nisa – foreshore licence application · section 7 - article 12 assessment for other marine...

NISA – Foreshore Licence Application

Foreshore Licence Application

Revision Date Author

02 14/01/2020 Jean Raleigh (Ecologist Consultant)

Statkraft Ireland Ltd.

NISA Project: Foreshore Licence Application for Marine Survey

Work – Appropriate Assessment Screening Document

ii

NISA – Foreshore Licence Application:

Appropriate Assessment


Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Document Description .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Legislative Background ............................................................................................ 2 1.3 The AA Process ....................................................................................................... 3

2 Receiving Environment ........................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Marine Benthos ........................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Birds ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Marine Mammals .................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Fisheries ................................................................................................................. 11 2.5 Marine Traffic ......................................................................................................... 13 2.6 Subsea infrastructure and wrecks .......................................................................... 14 2.7 Other proposed activities in the area ..................................................................... 16

3 Description of the survey works ............................................................................................ 18

3.1 Geophysical Survey ............................................................................................... 18 3.2 Geotechnical Survey .............................................................................................. 19 3.3 MetOcean (current and wave) Survey ................................................................... 19 3.4 Ecology Survey ...................................................................................................... 19 3.5 Archaeological Survey ............................................................................................ 19

4 Potential Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................... 21

4.1 Benthic Habitats ..................................................................................................... 21 4.2 Marine Mammals .................................................................................................... 22 4.3 Birds ....................................................................................................................... 25

5 Appropriate Assessment Stage 1 Screening ........................................................................ 26

5.1 Identification of Relevant Natura 2000 Sites and Qualifying Interests/Special Conservation Interests .............................................................................................................. 26 5.2 Screening Assessment ........................................................................................... 37 5.3 Screening Statement .............................................................................................. 37

6 Appropriate Assessment Stage 2: Natura Impact Statement ............................................... 38

6.1 Characteristics of Relevant Sites ........................................................................... 38 6.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................ 39 6.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................ 41 6.4 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 41

7 Article 12: Assessment for Non-Qualifying Marine Mammals .............................................. 42

7.1 Identification of Relevant Non-Qualifying Marine Mammals .................................. 42 7.2 Impact Assessment and Protective Measures under Article 12............................. 42 7.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 43

References ............................................................................................................................................ 44

Appendix 1: Consultation ...................................................................................................................... 46

Appendix 2: MMO Monitoring Protocol (DAHG, 2014) ......................................................................... 47

Appendix 3: Aquaculture Farms ............................................................................................................ 49

1




1 Introduction

Renewables developer North Irish Sea Array Windfarm Limited, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of

Statkraft Ireland Ltd, are currently investigating the feasibility of developing an offshore wind farm

located in the Irish Sea, 7km to 17km off the coast of Dublin, Meath and Louth. An export cable would

connect the offshore wind farm to a landfall site, the location of which is yet to be decided. This

application is for a foreshore licence to conduct marine site investigation surveys.

Statkraft Ireland Ltd. is part of the Statkraft group. The Group produces hydropower, wind power,

solar power, gas-fired power and supplies district heating. Statkraft is a global company in energy

market operations. Statkraft group have previous experience in offshore on the following projects in

UK, Dogger Bank projects (4 x 1200MW), Triton Knoll (860MW), Dudgeon (402MW), Sheringham Shoal

(317 MW).

Element Power acquired the North Irish Sea Array (NISA) project from previous developer Gaelectric

in early 2018. In late 2018, Statkraft purchased the Element Power Group’s Irish and UK operations

that also included the NISA project.

1.1 Document Description This report accompanies the foreshore licence application, with the purpose of providing the

information required to enable the Competent Authority (the Marine Planning and Foreshore Section

of the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government) to undertake an Appropriate

Assessment of the proposed project in accordance with the requirements as set out under Article 6(3)

of the Habitats Directive (92/42/EEC).

This report aims to inform the Appropriate Assessment process in determining whether the proposed

marine surveys, both alone and in combination with other plans or projects, are likely to have a

significant impact on the integrity of any Natura 2000 site. This document represents Stages 1 and 2

(Screening and Natura Impact Statement) of the Appropriate Assessment process.

This report has been prepared in accordance with the following guidance:

Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland – Guidance for Planning Authorities

(Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 2010 revision)

Appropriate Assessment under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive; Guidance for Planning

Authorities. Circular NPWS 1/10 and PSSP 2/10

Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 sites: Methodical

Guidance on the Provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC

(European Commission Environment Directorate General, 2001);

Guidelines for Good Practice Appropriate Assessment of Plans under Article 6(3) Habitats

Directive (International Workshop on Assessment of Plans under the Habitats Directive, 2011);

Guidance Document on Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (European

Commission, 2007);

2




Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC

(EC, 2000).

Marine Natura Impact Statements in Irish Special Areas of Conservation: A working document.

Prepared by National Parks and Wildlife Service, DAHG (2012).

Guidance to Manage the Risk to Marine Mammals from Manmade Sound Sources in Irish

Waters. Prepared by National Parks and Wildlife Service, DAHG (2014).

Managing Natura 2000 Sites - The provisions of Article 6 of the 'Habitats' Directive 92/43/EEC

(EU - 21 November 2018)

The report comprises the following sections:

Section 2 - Description of the receiving environment

Section 3 - Description of survey works

Section 4 - Potential Impacts.

Section 5 - Stage 1 Appropriate Assessment Screening phase

Section 6 - Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment Natura Impact Statement and Conclusions

Section 7 - Article 12 Assessment for other Marine Mammals (non-qualifying interests)

1.2 Legislative Background The Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of

Wild Flora and Fauna) adopted in 1992 and transposed into Irish Law in 1997, aims to promote the

maintenance of biodiversity, taking account of economic, social, cultural and regional requirements.

It provides the framework for the legal protection in order to ensure the conservation of a wide range

of rare, threatened or endemic animal and plant species throughout the European Union. The Birds

Directive (Conservation of Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) aims to protect all of the 500 wild bird

species naturally occurring in the European Union. The Habitats Directive, along with the Birds

Directive forms the cornerstone of Europe's nature conservation policy, together they form a coherent

network of protected areas (Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas), safeguarded

against potentially damaging developments called Natura 2000.

The requirement for "Appropriate Assessment" is set out in Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats

Directive (92/43/EEC). If a project is likely to have a significant negative effect on a Natura 2000 site,

either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, it must undergo an appropriate

assessment (AA). According to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive:

‘Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site (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 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

3




agree to the plan or project only 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.

