Appropriate Assessment...... 5 2.2.3. Stage 3. Alternative Solutions ...... 5 2.2.4. Stage 4. Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI)/Derogation ...... 5

3. Description of the Project 6

3.1. Description of the Proposal ...... 6 3.1.1. Background ...... 6 3.1.2. Investigation/development phase ...... 8 3.1.3. Operational phase ...... 8 3.2. Description of the Receiving Environment ...... 10 3.3. Likely Effects of the Proposal ...... 14

4. Appropriate Assessment Screening 14

4.1. Identification of Relevant Natura 2000 Sites ...... 14 4.2. Screening Assessment ...... 14

5. Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment (Natura Impact Statement) 21

5.1. Assessment of the Likely Effects ...... 21 5.1.1. Likely Effects of the Proposal ...... 21 5.1.2. Impact Assessment ...... 21 5.1.3. Cumulative Effects ...... 27 5.2. Conclusion ...... 30

6. Marine Mammal Risk Assessment 30

6.1. Introduction ...... 30 6.1.1. Sound source ...... 30 6.1.2. Species ...... 31 6.1.3. Environment ...... 32 6.2. Risk Identification ...... 33 6.3. Risk Assessment ...... 35

7. References 35

List of Figures Figure 2.1: Stages in the AA process (Source: DEHLG, 2009)...... 4 Figure 3.1: Location of the proposed test site...... 7 Figure 3.2: Location of the Annexed habitats and species sites in relation to the proposed test site...... 13 Figure 4.1: cSACs within 15km of the proposed test site ...... 16 Figure 4.2: SPAs within 15km of the proposed test site ...... 17 Figure 5.1: Aquaculture activity in Blacksod Bay...... 29

List of Tables Table 3.1: Coordinates of the proposed test site...... 7 Table 4.1: Natura 2000 sites, Qualifying Interests, Potential Impacts and Screening Assessment. * denotes priority habitats...... 17 Table 5.1: Impacts and activities within the Mullet/Blacksod Bay cSAC (IE000470) (NPWS, 1999) ...... 27 Table 6.1: Criteria for Permanent injury – estimated values for PTS onset for non pulse sources ...... 34 Table 6.2: Criteria and values for disturbance/behavioural response from non pulse sources ...... 34

List of Appendices Appendix 1 NPWS Consultation Appendix 2 Baseline Characterisation Survey of Test Site

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

1. Introduction

1.1. Requirement for an Article 6 Assessment

The proposed 1:15 scale wave energy test site is located within the Mullet/Blacksod Bay Complex cSAC (Site Code: IE000470) and the Blacksod Bay / Broadhaven SPA (IE004037). Therefore, it is regarded as necessary that this proposal have due regard to Article 6 (3) of the EU Habitats Directive1 which states:

Article 6 (3): Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the [Natura 2000] site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the [Natura 2000] site in view of the [Natura 2000] site’s conservation objectives.

This is transposed into national legislation by Regulation 31 of the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997.

1.2. The Aim of this Report

This document has been prepared in accordance with current guidance (DEHLG, 2009, Revised February 2010; EPA Advice Notes on Current Practice (CAAS, 2003); EPA ‘Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements’ (CAAS, 2002); and the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (IEEM, 2006) and provides an assessment of the ecological impacts of the proposed development.

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

1 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

1 JN1254 Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

2. Appropriate Assessment Process

2.1. Introduction

There is a requirement, under Article 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC), to carry out an Appropriate Assessment. The first step of the Appropriate Assessment process is to establish whether, in relation to a particular plan or project, Appropriate Assessment is required. Article 6(3) states:

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

If the Appropriate Assessment determines that a plan or project may adversely affect the integrity of a Natura 2000 site, then Article 6 (4) may come into play. Article 6 (4) states that:

‘If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the [Natura 2000] site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, Member States shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted’.

This report has been prepared in accordance with the following guidance documents:  Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland - Guidance for Planning Authorities (DEHLG 2009, Revised February 2010)  Marine Natura Impact Statements in Irish Areas of Conservation. A Working Document. April 2012 (NPWS, 2012)  EU Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the 'Habitats Directive' 92/43/EEC (EC, 2007);

2 JN1254 Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

 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 (EC, 2002); and  Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC (EC, 2000).

Should a decision be reached to the effect that it cannot be said with sufficient certainty that the proposed activity will not have any significant effect on the Natura 2000 sites, then, as is stated above, it is necessary and appropriate to carry out an appropriate assessment of the implications of the activity for the sites in view of their conservation objectives.

The guidance for Appropriate Assessment (DEHLG, 2009, revised February 2010) states:

“AA is an impact assessment process that fits within the decision-making framework and tests of Articles 6(3) and 6(4) and, for the purposes of this guidance, it comprises two main elements. Firstly a Natura Impact Statement – i.e. a statement of the likely and possible impacts of the plan or project on a Natura 2000 site (abbreviated in the following guidance to “NIS”) must be prepared. This comprises a comprehensive ecological impact assessment of a plan or project; it examines the direct and indirect impacts that the plan or project might have on its own or in combination with other plans and projects, on one or more Natura 2000 sites in view of the sites’ conservation objectives. Secondly, the competent authority carries out the AA, based on the NIS and any other information it may consider necessary. The AA process encompasses all of the processes covered by Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, i.e. the screening process, the NIS, the AA by the competent authority, and the record of decisions made by the competent authority at each stage of the process, up to the point at which Article 6(4) may come into play following a determination that a plan or project may adversely affect the integrity of a Natura 2000 site”.

It is the responsibility of the competent authority to make a decision as to whether or not the proposed test site (both alone and in combination with any other active or planed activity) should be permitted, taking into consideration any potential impact upon the Natura 2000 sites in question.

Consultation was carried out with National Parks and Wildlife Service in the preparation of this document and this consultation can be seen in Appendix 1.

3 JN1254 Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

2.2. Stages

It is stated within the EU guidelines that “where, without any detailed assessment at the screening stage, it can be assumed (because of the size or scale of the project or the characteristics of the Natura 2000 site) that significant effects are likely, it will be sufficient to move directly to the appropriate assessment (Stage Two) rather than complete the screening assessments explained below.”

The Commission’s methodological guidance (EC, 2002) promotes a four-stage process to complete the AA, and outlines the issues and tests at each stage. An important aspect of the process is that the outcome at each successive stage determines whether a further stage in the process is required.

The four stages are summarised diagrammatically in Figure 2.1 below.

Figure 2.1: Stages in the AA process (Source: DEHLG, 2009).

2.2.1. Stage 1. Screening for Appropriate Assessment

Screening is the process that addresses and records the reasoning and conclusions in relation to the first two tests of Article 6(3):

i. whether a plan or project is directly connected to or necessary for the management of the site, and ii. whether a plan or project, alone or in combination with other plans and projects, is likely to have significant effects on a Natura 2000 site in view of its conservation objectives.

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

4 JN1254 Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

2.2.2. Stage 2. Appropriate Assessment

This stage considers whether the plan or project, alone or in combination with other projects or plans, will have an adverse effect on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site, and includes any mitigation measures necessary to avoid, reduce or offset negative effects. The proponent of the plan or project will be required to submit a Natura Impact Statement, i.e. the report of a targeted professional scientific examination of the plan or project and the relevant Natura 2000 sites, to identify and characterise any possible implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives, taking account of in combination effects. This should provide information to enable the competent authority to carry out the appropriate assessment. If the assessment is negative, i.e. adverse effects on the integrity of a site cannot be excluded, then the process must proceed to Stage 4, or the plan or project should be abandoned. The AA is carried out by the competent authority, and is supported by the NIS.

2.2.3. Stage 3. Alternative Solutions

This stage examines any alternative solutions or options that could enable the plan or project to proceed without adverse effects on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site. The process must return to Stage 2 as alternatives will require appropriate assessment in order to proceed. Demonstrating that all reasonable alternatives have been considered and assessed, and that the least damaging option has been selected, is necessary to progress to Stage 4.

2.2.4. Stage 4. Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI)/Derogation

Stage 4 is the main derogation process of Article 6(4) which examines whether there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) for allowing a plan or project that will have adverse effects on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site to proceed in cases where it has been established that no less damaging alternative solution exists.

The extra protection measures for Annex I priority habitats come into effect when making the IROPI case2. Compensatory measures must be proposed and assessed. The Commission must be informed of the compensatory measures. Compensatory measures must be practical, implementable, likely to succeed, proportionate and enforceable, and they must be approved by the Minister.

2 IROPI reasons that may be raised for sites hosting priority habitats are those relating to human health, public safety or beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment. In the case of other IROPI, the opinion of the Commission is necessary and should be included in the AA

5 JN1254 Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

3. Description of the Project

3.1. Description of the Proposal

3.1.1. Background

The purpose of this plan is to establish a 1:15 scale test site in Blacksod Bay, Belmullet to provide the opportunity for prototype marine energy technologies to undergo sea trials in more sheltered conditions than those experienced at the AMETS full scale test site off Belmullet or at the 1:4 scale test site in Galway Bay.

There is an immediate need to establish a 1:15 scale test site for wave energy devices. At present, the only available facilities for 1:15 scale testing are outside of Ireland, are expensive and they experience long delays in booking times. There is a critical need to complete extensive testing at the 1:15 scale to reduce risk and costs at 1:4 scale development.

The 1:15 scaled test facilities will make it as easy as possible for developers to bring concepts and test them in accessible, real sea conditions without the need for the big vessels or large plants used in the deployment of full-scale of 1:4 scale machines. The need for this facility has been established by the Irish Wave Energy Developer Association.

Testing at the 1:15 scale reduces the cost to developer and the state. It is a major saving to discover at 1:15 scale rather than at 1:4 scale that a device has underlying issues not evident in tank tests and that reassessment is needed. The step between large scale wave tank testing at 1:15 and offshore 1:4 scale device performance is big and costly. This site would complement existing infrastructure in Ireland and so would accelerate wave energy development. Progress to the Galway Bay 1:4 scale test site would be more rapid and more effective. This extra stepping stone would assist developers to attract investment for the significantly higher costs of the move to 1:4 scale.

The 1:15 test site is being proposed for Blacksod Bay as it is a more sheltered environment than the AMETS or Galway Bay sites and it can benefit from the infrastructure developed as part of the nearby AMETS project. Figure 3.1 shows the location of the proposed test site and Table 3.1 gives the corner coordinates. The proposed test site will cover an area of 159,000m2 (15.9ha).

