FEM-FRAMS Fingal East Meath Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study Appropriate Assessment Stage 2: Statement for Appropriate Assessment October 2011 Fingal East Meath Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study Appropriate Assessment, Stage 2: Statement for Appropriate Assessment Contents amendment record Issue Revision Description Date Signed 1 0 First issue June 2011 LB 2 0 Revised to address client September 2011 LB comments Halcrow Barry has prepared this report in accordance with the instructions of Fingal County Council, Meath County Council and the OPW for their sole and specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk. Halcrow Barry Tramway House, 32 Dartry Road, Dublin 6, Ireland Tel +353 1 4975716 Fax +353 1 4975716 www.halcrow.com www.jbbarry.ie © Halcrow Barry, Fingal County Council, Meath County Council & Office of Public Works, 2011 i Fingal East Meath Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study Appropriate Assessment, Stage 2: Statement for Appropriate Assessment Acknowledgements In 2008, Fingal County Council (FCC), Meath County Council (MCC) and the Office of Public Works (OPW) commenced work on a Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study (FRAM Study) for the Fingal and East Meath area, as a means of addressing existing flood risk in the study area and the potential for significant increases in this risk in the future. The Fingal East Meath Flood Risk Assessment Management Study (FEM FRAMS) was one of four pilot CFRAM studies for the new Flood Risk Assessment and Management Programme. The CFRAM studies are the core of the delivery of the new Flood Policy adopted by the Irish Government in 2004, shifting the emphasis in addressing flood risk towards a catchment-based, pro-active approach for identifying and managing existing, and potential future, flood risk’. The principal output from FEM FRAMS is a Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP). This has been prepared by Halcrow Barry in consultation with Fingal County Council, Meath County Council and the OPW. An in-house Project Management Team consisting of representatives from the OPW, FCC and MCC managed the work of the Consultant on the Study. A Project Steering Group, which included representatives from the OPW, FCC, MCC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF, which, later on, became part of the OPW) was responsible for overseeing and directing the study, and reviewing key outputs and deliverables. The project team would like to acknowledge and thank the data suppliers who have contributed to the project. These are listed below: • Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (DAFF) • Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG) • DigiTech 3D • Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) • Dublin City Council (DCC) • Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Fingal County Council (FCC) • Forestry Services • Geological Survey of Ireland • Health Service Executive (HSE) • Marcon Computation International Ltd • Meath County Council (MCC) • Met Eireann ii Fingal East Meath Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study Appropriate Assessment, Stage 2: Statement for Appropriate Assessment • National Parks and Wildlife Services (NPWS) • National University of Ireland, Galway • National University of Ireland, Maynooth • Office of Public Works (OPW) • Teagasc • University College Dublin (UCD) iii Fingal East Meath Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study Appropriate Assessment, Stage 2: Statement for Appropriate Assessment Table of contents Checking and Approval .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Contents amendment record................................................................................................... i Table of contents.................................................................................................................... iv List of figures .......................................................................................................................... iv List of tables..............................................................................................................................v 1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Habitats Directive requirements ............................................................................... 2 1.3. Approach to and scope of this assessment ............................................................. 3 2. The Flood Risk Management Plan ............................................................................ 4 2.1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 4 2.2. The Draft FRMP ....................................................................................................... 5 2.3. Proposed FRMP actions and works......................................................................... 5 3. Implications for the Conservation Objectives of the European Sites................... 9 3.1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 9 3.2. River Nanny Estuary and Shore SPA .................................................................... 16 3.3. Boyne Estuary SPA................................................................................................ 21 3.4. Rogerstown Estuary SPA....................................................................................... 24 3.5. Rogerstown Estuary cSAC..................................................................................... 30 3.6. Broadmeadow Estuary/Swords SPA...................................................................... 35 3.7. Baldoyle Bay cSAC ................................................................................................ 41 3.8. Baldoyle Bay SPA .................................................................................................. 48 3.9. Potential in-combination effect between SPAs ...................................................... 54 3.10. Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................... 54 Glossary of terms .................................................................................................................. 56 List of Figures Figure 2-1: Extent of the study area ...................................................................................... 4 Figure 2-2: The study area and the assessed AUs and APSRs. .............................................. 6 iv Fingal East Meath Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study Appropriate Assessment, Stage 2: Statement for Appropriate Assessment Figure 3-1 Natura 2000 or European Sites within the study area (Source: NPWS) .............. 10 Figure 3-2: Location of preferred option for the Laytown, Bettystown & Coastal area APSR in relation to the River Nanny Estuary and Shore SPA............................................................... 19 Figure 3-3: Location of Preferred Option for Rush APSR in relation to Rogerstown Estuary SPA.......................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 3-4: Location of Preferred Option for Rush APSR in relation to Rogerstown Estuary cSAC........................................................................................................................................ 34 Figure 3-5: Location of the preferred option for Portmarnock and Malahide areas APSR: Malahide town centre, in relation to Broadmeadow Estuary/ Swords SPA............................. 39 Figure 3-6: Location of the preferred option for Portmarnock and Malahide areas APSR: Portmarnock, in relation to Baldoyle Bay cSAC. ..................................................................... 45 Figure 3-7: Location of the preferred option for St. Margaret’s, Dublin Airport, Belcamp & Balgriffin areas APSR.............................................................................................................. 47 Figure 3-8: Location of the preferred option for Portmarnock and Malahide areas APSR: Portmarnock, in relation to Baldoyle Bay SPA. ....................................................................... 52 List of Tables Table 2-1: Preferred options identified for the study area, AUs and APSRs............................. 7 Table 2-2 Preferred options for IRRs......................................................................................... 8 Table 3-1: Other European Sites within 15km of the study area boundary............................. 10 Table 3-2: Summary of screening assessment of the potential effects of the proposed FEM FRMP on European Sites in the study area ............................................................................ 13 Table 3-3: European Sites and features potentially sensitive and exposed to risks arising from the proposed FEM FRMP........................................................................................................ 14 Table 3-4: River Nanny and Shore SPA interest features....................................................... 16 Table 3-5: Boyne Estuary SPA interest features....................................................................