Article 6(4) states: “If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the 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 social or economic nature, the Member State

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. Where the site

concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which

may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of

primary importance for environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other

imperative reasons of overriding public interest.”

Consultation

The NPWS through the Development Applications Unit (DAU) of the Department of Culture, Heritage

and the Gaeltacht were consulted in relation to the proposed project. Refer to Appendix 1 for a copy

of these correspondences. At the time of writing this report no response had been received from the

DAU.

Early stage stakeholder identification and engagement is central to Statkraft Ireland’s development

process on all renewable energy projects. In terms of NISA, we recognise the importance of developing

a positive two-way dialogue with all interested parties and most particularly, with those involved in

fishing and marine space use. We understand that stakeholders in these areas will have an interest in

our proposals as they develop. Experience has shown us that early stage engagement, during the

design phase, can lead to the building of strong and lasting relationships. This approach has proven

itself to allow for the avoidance of many unnecessary issues throughout the development process,

not only as stakeholders are kept up to date, but also as the feedback gathered from stakeholders can

be used to inform the design process and ultimately influence the form the project takes.

With this in mind, Statkraft Ireland has had some initial engagement with stakeholders, including Bord

Iascaigh (BIM), the National Inshore Fisheries Forum (NIFF) and the relevant Regional Inland Fishery

Forums in this area. A Fishery Liaisons officer (FLO) has been appointed and is responsible for

identifying interested parties and engaging with these parties in an open, transparent and proactive

manner with the view to sharing information and gathering feedback. The FLO will be the primary

point of contact on the project for those involved in the fishing industry and the feedback gathered

from all stakeholders will be incorporated into the development process.

1.3 The AA Process Stages in the Process

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 below, and an outline of the steps and procedures

involved in completing each stage follows.

4




Stages 1-2 deal with the main requirements for assessment under Article 6(3). Stage 3 may be part of

Article 6(3) or may be a necessary precursor to Stage 4. Stage 4 is the main derogation step of Article

6(4).

Figure 1-1: Stages in the AA process (Source: DEHLG, 2009)

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 will be needed in

circumstances when the process ends at screening stage on grounds of no impact.

Stage 2. Appropriate Assessment

This stage considers whether the plan or project, alone or in combination with other projects or plans,

will have adverse effects 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.

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. Stage 4. Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public

Interest (IROPI)/Derogation Stage 4 is the main derogation process of Article 6(4) which examines

5




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.

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 case18. 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.

6




2 Receiving Environment

The proposed location of the marine surveys will be focused on the offshore area identified for the

proposed wind farm (See Figure 2-1). This offshore area is located approximately 7-17km off the coast

of Dublin, Louth and Meath in the North West Irish Sea. The survey area is approximately 226.90km2.

To understand the potential environmental impacts on the area it is important to outline the present

state of the environmental baseline data of the area. In this section, vulnerable environmental areas

are outlined, highlighting environmental receptors which could potentially be affected by the

proposed survey.

Figure 2-1: Proposed survey site location plan

2.1 Marine Benthos The sediments of the area are predominantly shallow sublittoral muds, with areas of coarse and mixed

sediment also, based on data from the Mesh Atlantic Project. Figure 2-2 demonstrates the

predominant habitat type surrounding the proposed survey area. There are no designated Annex I

habitats in the survey area.

7




Figure 2-2: Predominant Habitat Type (Ref: Irish Spatial Data Exchange)

8




2.2 Birds The coastal sea cliffs, estuaries and offshore islands of Ireland are host to a number of nationally and

internationally important bird species, with many areas designated as Special Protection Area’s (SPA).

Coastal habitats provide important breeding sites for many species of seabirds, a number of which are

protected under national and European legislation.

At least 45 species of seabird (including divers and grebes) have been recorded during at-sea surveys

in Irish waters, of which 23 species regularly breed around Ireland (Pollock et al., 2008, Mackey et al.,

2004). In addition, a further 59 species of waterfowl and wader regularly occur at coastal sites such as

estuaries around Ireland; including 5 grebe species, 2 heron species, 26 species of wildfowl and 26

wader species (Crowe 2005). Some of these species are migratory and are present only during

migration periods in spring and autumn; others come to Ireland to breed or to spend the winter, while

some are resident all year round.

The application area lies in close proximity to two Special Protection Areas - Rockabill SPA (004014)

(adjacent to the western boundary) and Lambay Island SPA (004069) (1.6km away). Figure 2-3 shows

the location of nearby Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Special Conservation Areas (SAC).

9




Figure 2-3: Locations of nearby SPA’s and SAC’s

2.2.1 Rockabill SPA (004014) (NPWS, 2015)

Rockabill SPA, lies adjacent to the western boundary of the survey area (Figure 2-3). The site consists

of two small, low-lying, granitic islets situated c. 7 km off the Co. Dublin coast. This Natura 2000 site

is of ornithological importance as it supports the most important Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii)

colony in Europe. The site also supports nationally important breeding populations of Common Tern

(Sterna hirundo) and Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea). All three species of tern which occur are listed

on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive. Surveys of the foraging behaviour of the Roseate Tern

population on Rockabill have recorded up to 73% of Roseate Terns foraging within 3.5 km of the

islands. The seas surrounding the islands, to a distance of 3.5 km, are therefore included within the

SPA to protect the foraging resource of this internationally important Roseate Tern population. A

nationally important wintering population of Purple Sandpiper (Calidris maritima) also occurs at this

site.

10




2.2.2 Lambay Island SPA (004069) (NPWS, 2011)

Lambay Island SPA, located 1.6km from the survey area, holds an internationally important seabird

colony and is one of the top seabird sites in Ireland. The site is of special conservation interest for the

following species: Fulmar, Cormorant, Shag, Greylag Goose, Lesser Black-backed Gull, Herring Gull,

Kittiwake, Guillemot, Razorbill and Puffin. The site is also of special conservation interest for holding

and assemblage of over 20,000 breeding seabirds. Three seabird species have breeding populations

of international importance (Cormorant, Shag, Guillemot) and a further six (Fulmar, Lesser Black-

backed Gull, Herring Gull, Kittiwake, Razorbill, Puffin) have populations of national importance. In

addition to the seabirds, the island also supports nationally important wintering populations of

Greylag Goose and Herring Gull. The presence of Peregrine, a species that is listed on Annex I of the

E.U. Birds Directive, is also of note.