6 JN1254 Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

Figure 3.1: Location of the proposed test site.

Table 3.1: Coordinates of the proposed test site.

Longitude Latitude Easting Northing -10.0597 54.10825 65337.24 319641.7 -10.0597 54.10647 65331.59 319443.2 -10.0474 54.10646 66136.43 319419 -10.0474 54.10824 66141.9 319617.4

While this proposal will benefit wave energy in Ireland and complement existing infrastructure it is a stand-alone project. This proposal will not create a requirement or imperative for future plans or projects to be licensed at this or other protected sites as the 1:4 scale test site is already licenced and operation in Galway Bay since 2006.

The 1:15 scale wave energy test facility will consist of:  Berths and moorings for the wave energy devices;  An area of sea bed for rehearsal of deployment techniques;  Directional wave rider buoys complete with data collection and communications equipment; and

7 JN1254 Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

 System to manage and monitor permission, usage and operating standards.

3.1.2. Investigation/development phase

The development phase will consist of the installation of 4 navigational aids on each corner of the test site. These navigational aids will have all required lighting and/or markings as required by the Commissioner of Irish Lights and the Marine Safety Office. These will be deployed from a half-decker which will navigate to each corner using GPS. Each navigational aid will be lowered into place. Each aid will have a surface diameter of 0.6m and anchored to a weight of c. 500kg with a footprint of 0.25m2 on the seafloor.

A directional wave rider buoy will be deployed within the test site for data collection. This device will be 0.7m diameter on the surface and connected to a weight on the seafloor of c. 500kg with a footprint of 0.25m2. This wave rider buoy will also be deployed from a half-decker.

No cabling is required as part of this proposal. There is no construction work involved in the development phase and as a result pollution from construction is not a concern here. The vessel used for the deployment of equipment will in accordance with the MARPOL Convention and the Sea Pollution Acts as it does during the course of its day-to-day operations.

3.1.3. Operational phase

The operational test site will cover an area of 159,000m2 (15.9ha). The operations/activities that will occur in the test site include rehearsal of deployment techniques, temporary installation and operation of devices. The test devices will be varied and may be round, rectangular or other shapes and they will float near the surface. The maximum surface area on the surface will be 5m2 and they will be attached via rubber mooring lines to a mooring with a maximum weight of 1000kg and footprint of 0.5m2. On average only one device will be deployed in the test site at any one time, however this may increase to 3 on occasion. Three devices would have a footprint of 15m2 on the surface and 1.5m2 on the seafloor. The average length of deployment at any one time will be 1 month. No energy will be generated during the testing phase of these devices.

A half decker will be used to deploy the devices as required. All of the operations and activities will occur within the boundary of the test site. The test site will be operational throughout all months of the year so the full seasonal range of sea conditions can be experienced and tested.

8 JN1254 Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

All 11 members of the Irish Wave Energy Developers Association (IWEDA) are committed to using the site. According to the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) there are 8 main types of wave energy converters and these are similar to the types being developed by the members of the IWEDA:  Attenuator – floating device which operates parallel to the wave direction and effectively rides the waves. These devices capture energy from the relative motion of the two arms as the wave passes them  Point absorber - floating structure which absorbs energy from all directions through its movements at/near the water surface. It converts the motion of the buoyant top relative to the base into electrical power. The power take-off system may take a number of forms, depending on the configuration of displacers/reactors.  Oscillating wave surge converter - extract energy from wave surges and the movement of water particles within them. The arm oscillates as a pendulum mounted on a pivoted joint in response to the movement of water in the waves.  Oscillating water column - partially submerged, hollow structure. It is open to the sea below the water line, enclosing a column of air on top of a column of water. Waves cause the water column to rise and fall, which in turn compresses and decompresses the air column. This trapped air is allowed to flow to and from the atmosphere via a turbine, which usually has the ability to rotate regardless of the direction of the airflow. The rotation of the turbine is used to generate

electricity.  Overtopping/Terminator Device - Overtopping devices capture water as waves break into a storage reservoir. The water is then returned to the sea passing through a conventional low-head turbine which generates power. An overtopping device may use

‘collectors’ to concentrate the wave energy.  Submerged pressure differential - These devices are typically located near shore and attached to the seabed. The motion of the waves cause the sea level to rise and fall above the device, inducing a pressure differential in the device. The alternating pressure

9 JN1254 Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

pumps fluid through a system to generate electricity.  Bulge wave - Bulge wave technology consists of a rubber tube filled with water, moored to the seabed heading into the waves. The water enters through the stern and the passing wave causes pressure variations along the length of the tube, creating a ‘bulge’. As the bulge travels through the tube it grows, gathering energy which can be used to drive a standard low-head turbine located at the bow, where the water then returns to the sea.

 Rotating mass - Two forms of rotation are used to capture energy by the movement of the device heaving and swaying in the waves. This motion drives either an eccentric weight or a gyroscope causes precession. In both cases the movement is attached to an electric generator inside the device.  Other devices - This covers those devices with a unique and very different design to the more well-established types of technology or if information on the device’s characteristics could not be determined. For example the Wave Rotor, is a form of turbine turned directly by the waves. Flexible structures have also been suggested, whereby a structure that changes shape/volume is part of the power take-off system

3.2. Description of the Receiving Environment

The proposed test site is located within the Annex I habitat ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ which is a Qualifying Interest (QI) of the Mullet/Blacksod Bay cSAC (IE000470). The faunal communities of the ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ were surveyed in 2009 on behalf of the Marine Institute and NPWS (AQUAFACT, 2010a). Sand was the dominant sediment type in Blacksod Bay with small areas of muddy and gravelly sands. Organic carbon levels in the bay were low. The overall faunal abundance in the bay was high. A Tellina fabula community dominated in Blacksod Bay, particularly in the northeastern section of the bay, south of Claggan Point. An Abra alba community was particularly dominant along the western shoreline in waters >5m. An Amphiura community was present in the sheltered bays along the western shoreline, along the eastern shoreline and in the outer reaches of the bay. A Venus fasciata community dominated around Kanfinalta Point and an epifaunal community was present in the outer bay towards the limit of the cSAC designation in an area dominated by hard ground. Eight biotopes were classified using the EUNIS classification system, the dominant of which was the SS.SCS.ICS.CumCset Cumaceans and Chaetozone setosa in infralittoral

10 JN1254 Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

gravelly sand biotope (EUNIS Code A5.136). This was present in the northeastern part of the bay and towards the outer reaches of the bay. The biotope SS.SSA.IMuSa.FfabMag Fabulina fabula and Magelona mirabilis with venerid bivalves and amphipods in infralittoral compacted fine muddy sand (EUNIS Code A5.242) was the 2nd most dominant biotope and was present along the eastern side of the bay. All biotopes recorded for the area are typical for this type of area.

The proposed test site location is c. 500m east of Doobeg Point and c. 950m north of Blacksod Point in the southwestern corner of Blacksod Bay, Co. Mayo. It is in waters ranging from <5m deep at the western boundary to 15m at the eastern edge. The tidal and current flow regimes in the centre of the entrance channel to Blacksod Bay (c. 1km east of the test site) range from 0.05 to 0.5m/s on a spring tide and from 0 to 0.26m/s on a neap tide. Current speeds within the test site are <0.3m/s. The test site overlaps with 15.9ha of ‘Large shallow inlet and bay. AQUAFACT surveyed the test site area in November 2014 and a detailed account of this survey can be seen in Appendix 2.

The sediment type in the proposed test site is sand with fine sand dominating in the shallower western region and in the eastern half with a coarser sand fraction dominating the central area. According to Folk (1954) sediment type was classified as slightly gravelly sand inside the 10m contour and gravelly sand outside the 10m contour. Organic carbon in the area are low which is expected given the sediment type. The gastropod mollusc Turritella communis and the polychaetes Galathowenia oculata and Ampharete lindstroemi and Spirobranchus lamarcki dominated the gravelly sand habitat in the eastern part of the proposed test site in waters >10m. The bivalve mollusc Spisula subtruncata along with the amphipod crustacean Siphonoectes kroyeranus, the polychaete Sigalion sp. and the ophiuroid echinoderm Amphipholis squamata dominated the slightly gravelly sand that made up the rest of the proposed test site in waters <10m.

The proposed test site is located over 400m east of the Annex I habitat ‘Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide’. It is also located 60m south of Annex I ‘Reef’ habitat (as mapped during a 2009 AQUAFACT survey, AQUAFACT, 2010b). Otter (Lutra lutra) an Annex II species has the potential to occur within and around the proposed test site. This species is a QI of the Mullet/Blacksod cSAC (IE000470). The grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), harbour seal (Phoca vitulina), the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) and harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), all Annex II species also have the potential to occur within and around the proposed test site. Grey seals breed on the nearby Dauvillaun and Inishkea Islands and Blacksod Bay is well within their foraging range (cSAC site codes IE000495 and IE000507

11 JN1254 Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

respectively). Population size (all ages) for the Inishkea group was 1,814-2,367 in 2012 with a minimum pup production of 526 pups (ÓCadhla et al., 2013). Harbour seals have been recorded within Blacksod Bay during the 2003 population assessment with 28 recorded at Carrigeenmore just north of the proposed test site (Cronin et al., 2004) and the bottlenose dolphin, common dolphin and harbour porpoise have been recorded in Blacksod Bay (IWDG Sightings Database www.iwdg.ie). Since 1995, the bottlenose dolphin was observed 50% of the time, followed by ‘dolphin sp.’ (22.7%) and harbour porpoise (13.6%). With regards to numbers of individuals, 87 bottlenose dolphins were sighted (47.3%), followed by 75 ‘dolphin sp.’ (40.8% and 11 common dolphins (6%). The bottlenose dolphin is a QI of the West Connaught Coast cSAC (IE002998).

This site has high ornithological importance with seven Annex I E.U. Birds Directive species occurring regularly in winter and a further two as rare breeders. Blacksod Bay provides ideal habitat for divers, with Great Northern Diver occurring in numbers of international importance and Red-throated Divers in significant numbers. The site is an important wintering area for an internationally important population of Barnacle Goose, and also populations of Greenland Whitefronted Goose and Whooper Swans. Golden Plover are regular in small numbers, while a nationally important population of Bar-tailed Godwits occur. Little Tern has bred in small numbers in the past, while the site is well-known for one of Ireland’s rarest breeding birds, the Red-necked Phalarope. Unfortunately this species may now be extinct as a breeding species. A wide range of other wintering birds occur. Of particular note are Brent Goose and Ringed Plover, both of which have internationally important populations. A further six species have populations of national importance: Common Scoter, Red-breasted Merganser, Grey Plover, Knot, Sanderling and Dunlin. The site is also notable for its breeding waders, with very important concentrations of and Lapwing and significant numbers of Snipe and Ringed Plover. Figure 3.2 shows the Annex I habitats and Annex II species sites in the vicinity of the proposed test site.

12 JN1254 Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

Figure 3.2: Location of the Annexed habitats and species sites in relation to the proposed test site.

13 JN1254 Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

3.3. Likely Effects of the Proposal

The likely effects of the proposal are as follows:  Habitat loss of the areas of seabed where the moorings will be in place.  Displacement/exclusion of species due to presence of wave energy devices  Noise  Visual presence

4. Appropriate Assessment Screening

4.1. Identification of Relevant Natura 2000 Sites

Figures 4.1 and 4.2 shows the cSACs and SPAs within 15km of the proposed test site. Table 4.1 details the qualifying interests of each of the Natura 2000 sites, the potential impact (if any) upon them and the screening assessment for each qualifying interest. In addition to the above, there is a cSAC for the harbour seal Phoca vitulina within foraging range (50km) of the proposed test site in Blacksod Bay - Clew Bay Complex (IE001482). The impacts on this species are also assessed. Further assessment on mammals is included in Section 6 Marine Mammal Risk Assessment.

4.2. Screening Assessment

Those sites or individual qualifying interests that are screened out at this stage (primarily as a result of being too great a distance away and having different habitat requirements) are not assessed further. The resulting Qualifying Interests that are screened in due to potential impacts from the proposal are carried forward to Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment. These QIs are as follows:

 Large shallow inlet and bay (Mullet/Blacksod Bay cSAC IE000470)  Otter Lutra lutra (Mullet/Blacksod Bay cSAC IE000470)  Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus (West Connaught Coast cSAC IE002998)  Grey seal Halichoerus grypus (Duvillaun Islands cSAC IE000495 and Inishkea Islands cSAC IE000507)  Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea (Inishkea Islands SPA IE004004; Inishglora and Inishkerragh SPA IE004084)  Little tern Sterna albifrons (Inishkea Islands SPA IE004004)

14 JN1254 Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

 Great Northern diver Gavia immer (Blacksod Bay / Broadhaven Bay SPA IE004037)  Common scoter Melanitta nigra (Blacksod Bay / Broadhaven Bay SPA IE004037)  Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator (Blacksod Bay / Broadhaven Bay SPA IE004037)  Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis (Blacksod Bay / Broadhaven Bay SPA IE004037)  Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo (Inishgort and Inishkerragh SPA IE004084)

The Conservation Objectives of these Natura 2000 Sites are discussed below in Section 5 in the context of the impacts of the proposed development on them.

15 JN1254 Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

Figure 4.1: cSACs within 15km of the proposed test site

16 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

Figure 4.2: SPAs within 15km of the proposed test site Table 4.1: Natura 2000 sites, Qualifying Interests, Potential Impacts and Screening Assessment. * denotes priority habitats.

17 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

Natura 2000 Site Site Code Qualifying Interests Potential Impacts Screening Assessment Mullet / Blacksod Bay IE000470 [1140] Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low None - Distance Screened Out cSAC tide [1160] Large shallow inlets and bays Habitat Loss Screened In [1170] Reefs None - Distance Screened Out [1310] Salicornia and other annuals colonizing None – Distance Screened Out mud and sand [1355] Otter Lutra lutra Noise, Visual, Physical Disturbance Screened In [1395] Petalophyllum ralfsii None – Non-marine Screened Out 2120] Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila None – Non-marine Screened Out arenaria ("white dunes") [2130] Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey None – Non-marine Screened Out dunes") * [2150] Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno‐Ulicetea) * None – Non-marine Screened Out [21A0] Machairs * None – Non-marine Screened Out [3150] Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or None – Non-marine Screened Out Hydrocharition‐type vegetation [7230] Alkaline fens None – Non-marine Screened Out Broadhaven Bay IE000472 [1140] Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low None - Distance Screened Out cSAC tide [1160] Large shallow inlets and bays None - Distance Screened Out [1170] Reefs None - Distance Screened Out [1330] Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) None - Distance Screened Out [8330] Submerged or partially submerged sea caves None - Distance Screened Out Duvillaun Islands IE000495 [1364] Grey seal Halichoerus grypus Noise, Visual, Physical Disturbance Screened In cSAC Inishkea Islands cSAC IE000507 [1364] Grey seal Halichoerus grypus Noise, Visual, Physical Disturbance Screened In [1395] Petalophyllum ralfsii None – Distance and Non-marine Screened Out [21A0] Machairs * None – Distance and Non-marine Screened Out Doogort Machair / IE001497 [1395] Petalophyllum ralfsii None – Distance and Non-marine Screened Out Lough Doo cSAC 18 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

Natura 2000 Site Site Code Qualifying Interests Potential Impacts Screening Assessment [21A0] Machairs * None – Distance and Non-marine Screened Out Keel Machair / IE001513 [1220] Perennial vegetation of stony banks None – Distance Screened Out Menaun Cliffs cSAC [1395] Petalophyllum ralfsii None – Distance and Non-marine Screened Out [21A0] Machairs* None – Distance and Non-marine Screened Out [4060] Alpine and Boreal heaths None – Distance and Non-marine Screened Out Croaghaun / IE001955 [4060] Alpine and Boreal heaths None – Distance and Non-marine Screened Out Slievemore cSAC Achill Head cSAC IE002268 [1140] Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low None – Distance Screened Out tide [1160] Large shallow inlets and bays None – Distance Screened Out [1170] Reefs None – Distance Screened Out West Connaught IE002998 Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Noise, Visual, Physical Disturbance Screened In Coast cSAC Inishkea Islands SPA IE004004 [A018] Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis [breeding] None- offshore island habitat Screened Out [A137] Ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula [wintering] None – Intertidal feeder Screened Out [A144] Sanderling Calidris alba [wintering] None – Intertidal feeder Screened Out A148] Purple sandpiper Calidris maritima [wintering] None – Intertidal feeder Screened Out [A169] Turnstone Arenaria interpres [wintering] None – Intertidal feeder Screened Out A182] Common gull Larus canus [breeding] None - scavenger Screened Out [A184] Herring gull Larus argentatus [breeding] None - scavenger Screened Out [A194] Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea [breeding] Habitat loss Screened In [A195] Little tern Sterna albifrons [breeding] Habitat loss Screened In [A396] Barnacle goose Branta leucopsis [wintering] None- offshore island habitat Screened Out [A466] Dunlin Calidris alpina schinzii [breeding] None – Intertidal feeder Screened Out Blacksod Bay / IE004037 [A003] Great Northern Diver (Gavia immer) [Wintering] Habitat loss Screened In Broadhaven SPA [A046] Light-bellied Brent Goose (Branta bernicla hrota) None – Intertidal feeder Screened Out [Wintering] [A065] Common Scoter (Melanitta nigra) [Wintering] Habitat loss Screened In [A069] Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator) [Wintering] Habitat loss Screened In [A137] Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) [Wintering] None – Intertidal feeder Screened Out

19 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

Natura 2000 Site Site Code Qualifying Interests Potential Impacts Screening Assessment [A144] Sanderling (Calidris alba) [Wintering] None – Intertidal feeder Screened Out [A149] Dunlin (Calidris alpina) [Wintering] None – Intertidal feeder Screened Out [A157] Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica) [Wintering] None – Intertidal feeder Screened Out [A160] Curlew (Numenius arquata) [Wintering] None – Intertidal feeder Screened Out [A191] Sandwich Tern (Sterna sandvicensis) [Breeding] Habitat loss Screened In [A999] Wetlands & Waterbirds None – non-marine Screened Out Inishglora and IE004084 [A014] Storm Petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus) [Breeding] None- offshore island habitat Screened Out Inishkeeragh SPA [A017] Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) [Breeding] Habitat loss Screened In [A018] Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis) [Breeding] None- offshore island habitat Screened Out [A183] Lesser Black-backed Gull (Larus fuscus) [Breeding] None - scavenger Screened Out [A184] Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) [Breeding] None - scavenger Screened Out [A194] Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea) [Breeding] Habitat loss Screened In [A396] Barnacle Goose (Branta leucopsis) [Wintering] None- offshore island habitat Screened Out Termoncarragh Lake IE004093 [A122] Corncrake (Crex crex) [Breeding] None – Terrestrial species Screened Out & Annagh Machair [A395] Greenland White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons None – Terrestrial species Screened Out SPA flavirostris) [Wintering] [A396] Barnacle Goose (Branta leucopsis) [Wintering] None- offshore island habitat Screened Out Duvillaun Islands SPA IE004111 A009 Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) breed None- offshore island habitat Screened Out [A014] Storm Petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus) [Breeding] None- offshore island habitat Screened Out [A396] Barnacle Goose (Branta leucopsis) [Wintering] None- offshore island habitat Screened Out Mullet Peninsula SPA IE004227 [A122] Corncrake (Crex crex) [Breeding] None – Terrestrial species Screened Out

20 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

5. Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment (Natura Impact Statement)

5.1. Assessment of the Likely Effects

5.1.1. Likely Effects of the Proposal

The likely effects of the proposal are as follows:  Habitat loss of the areas of seabed where the moorings will be in place.  Displacement/exclusion of species due to presence of wave energy devices  Noise  Visual presence

5.1.2. Impact Assessment

5.1.2.1. Large Shallow Inlet and Bay

‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ covers 11,110ha within the Mullet/Blacksod Bay cSAC (IE000470). The proposed test site in its entirety occupies 15.9ha of the ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat and this represents 0.14% of the ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat.

Of this 15.9ha, there will only be a direct impact on the ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat in the areas of seabed where the moorings will be in place. The moorings from the 4 corner navigational buoys will occupy 1m2 in total. The mooring for the wave rider buoy will occupy another 0.25m2 and assuming a worse-case scenario of 3 test devices deployed at any one time, a further 1.5m2 will be occupied. In total, 2.75m2 (0.000275ha) of Annex I ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ will be lost to moorings. This represents a direct impact on 0.0000028% of the ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat. In addition to this loss being miniscule it is also temporary and is fully reversible (by removal of the moorings). The loss of species in the immediate footprint of the moorings will not alter the structure and function of the habitat as similar faunal communities are located in the wider test site area and beyond.