2.3 Marine Mammals Marine mammals present in the survey area are restricted to cetaceans (whales, dolphins and

porpoises) and pinnipeds (seals). All cetaceans are European Protected Species (EPS) protected under

Annex IV of the EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), which lists species of Community Interest in need

of strict protection. It is an offence to deliberately capture, kill, injure or disturb animals classed as

EPS.

Ireland has recorded 25 species of cetacean and two species of pinnipeds all of which are recognised

as protected species under the EU Habitats Directive and the Irish Wildlife Act. Of these 25 species,

approximately 12 have been recorded off the east coast and may be present in the offshore survey

area at least on a seasonal basis. According to Ireland Marine Atlas (2019a) the survey area overlaps

with the range of the Fin whale, Humpback whale, Minke whale, Common dolphin and Risso’s dolphin.

The harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) is a qualifying interest of the Rockabill to Dalkey Island

SAC. This SAC is located adjacent to the western boundary of the survey site. The site represents a

key habitat for the Annex II species Harbour Porpoise within the Irish Sea. The species is found in the

northern latitudes of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans mainly in the continental margins. It is the

smallest cetacean found in Irish waters, which can make spotting it difficult. According to NPWS (2019)

previous surveys undertaken in Ireland have established that monitoring requires a dedicated vessel

during near-calm sea conditions to make a reliable count of Harbour Porpoises

Two species of seal are resident within Irish waters, the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) and the harbour

(or common) seal (Phoca vitulina). Both species are listed on Annex II of the EC Habitats Directive.

Lambay Island SAC, located 1.6km from the application area (see Figure 2-3), is of special conservation

interest for the presence of both the grey and harbour (or common) seal. According to NPWS (2014a)

Lambay supports the principal breeding colony of Grey Seal on the east coast of Ireland and contains

regionally significant numbers of Common Seal. Both seals occur year-round and the island’s intertidal

shorelines, coves and caves are used by resting and moulting seals. The harbour (or common) seal (P.

vitulina) has a very wide distribution being found in temperate, sub-arctic and arctic coastal areas

throughout both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In Ireland, the greatest numbers of common seals

are found along the western seaboard predominantly in relatively sheltered areas (often estuaries and

sand or mudflats) that are not subject to much human disturbance. These seals come ashore (haul-

11




out) for long periods, often forming large groups, during June to give birth and again to moult (shed

their fur) during July and August. The grey seal (H. grypus) is found on both sides of the North Atlantic

Ocean although the greatest proportion of the population is found in UK waters. It occurs in greatest

numbers on the western seaboard of Ireland although significant numbers also occur on the east and

southeast coasts. In Irish waters the Grey Seal comes ashore and remains ashore for the majority of

the time from September to December (to breed) and again in the spring months (to moult).

2.4 Fisheries Ireland Marine Atlas (2019b) indicates that potting, mid trawl (net) fishing and dredge fishing takes

places near the Irish coast and does not take place within the application area. The bivalve mollusc

production area is also indicated to be near but not in the application area. This bivalve mollusc

production area designates the production areas from which live bivalve molluscs may be taken and

therefore may experience more fishing vessels. As can be seen in Figure 2-4, none of the

abovementioned fishing methods are shown to be within the investigation area (Ireland Marine Atlas,

2019b).

According to Ireland Marine Atlas (2019c) the survey area overlaps a target fishing ground for the

commercially important species Nephrops norvegicus (Figure 2-5). N. norvegicus is known as prawns,

Dublin Bay prawn, Norway lobster, scampi or langoustine. According to BIM, demersal fisheries are

currently the most valuable fisheries in the Irish fishing industry. The Nephrops species is widely

distributed throughout the north-east Atlantic from Iceland in the north to Morocco in the south.

Given that these species inhabit muddy sediment and live in burrows which vary in structure and size,

it is likely that demersal trawling is carried out in at least part of the area being considered. The

proposed survey area also overlaps with the spawning ground of several commercially important

species of fish (see Figure 2-5), Haddock, Whiting and Cod (Ireland Marine Atlas 2019c). The survey

area is also within the range of the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) (Figure 2-6). The proposed survey

area overlaps with the nursery grounds of Horse Mackerel, Cod, Whiting, Mackerel and Herring

(Ireland Marine Atlas 2019c). These commercial species are not listed on the Habitats Directive and

therefore do not come under the remit of an Appropriate Assessment.

As previously stated, Statkraft Ireland has had some initial engagement with stakeholders, including

BIM, NIFF and the relevant RIFFs etc. in this area and have appointed a fisheries liaison officer (FLO).

The appointed FLO will be responsible for identifying interested parties and engaging with these

parties in an open, transparent and proactive manner with the view to sharing information and

gathering feedback. The FLO will be the primary point of contact on the project for those involved in

the fishing industry and the feedback gathered from all stakeholders will be incorporated into the

development process.

The timing and coordination of the proposed site investigation works will be carried out in a way to

minimise the potential disruption to existing fishing practices in the area. Statkraft, and in particular

our FLO are working to form lines of communications with all the relevant stakeholders to ensure that

adequate advance notice is given to the fisheries operating in the area to ensure the optimum

coordination of the surveys with all stakeholders.

12




Figure 2-4: Commercial Fishing (Ireland Marine Atlas, 2019b)

Figure 2-5: Fisheries spawning and nursery grounds (Ireland Marine Atlas 2019c)

13




Figure 2-6: Range of Wild Atlantic Salmon (Ireland Marine Atlas 2019c)

2.5 Marine Traffic Navigation can impact both windfarm operations and cable routes, e.g. through various types of

dropped or dragged anchors (inadvertently, routine, emergency) and potentially damaging the cable.

The risk of navigational impact will be influenced by the proximity of the following to the proposed

windfarm and cable routes:

Shipping channels and shipping patterns;

Harbour entry areas

The Irish Coast Guard monitor the movement of vessels in Irish waters via an Automatic Identification

System (AIS) for maritime transport safety and security. The monitoring of vessels ensures ship

tracking follows the designated shipping lanes and sea highways. Figure 2-7 is data from the Irish Coast

Guard department of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (DTTS) representing the

number of vessels per 250m2 over the 6 month period (July-Dec 2018) near the site.

14




Figure 2-7: Coastguard AIS Traffic Frequency

2.6 Subsea infrastructure and wrecks One gas pipeline crosses the application area, the Interconnector 1 Scotland to Ireland IC1 operated

by Gas Networks Ireland (see Figure 2-8). The Interconnector 2 Scotland to Ireland IC2 gas pipeline

borders the northern boundary of the survey site. Two subsea cables are located within the survey

site area; the east-west interconnector operated by EirGrid and the Hibernia ‘C’ CVC cable, four other

subsea cables are located in the 15km buffer zone around the proposed survey area and are shown in

Figure 2-8.