It is concluded that the proposed test site and its associated moorings will not reduce the natural range of the habitat or the area it covers within that range and it will not alter the structure and function of

21 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

the habitat and it will not alter the conservation status of its typical species. As a result the conservation objectives and overall integrity of the cSAC will not be impacted by the proposed test site.

5.1.2.2. Otter Lutra lutra

Otters that enter the waters of Blacksod Bay have the ability to avoid all test devices and therefore no risk is posed.

The loss of foraging area at any one time will be 4.52m2 for the corner buoys, 1.54m2 for the wave rider buoy and 15m2 for 3 test devices, giving a total ocean surface loss of 21.1m2 (0.0021ha) (0.000019% of ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat). The loss of seafloor habitat, as before, is 0.000275ha (0.0000028% of the ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat). This loss will have a negligible impact on the otter population.

There will not be a sufficient number of devices in place to cause a barrier to movement.

Noise levels generated by the proposed development will not negatively impact any marine mammals in the area (see Section 6 Marine Mammal Risk Assessment).

It can be concluded that the proposed test site in Blacksod Bay will not pose any risk to the otter populations of the Mullet/Blacksod Bay cSAC (IE000470). There will be no reduction in the natural range of the species and there will continue to be a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its population on a long-term basis and as a result the conservation objectives and overall integrity of this cSAC will not be impacted by the proposed aquaculture activity.

5.1.2.3. Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus

Bottlenose dolphins that enter Blacksod Bay have the ability to avoid all test devices and therefore no risk is posed.

The loss of foraging area (ocean surface loss: 0.0021ha, 0.000019% of ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat; seafloor loss: 0.000275ha, 0.0000028% of the ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat) will be negligible.

22 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

There will not be sufficient devices in place to cause a barrier to movement.

Noise levels generated by the proposed development will not negatively impact any marine mammals in the area (see Section 6 Marine Mammal Risk Assessment).

It is concluded that the proposed test site in Blacksod will not pose any risk to the bottlenose dolphin populations of the West Connaught Coast cSAC (IE002998) and any other cSACs further afield. There will be no reduction in the natural range of the species and there will continue to be a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its population on a long-term basis and as a result the conservation objectives and overall integrity of these cSACs will not be impacted by the proposed test site.

5.1.2.4. Grey seal Halichoerus grypus

Grey seals that enter Blacksod Bay have the ability to avoid all test devices and therefore no risk is posed.

The loss of foraging area (ocean surface loss: 0.0021ha, 0.000019% of ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat; seafloor loss: 0.000275ha, 0.0000028% of the ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat) will be negligible.

There will not be sufficient devices in place to cause a barrier to movement.

Noise levels generated by the proposed development will not negatively impact any marine mammals in the area (see Section 6 Marine Mammal Risk Assessment).

It is concluded that the proposed test site in Blacksod Bay will not pose any risk to the grey seal populations of the Duvillaun Islands cSAC (IE000495) and the Inishkea Islands cSAC (IE000507) and any other cSACs further afield. The proposed test site will not restrict access to suitable habitat by artificial barriers. It will not alter the breeding, moulting and resting behaviour of the seals nor will it impact upon their breeding, moulting or resting sites. The proposed test site will not adversely affect grey seals at a population level. As a result the conservation objectives and overall integrity of these cSACs will not be impacted by the proposed test site.

23 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

5.1.2.5. Harbour seal Phoca vitulina

Harbour seals that enter Blacksod Bay have the ability to avoid all test devices and therefore no risk is posed.

The loss of foraging area (ocean surface loss: 0.0021ha, 0.000019% of ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat; seafloor loss: 0.000275ha, 0.0000028% of the ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat) will be negligible.

There will not be sufficient devices in place to cause a barrier to movement.

Noise levels generated by the proposed development will not negatively impact any marine mammals in the area (see Section 6 Marine Mammal Risk Assessment).

It is concluded that the proposed test site in Blacksod Bay will not pose any risk to the harbour seal populations of the Clew Bay Complex cSAC (IE001482) and any other cSACs further afield. There will be no reduction in the natural range of the species and there will continue to be a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its population on a long-term basis and as a result the conservation objectives and overall integrity of these cSACs will not be impacted by the proposed test site.

5.1.2.6. Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea

The presence of wave energy test devices may deter Arctic tern from feeding in waters in the immediate vicinity of the devices; however, given the very smaller area of available feeding habitat lost to the devices (ocean surface loss: 0.0021ha, 0.000019% of ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat; seafloor loss: 0.000275ha, 0.0000028% of the ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat), there will be no impact on the Inishkea Islands Arctic tern population. It is quite likely that the devices may act as temporary roost sites similar to the “dolphins” in Dublin Port.

It is concluded that the proposed test site in Blacksod Bay will not pose any risk to the Arctic tern populations of the Inishkea Islands SPA (IE004004) and Inishglora and Inishkeeragh SPA (IE004084). The natural range of the species will not be reduced or likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future and there is and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long‐term basis and as a result the conservation objectives and overall integrity of SPA will not be

24 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

impacted by the proposed test site.

5.1.2.7. Little tern Sterna albifrons

The presence of wave energy test devices may deter Little tern from feeding in waters in the immediate vicinity of the devices; however, given the very smaller area of available feeding habitat lost to the devices (<0.000019%), there will be no impact on the Inishkea Islands Sandwich tern population. It is possible that the devices may act as temporary roost sites similar to the “dolphins” in Dublin Port.

It is concluded that the proposed test site in Blacksod Bay will not pose any risk to the Sandwich tern populations of the Inishkea Islands SPA (IE004004). The natural range of the species will not be reduced or likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future and there is and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long‐term basis and as a result the conservation objectives and overall integrity of SPA will not be impacted by the proposed test site.

5.1.2.8. Great Northern diver Gavia immer

The presence of wave energy test devices may deter great northern diver from feeding in waters in the immediate vicinity of the devices; however, given the very smaller area of available feeding habitat lost to the devices (<0.000019%), there will be no impact on the Blacksod/Broadhaven bay diver population.

It is concluded that the proposed test site in Blacksod Bay will not pose any risk to the great northern diver population of the Blacksod Bay /Broadhaven Bay SPA (IE004037). The natural range of the species will not be reduced or likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future and there is and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long‐term basis and as a result the conservation objectives and overall integrity of SPA will not be impacted by the proposed test site.

5.1.2.9. Common scoter Melanitta nigra

The presence of wave energy test devices may deter common scoter from feeding in waters in the immediate vicinity of the devices; however, given the very smaller area of available feeding habitat lost to the devices (<0.000019%), there will be no impact on the Blacksod/Broadhaven bay scoter population.

It is concluded that the proposed test site in Blacksod Bay will not pose any risk to the scoter population 25 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

of the Blacksod Bay /Broadhaven Bay SPA (IE004037). The natural range of the species will not be reduced or likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future and there is and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long‐term basis and as a result the conservation objectives and overall integrity of SPA will not be impacted by the proposed test site.

5.1.2.10. Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator

The presence of wave energy test devices may deter red-breasted merganser from feeding in waters in the immediate vicinity of the devices; however, given the very smaller area of available feeding habitat lost to the devices (<0.000019%), there will be no impact on the Blacksod/Broadhaven bay merganser population.

It is concluded that the proposed test site in Blacksod Bay will not pose any risk to the merganser population of the Blacksod Bay /Broadhaven Bay SPA (IE004037). The natural range of the species will not be reduced or likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future and there is and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long‐term basis and as a result the conservation objectives and overall integrity of SPA will not be impacted by the proposed test site.

5.1.2.11. Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis

The presence of wave energy test devices may deter sandwich tern from feeding in waters in the immediate vicinity of the devices; however, given the very smaller area of available feeding habitat lost to the devices (<0.000019%), there will be no impact on the Blacksod/Broadhaven bay sandwich tern population. It is quite likely that the devices may act as temporary roost sites similar to the “dolphins” in Dublin Port.

It is concluded that the proposed test site in Blacksod Bay will not pose any risk to the sandwich tern population of the Blacksod Bay /Broadhaven Bay SPA (IE004037). The natural range of the species will not be reduced or likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future and there is and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long‐term basis and as a result the conservation objectives and overall integrity of SPA will not be impacted by the proposed test site.

5.1.2.12. Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo

The presence of wave energy test devices may deter cormorant from feeding in waters in the immediate vicinity of the devices; however, given the very smaller area of available feeding habitat lost 26 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

to the devices (<0.000019%), there will be no impact on the Inishglora and Inishkeeragh cormorant population.

It is concluded that the proposed test site in Blacksod Bay will not pose any risk to the cormorant population of the Inishglora and Inishkeeragh SPA (IE004084). The natural range of the species will not be reduced or likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future and there is and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long‐term basis and as a result the conservation objectives and overall integrity of SPA will not be impacted by the proposed test site.

5.1.3. Cumulative Effects

The proposed test site will occupy 15.9ha which accounts for 0.14% of the ‘Large Shallow Inlet and Bay’ habitat of Mullet/Blacksod Bay cSAC (IE000470). The temporary loss of seafloor habitat accounts for 0.0000028% of the ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat and the temporary loss of feeding/foraging area at the sea surface accounts for 0.000019% of the ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat.

The activities listed in Table 3.3 occur within the Mullet/Blacksod Bay cSAC (IE000407). In addition to this it is known that seaweed harvesting in the intertidal zone occurs within the Bay. Benthic communities are vulnerable to bottom-fishing gear such as that used for fishing oysters and this is thought to be the most damaging activity in the marine area. Bait digging is potentially damaging to littoral sediment communities if the areas are over-fished.

Table 5.1: Impacts and activities within the Mullet/Blacksod Bay cSAC (IE000470) (NPWS, 1999)

Activity Code Intensity % of Site Influence Fish & Shellfish Aquaculture 200 B 30 + 0 - Professional Fishing 210 C 30 + 0 - Fixed location fishing 211 C 10 + 0 - Leisure fishing 220 C 5 + 0 - Bait digging 221 B 10 + 0 - Taking / Removal of fauna, general 240 C 10 + 0 -

27 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

Hunting, fishing or collecting 290 B 20 + 0 - activities not referred to above Removal of beach materials 302 B 5 + 0 - Nautical sports 621 C 20 + 0 - Walking, horse-riding and non- 622 B 10 + 0 - motorised vehicles

Licenced aquaculture sites occupy 1596.76ha (overlaps with 14.2% of ‘Large shallow inlet and bay‘ habitat). There are an additional 3 sites at the application stage which cover an additional 24.91ha. If these licences are granted, aquaculture licences would overlap 14.4% of the ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat. Figure 3.5 shows the aquaculture sites in relation to the proposed test site. It should be noted that while the aquaculture licences are active, not all are used and of those that are, the footprint of the aquaculture structures/activities are lower than that of the licenced site.

The proposed test site occupies 0.14% of the ‘Large water inlet and bay’ habitat giving a combined total of 14.54% of the ‘Large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat which is below the 15% limit for interaction of structure and function.

The impacts of the other activities identified in Table 3.3 above cannot be quantified and in addition, as seaweed harvesting is at present unlicenced an accurate assessment of its impact on the ‘large shallow inlet and bay’ habitat cannot be determined. However, given the very small size of the proposed test site and its minimal impact on the seafloor, it is believed that the licencing of the proposed test site will not (both alone and in-combination with other activities) negatively impact on the structure and function and overall integrity of the cSAC.

28 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

Figure 5.1: Aquaculture activity in Blacksod Bay.

29 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

5.2. Conclusion

Given the extremely small area of the proposed test site and the very small footprint on the seafloor, the proposed test site in Blacksod, both alone and in-combination with other activities, will have no negative impacts on any of the Qualifying Interests of any of the nearby cSACs or SPAs. Their conservation objectives and integrity will be maintained.

6. Marine Mammal Risk Assessment

6.1. Introduction

All cetaceans are listed under Annex IV (including those in Annex II) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC. Accordingly, under Section 51 of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011, it is an offence to deliberately capture, disturb or kill a cetacean or take actions that result in deterioration or destruction of their breeding sites or resting places. Furthermore, all marine mammals are protected wild animals under the Fifth Schedule of the Wildlife Act (39 of 1976) and Amendments. Under section 23 (as amended in 2000), it is an offence to wilfully interfere with or destroy the breeding place or resting place of any protected wild animal. As a result this risk assessment is required to determine potential interactions between the proposed development and marine mammals.

6.1.1. Sound source

As there will be no dredging, drilling, blasting, acoustic surveys or pile driving associated with the proposed development the only sound sources of relevance are: 1. vessel noise during installation and removal of buoys and devices; and 2. noise associated with operating devices.

The sound from the half decker, originating from the power train and from cavitation at the propeller blades would be the most prominent noise source (Austin et al., 2009). This will be a temporary, in- frequent and short-term activity.

The main source of noise associated with wave energy devices is that associated with the energy

30 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

conversion mechanism, which could include turbines, electrical generators, hydraulic or electromechanical energy converters, pumps, valves etc (Austin et. al., 2009). As no energy will be generated during the testing phase the noise associated with the energy conversion mechanism does not apply in this case.

Any external mechanical noise associated with these devices would arise from the motion at the hinges, from water interacting with the devices at the surface and from mooring lines (Austin et al., 2009).

6.1.2. Species

Otter (Lutra lutra) an Annex II species has the potential to occur within and around the proposed test site. This species is a QI of the Mullet/Blacksod cSAC (IE000470).

The grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), harbour seal (Phoca vitulina), the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) and harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), all Annex II species also have the potential to occur within and around the proposed test site.

Grey seals breed on the nearby Dauvillaun and Inishkea Islands and Blacksod Bay is well within their foraging range (cSAC site codes IE000495 and IE000507 respectively). Population size (all ages) for the Inishkea group was 1,814-2,367 in 2012 with a minimum pup production of 526 pups (ÓCadhla et al., 2013).

Harbour seals have been recorded within Blacksod Bay during the 2003 population assessment which took place during their annual moult. Twenty-eight harbour seals were recorded at Carrigeenmore just north of the proposed test site (Cronin et al., 2004).

The bottlenose dolphin, common dolphin and harbour porpoise have been recorded in Blacksod Bay (IWDG Sightings Database www.iwdg.ie). Since 1995, the bottlenose dolphin was observed 50% of the time, followed by ‘dolphin sp.’ (22.7%) and harbour porpoise (13.6%). With regards to numbers of individuals, 87 bottlenose dolphins were sighted (47.3%), followed by 75 ‘dolphin sp.’ (40.8%) and 11 common dolphins (6%). The bottlenose dolphin is a QI of the West Connaught Coast cSAC (IE002998).

31 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

Additional species have been recorded from the wider Mayo coastline area including Risso’s dolphin, minke whale, killer whale, fin whale, humpback whale, pilot whale and sei whale. These species are only observed occasionally and in small numbers.

6.1.3. Environment

A number of factors determine cetacean distribution and abundance. The availability and distribution of prey (Evans, 1990) is one. The distribution of prey is not uniform in space or time and dynamic physical and oceanographic features prevail to maintain this heterogeneous environment (Ó Cadhla et al., 2004). Water temperature is another factor affecting distribution. Seasonal changes in species distribution are also evident for some species (Pollock et al., 1997). These changes may be related to prey availability, migratory movements or breeding requirements.

The harbour porpoise is a common inshore species found around the entire Irish coast and was observed from many headlands throughout the year (Berrow et al., 2010). Numbers recorded off the west coast are lower than those recorded off the south coast and in the Irish Sea (Wall et al., 2013). There is some evidence for an offshore movement in spring between March and June (IWDG, 2010) which may be linked to calving.

Common dolphins are present all year round and breed in Irish waters. They are most abundant off the west coast during summer and autumn (Wall et al., 2013). Common dolphins calve in Irish waters with calves primarily recorded from late summer to late autumn.

Bottlenose dolphins occur off all Irish coasts with inshore animals moving around the entire Irish coastline (O’Brien et al., 2009). They have a year-round distribution with apparent peaks between May and September and they breed in Irish waters.

Risso’s dolphins recorded throughout the year in Irish waters with a wide distribution (Aecom & Metoc, 2010). They are more common along the south and south west coast and they breed in Irish waters (Wall et al., 2013).

Of the baleen whales, the minke is the most widespread and frequently recorded from the area (IWDG

32 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

sightings data). Highest relative abundances occur in spring and summer off the northwest coast (Wall et al., 2013).

The grey seal and harbour seal (also known as the common seal) have established themselves in terrestrial colonies (or haul-outs) along all coastlines of Ireland, which they leave when foraging or moving between areas and to which they return to rest ashore, rear young, engage in social activity, etc. The haul-out groups of harbour seals have tended historically to be found among inshore bays and islands, coves and estuaries (Lockley, 1966; Summers, 1980), particularly around the hours of lowest tide. The grey seal breeds on exposed rocky shores, on sand bars or in sea caves with ready access to deep water. Other haul-out areas for the grey seal are located on exposed rocky areas or steeply shelving sandbanks. There are harbour seal sites within Blacksod Bay and grey seal moult sites outside the bay.

6.2. Risk Identification

As mentioned in Section 6.1, the risks associated with the proposed test site are vessel noise during deployment and recovery of buoys and test devices and the mechanical operational noise from the test devices.

Source spectra for small crafts and boats can, as for many vessels, include tonal harmonics at the resonate vibrational frequencies of propeller blades, engines, or gearboxes below about 1kHz as well as significant energy resulting from propeller cavitation extending up to and above 10 kHz (Gӧtz et al., 2009). The source level is typically between 160 and 175 dB (re: 1 μPa). No noise measurements are available for the mechanical noise from wave energy test devices.

The functional frequencies of cetaceans and pinnipeds are detailed below:  Baleen whales: low frequency - 7Hz to 22 kHz, species include humpback whale, fin whale and minke whale;  Most toothed whales and dolphins: Mid-frequency – 150 Hz to 160 kHz, species include sperm whale and dolphin species;  Certain toothed whales and porpoises: high frequency – 200 Hz to 180 kHz, species include

33 JN1254

Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, M-WEST Belmullet, Co. Mayo December 2014

harbour porpoise;  Pinnipeds (in water): 75 Hz to 75 kHz, both grey and harbour seals;  Pinnipeds (in air): 75 Hz to 30 kHz, both grey and harbour seals;

Tables 6.1 and 6.2 shows the noise exposure criteria for these cetaceans and pinnipeds (Southall et al., 2007).

Table 6.1: Criteria for Permanent injury – estimated values for PTS onset for non pulse sources

Cetaceans Pinnipeds Pinnipeds (in water) (in air) Low frequency Mid-frequency High frequency 75 Hz – 75 kHz 75 Hz – 30 kHz 7Hz – 22 kHz 150 Hz – 160 200 Hz – 180 kHz Baleen whales kHz Certain toothed Most toothed whales, porpoises whales, dolphins 230dB SPL 230dB SPL 230dB SPL 218dB SPL 149dB SPL 215dB SEL 215dB SEL 215dB SEL 2203dB SEL 144.5dB SEL

Table 6.2: Criteria and values for disturbance/behavioural response from non pulse sources

Cetaceans Pinnipeds Pinnipeds (in water) (in air) Low frequency Mid-frequency High frequency 75 Hz – 75 kHz 75 Hz – 30 kHz 7Hz – 22 kHz 150 Hz – 160 200 Hz – 180 kHz Baleen whales kHz Certain toothed Most toothed whales, porpoises whales, dolphins 120 – 160 dB RL 90 – 200 dB RL 90 – 170 dB RL 100+ dB RL 110 – 120 dB RL

34 JN1254

M-WEST Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, December 2014 Belmullet, Co. Mayo

6.3. Risk Assessment

The noise levels associated with vessel movements will not cause permanent injury to marine mammals. The noise levels are of a level that could result in a disturbance/behavioral response by marine mammals. However, given the fact that the area is used infrequently by cetaceans and in low numbers and the fact that the vessel activity will be infrequent, short term and temporary the risk to marine mammals is considered insignificant. In addition, the vessel movements associated with 1 vessel deploying and recovering devices/buoys will not negatively impact nearby moulting harbour seals. Existing fishing/vessel activity occurs in the area and this has not deterred harbour seals hauling out.

The mechanical noise from the test devices and mooring lines will be low in comparison to background noise levels associated with waves breaking, wind and other fishing/vessel activity in the area.