The shipwreck data available through both the National Monuments Database and the INFOMAR project data is shown in Figure 2-9.

15




INFOMAR is a joint venture between the Geological Survey of Ireland and the Marine Institute surveying Irelands seabed. Part of this involves the identification, mapping and archiving of shipwrecks in Irish waters. The INFOMAR shipwreck data shown in Figure 2-9, suggests four shipwrecks are located within the survey area whilst as mentioned previously the National Monument Service (NMS) data suggests six shipwrecks.

The National Monument Database identifies six shipwreck locations within the proposed survey site and a further 67 shipwrecks within the 15km buffer zone. However, many of the wrecks from the National Monuments Database are unconfirmed and unlike the INFOMAR data do not have recent survey data.

Figure 2-8: Subsea infrastructure adjacent to the NISA survey site

16




Figure 2-9: National Monument Service (NWS) and INFOMAR shipwreck data

2.7 Other proposed activities in the area Foreshore licence applications for other proposed projects appear adjacent to the proposed survey

area, the details of which can be seen in Table 2-1.

17




Table 2-1: Details of nearby projects

Project Developer When planned to commence

Details

Clogher Head Hibernian Wind Power

Summer 2019 MBES, magnetometer, SSS, grab, CPT, VC, ecological, archaeological, wind and current monitoring

Cooley Point Hibernian Wind Power

Summer 2019 MBES, magnetometer, SSS, grab, CPT, VC, ecological, archaeological, wind and current monitoring

Oriel Oriel Windfarm Limited

Spring 2019 MBES, magnetometer, SSS, SBP, UHRS, Geotech, ecological, archaeological

Braymore Point SSE (Ireland) Ltd Late summer/ Autumn 2019

MBES, magnetometer, SSS, SBP, UHRS, Geotech, ecological, environmental, Archaeological, metocean

Rockabill Deep Sea Fibre Optics Cable

DeepSea Fibre Networks Limited.

Spring 2019 Pre-installation survey, localised site investigations and installation of a subsea fibre optic cable

PiPiper PiPiper Infrastructure Ltd

- Topographic Survey, Seismic refraction / sediment profiling, Bathymetry, SSS, Magnetometry, Ground Truthing, SBP and Core and Grab Sampling.

Celtix Connect - Havhingsten Fibre Optic Telecommunication Cable

Alcatel Submarine Networks

Q4 2019 Installation of telecommunications cable

18




3 Description of the survey works

The proposed survey area is in the Irish Sea, approximately 7km to 17km off the coast of Dublin, Meath

and Louth. The proposed survey area forms an irregular, approximately rectangular shape, spanning

31km north-south and 14km east-west at its widest point. At its closest location, near Rush in Co.

Dublin, the survey site is 7.4km from land (see Figure 2-1). The total proposed survey area is

approximately 226.9km2 (22689ha); all of which lies entirely within the foreshore area limit. The north-

east corner of the survey site lies directly on the 12nm foreshore area limit.

All marine surveys will be confined to the proposed survey area. It should be noted that no marine

surveys will be carried out within a Natura 2000 site. See separate Foreshore Application - Supporting

Document for more details.

The marine surveys include (refer Table 3-1):

3.1 Geophysical Survey Multibeam echosounder (MBES) system for detailed bathymetric mapping and seabed

features. The R2Sonic 2024 may be taken as an indicative example of a MBES system to

be used in the completion of these works. The equipment will operate within a frequency

range of 400-700kHz (400,000-700,000Hz) with sound pressure levels in the range of 200-

228dB re1μPa at 1 metre range.

Side scan sonar (SSS) to characterise the seabed features and sediment characteristics.

SSS will be a dual frequency hydrographic sonar used to produce seabed imagery. The

Seatronics Edgetech 4200 may be taken as an indicate example of an SSS device and will

have a potential operating frequency range of approximately 300 to 900 kHz (300,000 –

900,000 Hz) with sound pressure levels of 228dB re1μPa at 1 metre range. The frequency

range used will be determined by the survey objectives.

Magnetometer, to detect geomorphological anomalies and ferrous obstructions. The

magnetometer will be a cesium marine magnetometer such as the Geometrics G-882 and

capable of recording variations in magnetic field strength during survey to an accuracy of

±0.5nT.

Single channel sub-bottom profiling (SBP), to identify and characterise the shallower

layers of sediment/bedrock underneath the seafloor. The Seatronics Edgetech 3300 may

be taken as an indicative example of a hull-mounted pinger system and will have an

expected operating frequency range of approximately 2-16 kHz with sound pressure

levels of 200dB re1μPa at 1 metre range. The Applied Acoustics may be taken as an

indicative example of a boomer source and will have an expected operating frequency of

approximately 2.5 kHz with sound pressure levels in the range of 208-211dB re1μPa at 1

metre range.

Ultra-high resolution seismics (UHRS); to identify and characterise the deeper layers of

sediment/bedrock underneath the seafloor. The Geo Marine Geo-source 200 with a Geo

Spark 1000 source is a typical example of the type of system that may be proposed; with a

central operating frequency of 1.4 kHz and a source power in the range of 400-1000 joules;

19




again depending on the geology and the survey objectives. This is considered low power in

comparison to the oil and gas equivalent.

3.2 Geotechnical Survey The quantity and scheduled penetration depth of boreholes will be largely dependent on

the interpretation of geophysical data. It is anticipated that 12 borehole locations at the

windfarm array site will be carried. All drilling equipment used will follow the ISO and API

technical specifications for drilling equipment.

Cone Penetration Test (CPT) 40 no. the mode of deployment is either (a) Down-Borehole

CPTs or (b) seabed CPTs.

Vibrocore/ Gravity Sampling 40 no. core samples acquired by vibrocore or gravity corer.

Grab sampling 40 no. acquired by a Van Veen grab.

3.3 MetOcean (current and wave) Survey

LiDAR buoy will be deployed to collect wind resource data within the prospect area.

An acoustic doppler current profiler (ADCP) may also be deployed.

3.4 Ecology Survey Fisheries Survey - ascertain the species and their distribution within the survey area.

Benthic Survey – grab samples for faunal, sediment and chemical analysis.

3.5 Archaeological Survey Identification and assessment of metallic and other targets recorded during marine

magnetometer survey.