The physical presence of the devices will not pose a threat to marine mammals as they will be visible and avoidable and will have no parts that may pose a danger to animals.

7. References

AQUAFACT. 2010a. Subtidal Benthic Investigations in Mullet/Blacksod Bay Complex cSAC (Site Code: IE000470) and Blacksod Bay/Broadhaven SPA (Site Code: IE004037) Co. Mayo. Produced by AQUAFACT International Services Ltd on behalf of The Marine Institute in partnership with The National Parks & Wildlife Service. March 2010. AQUAFACT. 2010b. Reef Investigations in Blacksod Bay Complex cSAC (Site Code: IE000470) Co. Mayo. Produced by AQUAFACT International Services Ltd on behalf of The Marine Institute in partnership with The National Parks & Wildlife Service. April 2010. Austin, M., Chorney, N., Ferguson, J., Leary, D., O’Neill, C & H. Sneddon. 2009. Assessment of underwater noise generated by wave energy devices. Prepared by JASCO Applied Sciences on behalf of Oregon Wave Energy Trust. Berrow, S.D., Whooley, P., O’Connell, M. & D. Wall. 2010. Irish Cetacean Review (2000–2009). Irish Whale and Dolphin Group, 60pp. CAAS. 2002. Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Statements.

35 JN1254

M-WEST Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, December 2014 Belmullet, Co. Mayo

Prepared on behalf of Environmental Protection Agency. CAAS. 2003. Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements). Prepared on behalf of Environmental Protection Agency. Cronin, M., Duck, C., Ó Cadhla, O., Nairn, R., Strong, D. & C. O’ Keeffe. 2004. Harbour seal population assessment in the Republic of Ireland: August 2003. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 11. National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. DEHLG. 2009. Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland - Guidance for Planning Authorities (Revised February 2010). European Commission. 2000. Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. European Commission. 2002. 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. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. European Commission. 2007. EU Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the 'Habitats Directive' 92/43/EEC. Clarification of the concepts of: alternative solutions, imperative reasons of overriding public interest, compensatory measures, overall coherence, opinion of the Commission. Fifield, J.S. 2004. Designing for effective sediment and erosion control on construction sites. Forester Press, 2004. Gӧtz, T., Hastle, G., Hatch, L.T., Raustein, O., Southall, B.L. & M. Tasker. 2009. Overview of the impacts of anthropogenic underwater sound in the marine environment. OSPAR Commission Biodiversity Series. pp. 134. IEEM. 2006. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. IWDG. 2010. Species Profile: Harbour Porpoise. http://www.iwdg.ie/species_profiles.asp?speciesID=2241 NPWS. 1999. Natura 2000 Standard Data Form IE000470). http://www.npws.ie/media/npwsie/content/images/protectedsites/natura2000/NF000470.pdf NPWS. 2012. Marine Natura Impact Statements in Irish Special Areas of Conservation. A Working Document, April 2012. Prepared by NPWS of the DAHG. O’Brien, J., Berrow, S., Ryan, C., McGrath, D., O’Conor, I., Pesante, G., Burrows, G., Massett, N., Kloetzer, V. & P. Whooley. 2009. A note on long-distance matches of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) around the Irish coast using photo-identification. Journal of Cetacean

36 JN1254

M-WEST Wave Energy Test Site 1:15 Scale, December 2014 Belmullet, Co. Mayo

Research Management 11(1): 71-76. Ó Cadhla, O. & D. Strong. 2007. Grey seal moult population survey in the Republic of Ireland, 2007. Report to the National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. 22pp. Ó Cadhla, O., Keena, T., Strong, D., Duck, C. & L. Hiby. 2013 Monitoring of the breeding population of grey seals in Ireland, 2009 - 2012. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 74. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Dublin, Ireland. Patricio, S., Moura, A. & T. Simas. 2009a. "Wave Energy and Underwater Noise: State of Art and Uncertainties", Oceans’09, Bremen, Germany. Southall, B.L., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T. Finneran, J.J., Gentry, R.L., Greene Jr., C.R., Kastak, D., Ketten, D.R., Miller, J.H., Nachtigall, P.E., Richardson, W.J., Thomas, J.A. & P. L. Tyack. 2007. Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations MALSF MEPF 09/P108, Aquatic Mammals, 33 (4): 411-509 Wall, D., Murray, C., O’Brien, J., Kavanagh, L., Wilson, C., Ryan, C., Glanville, B., Williams, D., Enlander, I, O’Connor, I., McGrath, D., Whooley, P & S. Berrow. 2013. Atlas of the distribution and relative abundance of marine mammals in Irish waters 2005-2011. Irish Whale & Dolphin Group, Merchants Quay, Kilrush, Co. Clare.

37 JN1254

Appendix 1

NPWS Consultation

The Manager, Development Applications Unit, Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht, Newtown Road., Wexford Email: [email protected] Our Ref: JN1254 29/10/2014

RE: DEVELOPMENT OF A 1:15 SCALE TEST SITE FOR WAVE ENERGY DEVICES, BLACKSOD, CO. MAYO (M-WEST) Dear Sir/Madam, AQUAFACT International Services Ltd. has been contracted by a partnership involving Mayo County Council, Mayo County Enterprise Board and the Irish Wave Energy Developer Association to prepare a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment (Natura Impact Statement) for the development of a 1:15 scale wave energy test site (M-WEST). The proposed test site location is c. 500m east of Doobeg Point and c. 950m north of Blacksod Point in the southwestern corner of Blacksod Bay, Co. Mayo. It is in waters ranging from <5m to c. 13m deep and sediment type consist of sand and broken shell. The proposed test site is located within the Mullet/Blacksod Bay cSAC (IE000470) and the Blacksod Bay / Broadhaven SPA (IE004037). The site location can be seen in the accompanying map in Appendix 1. The purpose of this project is to establish a 1:15 scale test site in Blacksod Bay, Belmullet to provide the opportunity for prototype marine energy technologies to undergo sea trials in more gentle conditions than those experienced at the AMETS full scale test site off Belmullet or at the 1:4 scale test site in Galway Bay. There is an immediate need to establish a 1:15 scale test site for wave energy devices. At present, the only available facilities for 1:15 scale testing are outside of Ireland, are expensive and they experience long delays in booking times. There is a critical need to complete extensive testing at the 1:15 scale to reduce risk and costs at 1:4 scale development. The 1:15 scaled test facilities will make it as easy as possible for developers to bring concepts and test them in accessible, real sea conditions without the need for the big vessels or large plants used in the deployment of full-scale of 1:4 scale machines. The need for this facility has been established by the Irish Wave Energy Developer Association. Testing at the 1:15 scale reduces the cost to developer and the state. It is a major saving to discover at 1:15 scale rather than at 1:4 scale that a device has underlying issues not evident in tank tests and that reassessment is needed. The step between large scale wave tank testing at 1:15 and offshore 1:4 scale device performance is big and costly. This site would complement existing infrastructure in Ireland and so would accelerate wave energy development. Progress to the Galway Bay 1:4 scale

test site would be more rapid and more effective. This extra stepping stone would assist developers to attract investment for the significantly higher costs of the move to 1:4 scale. The 1:15 test site is being proposed for Blacksod Bay as it is a more sheltered environment than the AMETS or Galway Bay sites and it can benefit from the infrastructure developed as part of the nearby AMETS project. While this proposal will benefit wave energy in Ireland and complement existing infrastructure it is a stand-alone project. This proposal will not create a requirement or imperative for future plans or projects to be licensed at this or other protected sites as the 1:4 scale test site is already licenced and operation in Galway Bay since 2006. The 1:15 scale wave energy test facility will consist of:  Berths and moorings for the wave energy devices;  An area of seabed for rehearsal of deployment techniques;  Directional wave rider buoys complete with data collection and communications equipment; and  System to manage and monitor permission, usage and operating standards.

The test site area will cover 0.159km2 (15.9ha). Each of the four corners will be marked with a buoy anchored to the seafloor. Within the test site a directional wave rider buoy, floating berths and moorings will be installed and anchored to the seafloor. There will also be the temporary installation and operation of devices (depends on the device – some will be floating and connected to the seafloor via anchors and some will be mounted on the seafloor (3m diameter). It is planned to have the test site operation throughout all months of the year so the full seasonal range of sea conditions can be experienced and tested.

AQUAFACT requests the scoping opinion of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht with regards to the proposed 1:15 scale wave energy test site. If you require anything further please do not hesitate to contact me,

Kind regards,

------Dr. Caroline Roche [email protected]

Appendix 1 Location Map

Appendix 2

Baseline Characterisation survey of Test Site

1. Sampling Procedure All sampling took place on the 3rd November 2014. AQUAFACT has in-house standard operational procedures for benthic sampling and these were followed for this project. Additionally, the recently published MESH report on “Recommended Standard methods and procedures” were adhered to.

To carry out the subtidal benthic faunal assessment of the proposed test site, AQUAFACT sampled 4 sites within the proposed test site (see Figure 1). Station coordinates and depths can be seen in Table 1. Samples were retrieved using a 0.025m2 van Veen grab.

Figure 1: Location of the sampling sites within the proposed test site.

Table 1: Location of the sampling sites within the proposed test site. Station Longitude Latitude Depth (m) 1 -10.059147 54.107871 8 2 -10.055356 54.107166 9 3 -10.051006 54.107302 13 4 -10.04868 54.10732 15

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

An additional sample was collected at all 4 stations for grain size analysis and organic carbon content. All sampling jars were marked externally with date, station number, sample number and survey reference number and placed in a cooler box.

2. Sample Processing

2.1 Fauna

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

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

2.2 Sediment

Once back in the lab, all sediment samples for organic carbon analysis were sent to ALS Labs in Loughrea for analysis. AQUAFACT carried out the particle size analysis. The methodologies for both of these analyses are described below.