Table 3-1: Summary of proposed survey methodologies

Survey Purpose

Geophysical

Multibeam echo sounder Collect topographical data of the seabed

Side scan sonar Develop an image of the seafloor

Magnetometer Identify magnetic anomalies and hazard mapping for

metal obstructions, shipwrecks and unexploded

ordnance on the surface and in the sub-surface

Sub-bottom Profiling Develop an image of the subsurface, identifying

different strata encountered

Ultra-high resolution seismic To identify and characterise the deeper layers of

sediment/bedrock underneath the seafloor.

Geotechnical

Boreholes Sample and test soil and rock material, typically to

depth up to 70m below the seafloor (bsf).

20




CPTs Method for testing the soils strength parameters,

typically to depth of 25 – 40mbsf

Vibrocore Sample seafloor sediments (shallow depths)

Grab Samples Sample seafloor sediments (shallow depths)

Metocean

Floating LiDAR Wind resource measurements.

Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) Examine wave and current conditions in the survey

area.

Ecology

Fishing Survey A fisheries survey will be carried out to ascertain the

species and their distribution within the survey area.

Benthic Ecology Identify the expected benthic communities and

habitats on the site by grab samples and drop down

video surveys.

Archaeological Survey Identification and assessment of metallic and other

targets recorded during marine magnetometer

survey. Assessment of the archaeological significance

of identified targets to include side scan sonar data

analysis and diving as required.

21




4 Potential Environmental Impacts

This section outlines the potential impacts which the proposed survey works could have on the

environment. The potential risks caused by the survey works include:

Benthic Habitat

Physical disturbance to marine benthic communities

Marine Mammals

Disturbance from vibration and underwater noise associated with surveys

Injury due to collision (survey vessels/Sampling equipment)

It is deemed that the proposed surveys will not impact on bird species, directly or indirectly, due to

the nature of the surveys, the very short duration and limited emissions, see section 4.3 below.

4.1 Benthic Habitats Very small areas of the seabed will be disturbed and sampled during the environmental and

geotechnical surveys. Benthic communities will be unaffected by geophysical survey works as there is

no contact with the seabed.

The benthic survey will involve the extraction of 0.5m3 of material directly from the seabed using a

grab sampler. As Grab sampling by its nature can only be carried out in soft sediments (muds, sands,

gravels) once the sampling device is retrieved any disturbance to the sediment will be filled in

naturally.

Borehole locations will involve the penetration of a drill pipe to a scheduled depth, up to 80m below

the seafloor. This will cause disturbance to the area of the drill pipe penetration itself and the area

directly surrounding this by the mound created by drill risings. An estimated 2m2 area of the seafloor

will be affected by the footprint of the mound created by drill cuttings. Immediately following the

removal of the cores, the void in the seabed will fill naturally leaving only a minor impression on the

seafloor.

Core penetration testing (CPT) does not involve the removal of any material and the hole created by

the penetration of the core (approx. 5cm diameter), will infill almost instantly upon extraction of the

rods. The CPT unit has a footprint of approx. 8m2 which will sit on the sea floor for the duration of the

test, commonly 2-3 hours.

Benthic communities in the footprint of sampling equipment will be impacted through minor

disturbance around the drill site and a very small volume of substratum loss, direct displacement or

smothering during sampling. Any smothering will be a thin layer due to small volumes of sediment

displaced during the sampling. Softer sediments (such as sand and mud) are highly recoverable to

disturbance and typical species can quickly recolonise the area. Most fauna in the area is infaunal

therefore species will be able to burrow away from areas of disturbance.

22




The geotechnical sampling methods proposed are likely to cause a small amount of sediment to

become suspended. The resulting sediment suspension will be dispersed and deposited on the sea

floor at a location subject to wave action and tidal stream. As a result, the deposition levels of this

material will be very insignificant, likely within the storm background levels of sediment migration in

the survey area.

Benthic fauna does not have any auditory structures and therefore will not be impacted by any noise

inducing activities. They will however react to vibrations, often retracting into the seabed to avoid a

potential hazard. Seismic operations do not generate any vibration effects on sediments; however,

vibrocoring will produce vibration effects on the seabed and may disturb some benthic fauna. The

vibrations caused by vibrocoring will cause infaunal or tube dwelling species to retract, temporally,

into their respective burrows or tubes.

Sampling and testing locations will be an appropriate distance apart to reduce the impact. No material

will be disturbed or removed during geophysical survey activities.

4.2 Marine Mammals




Both cetaceans and pinnipeds have evolved to use sound as an important aid in navigation,

communication and hunting (Richardson et al, 1995). It is widely accepted that the main

environmental concern relating to marine mammals is the potential effects of anthropogenic

underwater noise/sound. Such exposure can induce a range of effects on marine mammals. Physical

effects may produce a reduction in hearing sensitivity temporary (Temporary Threshold Shift-TTS)

which is reversible or following intense noise exposure permanent (Permanent Threshold Shift-PTS).

Other impacts include masking of biologically important noises by anthropogenic noise (perceptual

impacts), behavioural changes such as displacement from feeding, resting or breeding grounds; and

stress (DAHG, 2014)

Acoustic instruments and equipment used in targeted marine geophysical investigations have been

reported to produce sound at frequencies within the range of marine mammals. In order to evaluate

the potential of the proposed survey equipment to cause harm to marine mammals, an assessment

has been conducted using the Southall et al, (2007) approach. They separated marine mammals into

five groups based on their functional hearing, namely low-frequency cetaceans, mid frequency

cetaceans, high frequency cetaceans, pinnipeds in water and pinnipeds in air. For each of these

groups they proposed noise levels that would result in injury (PTS, TTS) for individuals exposed to

single, multiple and non-pulsed sources (Table 4-1).

23




Table 4-1: SPL injury criteria proposed by Southall et al. (2007), for individual marine mammals exposed to discrete noise events

The DAHG (2014) report ‘Guidance to Manage the Risk to Marine Mammals from Man-made Sound

Sources in Irish Waters’ addresses several key potential sources of anthropogenic sound that may

impact detrimentally upon marine mammals in Irish waters. It incorporates a re-examination of the

Code of Practice for acoustic surveys and thereby provides replacement guidance and best practice

measures in this respect. These guidelines will be followed throughout the survey activities. The

following auditory band widths for marine mammals which may be present in the vicinity of the

proposed survey area are extracted from the DAHG (2014) guidelines and are shown in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2: Marine mammal Auditory Band Width

Injury Criteria

Marine Mammal group TTS PTS

Low-Frequency Cetaceans (Baleen whales)

224dB re: 1µPa (peak) 230dB re: 1µPa (peak)

Mid-Frequency Cetaceans (including Bottlenose dolphins)


High Frequency Cetaceans (including harbour porpoise)


Pinnipeds (in water) 212dB re: 1µPa (peak) 218 dB re: 1µPa (peak)

Frequency Marine mammal/Species Estimated Auditory Band Width (Hz)

Low Frequency Cetaceans

Baleen whales (Minke Whale, Blue Whale, Fin Whale) 7-22,000

Mid Frequency Cetaceans

Most toothed whales and dolphins (including bottlenose dolphins) 150-160,000

High Frequency Cetaceans

Certain toothed whales, porpoises (including harbour porpoise) 200-180,000

Low Frequency Pinnipeds in water

Grey Seal Harbour Seal 75-75,000

24




Noise characteristics of the various surveys are detailed in Table 4-3

Table 4-3: Marine survey noise sources

Noise Source Frequency (kHz)

Sound Pressure Level (dB re 1μPa @ 1m)

Shipping Noise 50 - 300 Hz 160-175

Multibeam echosounder (MBES) 200 - 700 200-228

Side scan sonar (SSS) 300 - 900 228

Pinger or Chirp/Sparker system (SBP) 2 - 16 200

Boomer system (SBP) 2.5 208 - 211

Ultra-high resolution seismic (UHRS)

Central frequency of 1.4 226

Geotechnical drilling (Rotary)

2Hz – 50kHz 190

Comparing the data on Marine mammal auditory band width (see Table 4-2) and the noise

characteristics of the surveys (see Table 4-3) it is deemed that the following surveys will be audible to

marine mammals:

Shipping noise

Sub-Bottom Profiler (SBP)

UHRS

Drilling

Cone penetration testing (CPT), Magnetometer (MM) and Vibrocore are deemed not audible to

marine mammals. Multibeam and Side Scan Sonar surveys are typically at such a very high frequency

and low power that they are deemed outside the audible threshold of marine mammals.

The relevant surveys which are within the audible band width for marine mammals are presented in

Table 4-4.

Table 4-4: Marine Mammal Auditory Band Width and relevant surveys, marine mammals known in the area are also listed

Frequency Marine mammal/Species Estimated Auditory Band Width (Hz)

Audible Survey

Low Frequency Cetaceans Baleen whales (Fin; Minke whale) 7-22,000

Shipping, SBP, UHRS, Drilling

Mid Frequency Cetaceans

Most toothed whales and dolphins (Common & Risso’s Dolphin) 150-160,000


High Frequency Cetaceans

Certain toothed whales, porpoises (including harbour porpoise) 200-180,000


Low Frequency Pinnipeds in water

Grey Seal Harbour Seal 75-75,000


25





There is a risk of collision between marine mammals and survey vessels. However, it is largely

recognised worldwide that the key factor contributing to collision between marine mammals and

vessels is speed. Ships travelling at 14 knots or faster are most likely to cause lethal or serious injuries.

Vessels involved in these surveys are likely to be either stationary or travelling considerably slower (5

knots) than this and therefore the collision risk is likely to be significantly lower than that posed by

commercial shipping activity.

Cetacean and pinnipeds in the area should be relatively used to marine traffic of all sizes, as they are

exposed to vessels on a regular basis and should be likely to maintain a distance from all survey vessels

for the short time period of survey works before returning to the area once survey work has finished.

4.3 Birds It is deemed that the proposed surveys will not impact on bird species, directly or indirectly, due to

the nature of the surveys, the very short duration and limited emissions. The physical presence of the

survey vessels may result in temporary disturbance to birds present in the vicinity of the survey area.

Thus, any effects are considered not significant.

26




5 Appropriate Assessment Stage 1 Screening

5.1 Identification of Relevant Natura 2000 Sites and Qualifying

Interests/Special Conservation Interests

Adopting a precautionary principle, all Natura 2000 sites within 15km of the works were included in

this assessment.

The Natura 2000 sites considered for the AA screening (within 15km of the proposed site investigation)

are listed in Table 5-1 and can be seen in Figure 5-1. In total 15 Natura 2000 sites are included in this

screening exercise. Of these, the Natura 2000 sites deemed relevant and screened in for Appropriate

Assessment are those which have Conservations Objectives or Qualifying Interests (QIs) which may be

impacted by the proposed works. The potential impacts are outlined in Section 3 of this report. Those

sites or individual qualifying interests that are screened out for Appropriate Assessment and require

no further assessment at this stage are not assessed further. Natura Sites/Qualifying interests that are

screened in for further assessment are highlighted in Table 5-1.

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the

Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78, MARPOL is short for maritime pollution and 73/78 short for the

years 1973 and 1978) is one of the most important international marine environmental conventions.

If vessels are MARPOL compliant as is standard good practise, then the risk of exposure to

hydrocarbon fuel spill from the survey vessels is mitigated for.

27




Table 5-1: Identification of relevant Natura 2000 sites. All those screened in for AA are highlighted Natura

2000 Site

Qualifying Interest Distance

from Survey

Site

Potential Impacts Screened Out / In

Rockabill

SPA

(004014)

Purple Sandpiper (Calidris maritima)

[A148]

Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii) [A192]

Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) [A193]

Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea) [A194]

0.0km Physical presence of survey vessels may result in

temporary disturbance to birds present in the

vicinity of the survey area. However, due to the

nature of the surveys, the very short duration

and limited emissions, it is deemed that the

proposed surveys will not impact on bird species,

directly or indirectly. Thus, any effects are

considered not significant.

Screened Out

Source: NPWS (2013a) Conservation Objectives: Rockabill SPA 004014. Version 1 (08/05/2013)

Rockabill to

Dalkey

Island SAC:

003000

Reefs [1170] 0.0km It is deemed there will be no potential impacts

on this Natura 2000 site habitat as the sampling

survey will only sample soft sediments.

In addition the nearest location to the Rockabill

SAC is at least 1km away and any affect will be

very localised and temporary and in the

immediate vicinity of the sediment sampling

location.

Screened Out

Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)

[1351]

Potential impact on Annex II marine mammal

species due to:

Disturbance from vibration and underwater

noise associated with surveys

Injury due to collision (survey

vessels/Sampling equipment)

Screened In

28




Natura

2000 Site


from Survey

Site


Source: (2013b) Conservation Objectives: Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC 003000. Version 1.