2.2.1 Particle Size Analysis (PSA)

AQUAFACT carried out the PSA analysis in-house using the following methodology: 1. Approximately 100g of dried sediment (previously washed in distilled water and dried) was weighed out and placed in a labelled 1L glass beaker to which 100ml of a 6 percent hydrogen peroxide solution was added. This was allowed to stand overnight in a fume hood. 2. The beaker was placed on a hot plate and heated gently. Small quantities of hydrogen peroxide were added to the beaker until there was no further reaction. This peroxide treatment removed any organic material from the sediment which can interfere with grain size determination. 3. The beaker was then emptied of sediment and rinsed into a 63μm sieve. This was then washed with distilled water to remove any residual hydrogen peroxide. The sample retained on the sieve was then carefully washed back into the glass beaker up to a volume of approximately 250ml of distilled water. 4. 10ml of sodium hexametaphosphate solution was added to the beaker and this solution was stirred for ten minutes and then allowed to stand overnight. This treatment helped to dissociate the clay particles from one another. 5. The beaker with the sediment and sodium hexametaphosphate solution was washed and rinsed into a 63μm sieve. The retained sample was carefully washed from the sieve into a labelled aluminium tray and placed in an oven for drying at 100ºC for 24 hours. 6. The dried sediment was then passed through a Wentworth series of analytical sieves (>8,000 to 63μm; single phi units). The weight of material retained in each sieve was weighed and recorded. The material which passed through the 63μm sieve was also weighed and the value added to the value measured in Point 5 (above). 7. The total silt/clay fraction was determined by subtracting all weighed fractions from the initial starting weight of sediment as the less than 63μm fraction was lost during the various washing stages. 8. The following range of particle sizes: <63m, 63<125m, 125<250m, 250<500m, 500<1000m, 1000<2000m, 2000<4000m and 4000<8000m were reported.

2.2.2 Organic Matter

All organic matter samples from the faunal survey were sent to ALS Labs for analysis. The following methodology was used: 1. The collected sediments were transferred to aluminium trays, homogenised by hand and dried in an oven at 100º C for 24 hours.

2. A sample of dried sediment was placed in a mortar and pestle and ground down to a fine powder. 3. 1g of this ground sediment was weighed into a pre-weighed crucible and placed in a muffle furnace at 450ºC for a period of 6 hours. 4. The sediment samples were then allowed to cool in a desiccator for 1 hour before being weighed again. The organic content of the sample was determined by expressing as a percentage of the weight of the sediment after ignition over the initial weight of the sediment.

3. Data Analysis Statistical evaluation of the faunal data was undertaken using PRIMER v.6 (Plymouth Routines in Ecological Research). Univariate statistics in the form of diversity indices are calculated. Numbers of species and numbers of individuals per sample will be calculated and the following diversity indices will be utilised: 1) Margalef’s species richness index (D) (Margalef, 1958), S 1 D  log N 2 where: N is the number of individuals S is the number of species 2) Pielou’s Evenness index (J) (Pielou, 1977) H' (observed) J = H' max H' where: max is the maximum possible diversity, which could be achieved if all species were equally abundant (= log2S)

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

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

Species richness is a measure of the total number of species present for a given number of individuals. Evenness is a measure of how evenly the individuals are distributed among different species. The Shannon-Wiener index incorporates both species richness and the evenness component of diversity (Shannon & Weaver, 1949).

The PRIMER programme (Clarke & Warwick, 2001) was used to carry out multivariate analyses on the station-by-station faunal data. All species/abundance data from the grab surveys was square root transformed and used to prepare a Bray-Curtis similarity matrix in PRIMER ®. The square root transformation was used in order to allow the intermediate abundant species to play a part in the similarity calculation. All species/abundance data from the samples was used to prepare a Bray- Curtis similarity matrix. The similarity matrix was then be used in classification/cluster analysis. The aim of this analysis was to find “natural groupings’ of samples, i.e. samples within a group that are more similar to each other, than they are similar to samples in different groups (Clarke & Warwick, loc. cit.). The PRIMER programme CLUSTER carried out this analysis by successively fusing the samples into groups and the groups into larger clusters, beginning with the highest mutual similarities then gradually reducing the similarity level at which groups are formed. The result was represented graphically in a dendrogram, the x-axis representing the full set of samples and the y- axis representing similarity levels at which two samples/groups are said to have fused. SIMPROF (Similarity Profile) permutation tests were incorporated into the CLUSTER analysis to identify statistically significant evidence of genuine clusters in samples which are a priori unstructured.

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

 Stress value < 0.05: Excellent representation of the data with no prospect of misinterpretation.

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

Each stress value must be interpreted both in terms of its absolute value and the number of data points. In the case of this study, the moderate number of data points indicates that the stress value can be interpreted more or less directly. While the above classification is arbitrary, it does provide a framework that has proved effective in this type of analysis.

The species, which are responsible for the grouping of samples in cluster and ordination analyses, were identified using the PRIMER programme SIMPER (Clarke & Warwick, 1994). This programme determined the percentage contribution of each species to the dissimilarity/similarity within and between each sample group.

4. Results

4.1 Fauna

The taxonomic identification of the benthic infauna across all 4 stations sampled in the test site yielded a total count of 102 taxa ascribed to 6 phyla. Of the 102 taxa identified, 58 were identified to species level. The remaining 44 could not be identified to species level as they were either damaged, juvenile or indeterminate. Appendix 1-1 shows the faunal abundances from the test site stations.

Of the 102 taxa present, 51 were annelids (segmented worms including sipunculids), 26 were molluscs (mussels, cockles, snails etc.), 21 was a crustacean (crabs, shrimps, prawns), 2 were echinoderms (sea urchins), 1 was a platyhelminth (flatworm) and 1 was a nemertean (ribbon worm).

4.1.1 Univariate Analysis

Univariate statistical analyses were carried out on the combined station-by-station faunal data. The following parameters were calculated and can be seen in Table 2; taxon numbers, number of individuals, richness, evenness and Shannon-Weiner diversity. Taxon numbers ranged from 22(S3) to 50 (S4). Number of individuals ranged from 65 (S3) to 170 (S2). Richness ranged from 5.03 (S3) to

9.92 (S4). Evenness ranged from 0.68 (S2) to 0.87 (S4). Shannon-Weiner diversity ranged from 3.61 (S1 and S3) to 4.91 (S4). Table 2: Univariate measures of community structure. Station No. Taxa No. Individuals Richness Evenness Shannon-Weiner Diversity S1 25 85 5.40 0.78 3.61 S2 43 170 8.18 0.68 3.69 S3 22 65 5.03 0.81 3.61 S4 50 140 9.92 0.87 4.91

4.1.2 Multivariate Analysis

The dendrogram and the MDS plot can be seen in Figures 2 and 3 respectively. SIMPROF analysis revealed 2 statistically significant groupings between the 4 stations (the samples connected by red lines cannot be significantly differentiated). The stress level on the MDS plot indicates an excellent representation of the data.

Group a contained station S4. This group separated from Group b at a similarity level of 19.83%. This group contained 50 taxa comprising 140 individuals. Of the 50 species, 37 were present twice or less. Seven species accounted for just over 51% of the faunal abundance: the polychaete Spirobranchus sp. (19 individuals; 13.57% abundance), gastropod mollusc Turritella communis (14 individuals; 10% abundance), the polychaetes Spirobranchus lamarcki (11 individuals; 7.86% abundance), Galathowenia oculata (9 individuals; 6.43% abundance), Ampharete lindstroemi (9 individuals; 6.43% abundance) and Phyllodocidae (5 individuals; 3.57% abundance) and the crustacean Paguridae (5 individuals; 3.57% abundance). SIMPER analysis could not be performed on this group as it contained only one station. This station contained the highest number of taxa and had the highest richness, evenness and diversity values.

Group b contained stations S1, S2 and S3 and had a within group similarity level of 30.34%. Stations S2 and S3 had a similarity level of 38.02% with station S1 joining at a 26.5% similarity level. Group b contained 68 taxa comprising 320 individuals. Of the 68 species, 51 were present twice or less. Four species accounted for almost 60% of the faunal abundance: the bivalve molluscs Spisula subtruncata (101 individuals; 31.26% abundance), the amphipod crustacean Siphonoectes kroyeranus (58 individuals; 18.13% abundance), the polychaete Sigalion sp. (18 individuals; 5.63% abundance) and the ophiuroid echinoderm Amphipholis squamata (13 individuals; 4.06% abundance). Spisula subtruncata, Amphipholis squamata, Siphonoectes kroyeranus and Sigalion sp. were identified by SIMPER analysis as the main characterising species of the group. Table 3 shows the full SIMPER

results. Richness levels were average for stations S1 and S3 and were relatively high for S2. Diversity levels were average for all three stations.

Table3: SIMPER Results Group a Less than 2 samples in group Group b Average similarity: 35.67% Species Av.Abund Av.Sim Sim/SD Contrib% Cum.% Spisula subtruncata 2.37 6.21 5.99 20.47 20.47 Amphipholis squamata 1.44 4.06 4.91 13.37 33.84 Siphonoecetes kroyeranus 1.85 3.88 4.64 12.79 46.63 Sigalion sp. (juv.) 1.47 3.43 4.41 11.3 57.93 Nemertea 0.94 1.08 0.58 3.56 61.49 Perioculodes longimanus 0.84 1.03 0.58 3.4 64.89 Kurtiella bidentata 0.79 1.03 0.58 3.4 68.29 Bathyporeia guilliamsoniana 0.84 0.98 0.58 3.22 71.51 Angulus fabula 0.87 0.98 0.58 3.22 74.73 Phyllodocidae (damaged) 0.67 0.87 0.58 2.86 77.59 Armandia polyophthalma 0.77 0.87 0.58 2.86 80.45 Synchelidium maculatum 0.73 0.87 0.58 2.86 83.3 Megaluropus agilis 0.80 0.87 0.58 2.86 86.16 Caecum trachea 0.67 0.87 0.58 2.86 89.02 Thracia phaseolina 0.73 0.87 0.58 2.86 91.88

Figure 2: Dendrogram produced by Cluster analysis

Figure 3: MDS plot

4.2 Sediment

4.2.1 Granulometry

Table 4 shows the granulometric data from the 4 stations. Fine gravel ranged from 0.2 (S3) to 3.9% (S4). Very fine gravel ranged from 0.7 (S3) to 3.3% (S4). Very coarse sand ranged from 0.6 (S3) to 12.8% (S2). Coarse sand ranged from 0.4 (S3) to 38.7% (S2). Medium sand ranged from 2.1 (S3) to 20.2 % (S2). Fine sand ranged from 14.5 (S2) to 88.5% (S3). Very fine sand ranged from 1.7 (S2) to 7.4 (S3) and silt-clay ranged from 0 (S2) to 0.3 (S4). One station was dominated by coarse sand (S2) and 3 were dominated by fine sand (S1, S3 and S4). Sediment classification according to Folk (1954) consisted of slightly gravelly sand and gravelly sand.

4.2.1 Organic Carbon

Table 5 shows the organic carbon results for the 4 stations sampled. Organic matter values by Loss on Ignition ranged from 0.88% at Station S4 to 1.9% Station S2.

Table 4: Granulometric data from the faunal survey.

Station Fine Gravel Very Fine Very Coarse Coarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand Very Fine Sand Silt-Clay Folk (1954) (4-8mm) Gravel (2-4mm) Sand (1-2mm) (0.5-1mm) (0.25-0.5mm) (125-250mm) (62.5-125mm) (<63mm)

S1 0.7 1.1 1.3 1.3 6.2 82.3 7 0.1 Slightly gravelly sand S2 0.6 1.6 12.8 38.7 30.2 14.5 1.7 0 Slightly gravelly sand S3 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.4 2.1 88.5 7.4 0.2 Slightly gravelly sand S4 3.9 3.3 2.3 4.9 19.1 61.1 5.1 0.3 Gravelly sand

Table 5: Organic carbon results for the faunal stations Station Organic Carbon S1 1.24 S2 1.9 S3 1.22 S4 0.88

5. Discussion The sediment type in the proposed test site is sand with fine sand dominating in the shallower western region and in the eastern half with a coarser sand fraction dominating the central area. According to Folk (1954) sediment type was classified as slightly gravelly sand inside the 10m contour and gravelly sand outside the 10m contour. Organic carbon in the area are low which is expected given the sediment type.

The gastropod mollusc Turritella communis and the polychaetes Galathowenia oculata and Ampharete lindstroemi and Spirobranchus lamarcki dominated the gravelly sand habitat in the eastern part of the proposed test site in waters >10m. The bivalve mollusc Spisula subtruncata along with the amphipod crustacean Siphonoectes kroyeranus, the polychaete Sigalion sp. and the ophiuroid echinoderm Amphipholis squamata dominated the slightly gravelly sand that made up the rest of the proposed test site in waters <10m.

6 References Clarke, K.R. and R.M. Warwick (1994). Changes in marine communities: An approach to statistical analysis and interpretation, 1st Edition. Plymouth Marine Laboratory. Plymouth. Clarke, K.R. and R.M. Warwick (2001). Changes in marine communities: An approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. 2nd Edition. Primer-E Ltd. Folk, R.L. (1954). The distinction between grain size and mineral composition in sedimentary rock nomenclature. Journal of Geology 62 (4): 344-359. Kruskall, J.B. and M. Wish (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California. Margalef, DR. (1958). Information theory in ecology. General Systems 3: 36-71. Pielou, E.C. (1977). Mathematical ecology. Wiley-Water science Publication, John Wiley and Sons. pp.385.

Appendix 1-1 Faunal Abundance Species List

Station S1A S1B S2A S2B S3A S3B S4A S4B PLATYHELMINTHES F 1 TURBELLARIA F 2 Turbellaria (indet.) F 2 1 NEMERTEA G 1 Nemertea G 1 3 2 2 1 1 SIPUNCULA N 1 GOLFINGIIFORMES N 10 Phascolionidae N 29 Phascolion (Phascolion) N 34 1 2 strombus strombus ANNELIDA P 1 POLYCHAETA P 2 PHYLLODOCIDA P 3 Polynoidae P 25 Polynoidae (Damaged) P 25 2 Harmothoe sp. (Damaged) P 50 1 Pholoidae P 90 Pholoe inornata P 92 1 1 1 Sigalionidae P 96 Sigalion sp. (Juv.) P 103 8 8 1 1 Sigalion mathildae P 104 1 1 Phyllodocidae P 114 Phyllodocidae (Damaged) P 114 1 1 4 1 Phyllodoce sp. (Damaged) P 178 1 Eulalia sp. P 150 1 Glyceridae P 254 Glycera sp. (Damaged) P 255 1 Goniadidae (Damaged) P 266 Goniadidae (Damaged) P 267 1 Glycinde nordmanni P 268 1 Hesionidae P 293 Hesionidae (damaged) P 293 1 Syllidia armata P 321 2 Syllidae P 346 Syllidae (Damaged) P 346 1 Odontosyllis gibba P 388 1 Exogoninae P 410 Myrianida sp. (Damaged) P 434 1 Nephtyidae P 490 Nephtys sp. (Juv.) P 494 2 Nephtys assimilis P 495 1 Nephtys cirrosa P 498 1 Nephtys kersivalensis P 502 2 EUNICIDA P 536 Dorvilleidae P 598 Protodorvillea kefersteini P 638 2 ORBINIIDA P 654 Orbiniidae P 655 Orbiniidae (Damaged) P 655 1

Station S1A S1B S2A S2B S3A S3B S4A S4B Orbinia sp. P 662 1 Scoloplos armiger P 672 2 SPIONIDA P 707 Spionidae P 720 Spionidae P 721 1 Spionidae (damaged) P 720 1 2 Spio sp. (Juv.) P 787 7 2 Spiophanes bombyx P 794 1 2 Magelonidae P 802 Magelona sp. (damaged) P 803 1 Magelona alleni P 804 2 Magelona filiformis P 805 1 Magelona minuta P 806 1 Cirratulidae P 822 Cirratulidae (Damaged) P 822 1 1 Chaetozone christiei P 7 CAPITELLIDA P 902 Capitellidae P 903 Mediomastus fragilis P 919 1 Maldanidae P 938 Clymenura sp. P 955 1 Leiochone leiopygos P 959 1 1 OPHELIIDA P 992 Opheliidae P 993 Opheliidae (damaged) P 993 1 Armandia polyophthalma P 1011 3 1 OWENIIDA P 1089 Oweniidae P 1090 Galathowenia oculata P 1093 5 4 Owenia fusiformis P 1098 1 1 TEREBELLIDA P 1099 Ampharetidae P 1118 Melinna palmata P 1124 1 Ampharete lindstroemi agg. P 1139 1 8 1 Terebellidae P 1179 Terebellidae (Damaged) P 1179 1 Polycirrus sp. (Juv.) P 1235 2 Polycirrus sp. (Damaged) P 1236 1 SABELLIDA P 1256 Serpulidae P 1324 Serpulidae (damaged) P 1325 4 Hydroides norvegica P 1334 3 Spirobranchus sp. (Juv.) P 1339 13 6 Spirobranchus lamarcki P 1340 4 7 CRUSTACEA R 1 OSTRACODA R 2412 Cylindroleberididae R 2424 Cylindroleberis mariae R 2426 2 EUMALACOSTRACA S 23

Station S1A S1B S2A S2B S3A S3B S4A S4B AMPHIPODA S 97 Oedicerotidae S 118 Perioculodes longimanus S 131 3 2 Synchelidium maculatum S 138 1 1 1 Atylidae S Nototropis falcatus S 410 1 1 Ampeliscidae S 422 Ampelisca brevicornis S 427 1 Pontoporeiidae S 450 Bathyporeia sp. (juv.) S 451 1 Bathyporeia sp. (Damaged) S 452 1 Bathyporeia S 454 2 3 guilliamsoniana Melphidippidae S 487 Megaluropus agilis S 489 1 2 2 2 Melitidae S 495 Abludomelita obtusata S 498 2 Photidae S Photis longicaudata S 552 1 Aoridae S 577 Aoridae S 577 1 Corophiidae S 604 Siphonoecetes kroyeranus S 618 2 45 2 9 1 Caprellidae S 639 Pariambus typicus S 651 1 ISOPODA S 790 Gnathiidae S 792 Gnathia sp. (Juv.) (praniza) S 793 1 Gnathia oxyuraea S 796 2 TANAIDACEA S 1099 Bodotriidae S 1184 Iphinoe sp. (Damaged) S 1200 1 Iphinoe trispinosa S 1203 3 1 DECAPODA S 1276 PAGUROIDEA S 1436 Paguridae S 1445 Paguridae (Juv.) S 1445 5 Anapagurus hyndmanni S 1448 4 Porcellanidae S 1480 Pisidia longicornis S 1482 1 MOLLUSCA W 1 GASTROPODA W 88 Gastropod (Juv.) W 88 1 MESOGASTROPODA W 256 Turritellinae W 267 Turritella communis W 270 8 6 Rissoidae W 324 Rissoa parva W 334 1 Caecidae W 411

Station S1A S1B S2A S2B S3A S3B S4A S4B Caecum trachea W 414 1 1 Calyptraeidae W 433 Calyptraea chinensis W 436 2 NEOGASTROPODA W 670 Buccinidae W 702 Nassarius sp. (Juv.) W 743 1 Mangeliidae W 771 Mangeliidae (Damaged) W 772 1 Bela brachystoma W 1 OPISTHOBRANCHIA W CEPHALASPIDEA W 1002 Cylichnidae W 1024 Cylichna cylindracea W 1028 1 Philinidae W 1035 Philine aperta W 1038 2 SCAPHOPODA W 1513 Dentallidae W 1515 Antalis (Juv.) W 1516 1 Antalis entalis W 1519 1 Antalis vulgaris W 1522 3 PELECYPODA W 1560 Bivalve (Damaged) W 1560 1 MYTILOIDA W 1689 Mytilidae W 1691 Mytilidae (Juv.) W 1691 1 OSTREOIDA W 1752 Anomiidae W 1805 Anomiidae (Juv.) W 1805 4 VENEROIDA W 1815 Montacutidae W 1888 Kurtiella bidentata W 1906 2 2 1 Mactridae W 1967 Spisula subtruncata W 1978 30 1 39 12 6 13 3 Pharidae W 1995 Pharidae (Juv.) W 1996 1 Tellinidae W 2008 Angulus fabula W 2019 2 2 2 1 Psammobiidae W 2042 Gari tellinella W 2049 1 Veneridae W 2086 Chamelea striatula W 2 MYOIDA W 2140 Hiatellidae W 2164 Hiatella arctica W 2166 1 PHOLADOMYOIDA W 2220 Thraciidae W 2226 Thracia sp. (Damaged) W 2228 2 Thracia sp. (Juv.) W 2229 1 1 Thracia phaseolina W 2231 2 1

Station S1A S1B S2A S2B S3A S3B S4A S4B ECHINODERMATA ZB 1 OPHIUROIDEA ZB 105 Amphiuridae ZB 148 Acrocnida brachiata ZB 151 1 Amphipholis squamata ZB 161 3 1 4 1 4 1