Lambay

Island SPA:

004069

Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) [A009]

Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) [A017]

Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis) [A018]

Greylag Goose (Anser anser) [A043]

Lesser Black-backed Gull (Larus fuscus)

[A183]

Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) [A184]

Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) [A188]

Guillemot (Uria aalge) [A199]

Razorbill (Alca torda) [A200]

Puffin (Fratercula arctica) [A204









Screened Out

Source: NPWS (2018b) Conservation objectives for Lambay Island SPA [004069].

Lambay

Island SAC:

000204

Reefs [1170]

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and

Baltic coasts [1230]

1.8km It is deemed there will be no potential impacts

on this Natura 2000 site due to its distance from

the survey site. As outlined in section 4.1

impacts will only affect benthic habitats and their

associated fauna in the direct footprint of

sampling equipment (environmental and

geotechnical surveys). Such impacts are deemed

minor disturbances i.e. very small volume of

substratum loss, direct displacement or

Screened Out

29




Natura

2000 Site


from Survey

Site


smothering during sampling and temporary

retraction in response to vibrations.

Benthic habitats will be unaffected by

geophysical survey works as there is no contact

with the seabed.

Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) [1364]

Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina) [1365]

Potential impact on Annex II marine mammal

species due to:

Disturbance from vibration and underwater

noise associated with surveys

Injury due to collision (survey

vessels/Sampling equipment)

Screened In

Source: NPWS (2013c) Conservation Objectives: Lambay Island SAC 000204. Version 1.

Skerries

Island SPA:

004122

Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) [A017]

Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis) [A018]

Light-bellied Brent Goose (Branta

bernicla hrota) [A046]

Purple Sandpiper (Calidris maritima)

[A148]

Turnstone (Arenaria interpres) [A169]

Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) [A184]









Screened Out

Source: NPWS (2018c) Conservation objectives for Skerries Islands SPA [004122].

30




Natura

2000 Site


from Survey

Site


Rogerstown

Estuary

SPA:

004015

Greylag Goose (Anser anser)* [A043] Light-bellied Brent Goose (Branta bernicla hrota)* [A046] Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) +[A048] Shoveler (Anas clypeata) +[A056] Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) [A130] Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) [A137] Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) *[A141] Knot (Calidris canutus) *[A143] Dunlin (Calidris alpina) *[A149] Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa) *[A156] Redshank (Tringa totanus) [A162] Wetland and Waterbirds [A999]









Screened Out

Source: NPWS (2013d) Conservation Objectives: Rogerstown Estuary SPA 004015. Version 1.

Malahide

Estuary

SPA:

004025

Great Crested Grebe (Podiceps cristatus) *[A005] Light-bellied Brent Goose (Branta bernicla hrota) *[A046] Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) +[A048] Pintail (Anas acuta) *[A054] Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) *[A067] Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator) [A069] Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) [A130]









Screened Out

31




Natura

2000 Site


from Survey

Site


Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria) *[A140] Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) *[A141] Knot (Calidris canutus) *[A143] Dunlin (Calidris alpina) *[A149] Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa) *[A156] Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica) *[A157] Redshank (Tringa totanus) [A162] Wetland and Waterbirds [A999]

Source: NPWS (2013g) Conservation Objectives: Malahide Estuary SPA 004025. Version 1.

Ireland’s

Eye SPA:

004117

Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) [A017] Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) [A184] Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) [A188] Guillemot (Uria aalge) [A199] Razorbill (Alca torda) [A200]









Screened Out

Source: NPWS (2018d) Conservation objectives for Ireland's Eye SPA [004117]. Generic Version 6.0.

Howth

Head Coast

SPA:

004113

Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) [A188]






Screened Out

32




Natura

2000 Site


from Survey

Site





Source: NPWS (2018a) Conservation objectives for Howth Head Coast SPA [004113]. Generic Version 6.0.

Baldoyle

Bay

SPA:004016

Light-bellied Brent Goose (Branta bernicla hrota) * [A046] Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) + [A048] Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) [A137] Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria) * [A140] Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) * [A141] Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica) * [A157] Wetland and Waterbirds [A999]









Screened Out

Source: NPWS (2013h) Conservation Objectives: Baldoyle Bay SPA 004016. Version 1.

Rogerstown

Estuary

SAC:

000208

Estuaries [1130] Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide [1140] Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand [1310] Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) [1330] Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) [1410]










Screened Out

33




Natura

2000 Site


from Survey

Site


Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes) [2120] Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes) [2130]





with the seabed.

Source: NPWS (2013e) Conservation Objectives: Rogerstown Estuary SAC 000208. Version 1.

Malahide

Estuary

SAC:

000205

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide [1140] Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand [1310] Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) [1330] Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) [1410] Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes) [2120] Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes) [2130]














with the seabed.

Screened Out

Source: NPWS (2013f) Conservation Objectives: Malahide Estuary SAC 000205. Version 1.

34




Natura

2000 Site


from Survey

Site


Ireland’s

Eye SAC:

002193

Perennial vegetation of stony banks [1220]

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts [1230]














with the seabed.

Screened Out

Source: NPWS (2017) Conservation Objectives: Ireland's Eye SAC 002193. Version 1.

Baldoyle

Bay SAC:

000199

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide [1140] Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand [1310] Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) [1330] Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) [1410]










Screened Out

35




Natura

2000 Site


from Survey

Site






with the seabed.

Source: NPWS (2012) Conservation Objectives: Baldoyle Bay SAC 000199. Version 1.0.

Howth

Head SAC:

000202

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts [1230]

European dry heaths [4030]














with the seabed.

Screened Out

Source: NPWS (2016) Conservation Objectives: Howth Head SAC 000202. Version 1.

36




Figure 5-1: Location of SAC and SPA sites within a 15km radius of the proposed survey area.

37




5.2 Screening Assessment Initial screening of Natura 2000 sites within 15km of the proposed survey area, revealed “No Overlap,

No potential interaction” exists by which the proposed survey activities could impact upon on the

following Natura 2000 sites, and they can therefore be screened out for AA:

Rockabill SPA:004014

Skerries Island SPA: 004122

Lambay Island SPA: 004069

Rogerstown Estuary SPA: 004015

Malahide Estuary SPA: 004025

Ireland’s Eye SPA: 004117

Baldoyle Bay SPA:004016

Howth Head Coast SPA: 004113

Rogerstown Estuary SAC: 000208

Malahide Estuary SAC: 000205

Ireland’s Eye SAC: 002193

Baldoyle Bay SAC: 000199

Howth Head SAC: 000202

Two Natura 2000 sites identified in Table 5-1 have been screened in for further assessment as

significant effects cannot be ruled out. These Natura 2000 site and their QIs/SCIs which have the

potential to be impacted are listed below:

Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC (003000): Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) [1351]

Lambay Island SAC (000204): Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) [1364] and Harbour Seal (Phoca

vitulina) [1365]

5.3 Screening Statement Due to the uncertainty of significant impacts on the qualifying interests of two Natura 2000 sites, it is

recommended that the assessment proceed to Stage 2 Natura Impact Statement for the two Natura

2000 sites listed above.

38




6 Appropriate Assessment Stage 2: Natura Impact Statement

6.1 Characteristics of Relevant Sites The relevant characteristics of the screened in sites are described below. The Conservation Objectives

of the sites are discussed in Section 5.2 Impact Assessment in the context of the potential impacts on

the screened in qualifying features.

6.1.1 Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC (003000) (NPWS 2013b, 2014b)

This site includes a range of dynamic inshore and coastal waters in the western Irish Sea (NPWS,

2014b). These include sandy and muddy seabed, reefs, sandbanks and islands. This site extends

southwards, in a strip approximately 7 km wide and 40 km in length, from Rockabill, running adjacent

to Howth Head, and crosses Dublin Bay to Frazer Bank in south Co. Dublin. The site encompasses

Dalkey, Muglins and Rockabill islands. The area selected for designation represents a key habitat for

the Annex II species Harbour Porpoise within the Irish Sea. The selected site contains a wide array of

habitats believed to be important for Harbour Porpoise including inshore shallow sand and mudbanks

and rocky reefs scoured by strong current flow.

The site is designated for the qualifying interests Annex I habitat [1170] Reefs and Annex II species

[1351] Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)

The qualifying interest of relevance to the assessment is the Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)

[1351]

6.1.2 Lambay Island SAC (000204) (NPWS 2013c, 2014a)

Lambay Island is a large (250 ha) inhabited island lying 4 km off Portrane on the north Co. Dublin coast

(NPWS, 2014a). The island rises to 127m and is surrounded by steep cliffs on the north, east and south

slopes. Lambay supports the principal breeding colony of Grey Seal on the east coast of Ireland,

numbering 196-252 seals, across all ages. It also contains regionally significant numbers of Common

Seal, of which up to 47 individuals have been counted at the site. Grey Seals and Common Seals occur

year-round and the island’s intertidal shorelines, coves and caves are used by resting and moulting

seals.

The site is designated for the qualifying interests Annex I habitat [1170] Reefs [1230] and Vegetated

Sea Cliffs [1364] and Annex II species Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) [1365] Common (Harbour) Seal

(Phoca vitulina)

The qualifying interests of relevance to the assessment are the Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) [1364]

and Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina) [1365]

39




6.2 Impact Assessment

6.2.1 Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) [1351]

The conservation objectives to maintain the favourable conservation condition of Harbour porpoise

in Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC (NPWS, 2013b), are defined by the following:

Species range within the site should not be restricted by artificial barriers to site use.

Human activities should occur at levels that do not adversely affect the harbour porpoise

community at the site

Harbour Porpoise hear in the high frequency range (200 – 180,000Hz) (DAHG, 2014). The greatest

potential impact on this species from the proposed surveys would be Shipping Noise, Sub-Bottom

Profiler, Ultra High Resolution Seismic and Drilling (depending on the frequency). These activities have

the potential to be within the hearing threshold of Harbour Porpoise. There is also a risk of injury due

to collision (survey vessels/sampling equipment).

Mitigation: Given the short duration and temporary nature of the proposed survey works; the fact

that the best practice measures in relation to geophysical acoustic surveys as specified in ‘Guidance

to Manage the Risk to Marine Mammals from Man-made Sound Sources in Irish Waters’(section 4.3.4)

(DAHG, 2014) will be followed at all times, with pre-monitoring by a qualified and experienced MMO

followed by the use of the ‘soft-start’ procedure, minimum disturbance to the species will be ensured

(see Appendix 2 for MMO protocols). In addition, the fact that survey vessels will be slow moving will

make any risk due to collision unlikely. The proposed survey will not restrict the species range in any

way.

Therefore, the conservation objectives for the harbour porpoise community at the site will not be

adversely affected and integrity of the Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC (003000) will be maintained.

6.2.2 Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus) [1364]

The conservation objectives to maintain the favourable conservation condition of Grey Seal in Lambay

Island SAC (NPWS, 2013c), are defined by the following:


The breeding sites should be maintained in a natural condition.

The moult haul-out sites should be maintained in a natural condition.

The resting haul-out sites should be maintained in a natural condition.

Human activities should occur at levels that do not adversely affect the grey seal population

at the site

Grey Seal hear in the low frequency range (75-75,000 Hz) (DAHG, 2014). The greatest impact on this

species from the proposed surveys would be Shipping, Sub-Bottom Profiler, Ultra High Resolution

Seismic and Drilling (depending on the frequency). These activities have the potential to be within the

hearing threshold of the Grey Seal. There is also a risk of injury due to collision (survey

vessels/Sampling equipment).

40








followed by the use of the ‘soft-start’ procedure, minimum disturbance to the species will be ensured

(see Appendix 2 for MMO protocols). In addition, the fact that survey vessels will be slow moving will

make any risk due to collision unlikely. The proposed survey will not restrict the species range in any

way or impact on the breeding, haul-out or resting sites of the species.

Therefore, the conservation objectives for the grey seal population at the site will not be adversely

affected and integrity of the Lambay Island SAC (000204) will be maintained.

6.2.3 Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina) [1365]

The conservation objectives to maintain the favourable conservation condition of Harbour Seal in

Lambay Island SAC (NPWS, 2013c), are defined by the following:


The breeding sites should be maintained in a natural condition.

The moult haul-out sites should be maintained in a natural condition.

The resting haul-out sites should be maintained in a natural condition.

Human activities should occur at levels that do not adversely affect the Harbour Seal

population at the site

Harbour Seal hear in the low frequency range (75-75,000 Hz) (DAHG, 2014). The greatest impact on

this species from the proposed surveys would be Shipping, Sub-Bottom Profiler, Ultra High Resolution

Seismic and Drilling (depending on the frequency). These activities have the potential to be within the

hearing threshold of Harbour Seal. There is also a risk of injury due to collision (survey

vessels/Sampling equipment).





followed by the use of the ‘soft-start’ procedure will ensure that there will be minimal disturbance to

this species (see Appendix 2 for MMO protocols). In addition to the fact that survey vessels will be

slow moving and therefore any risk due to collision is unlikely. The proposed survey will not restrict

the species range in any way or impact on the breeding, haul-out or resting sites of the species.

Therefore, the conservation objectives for the Harbour Seal population at the site will not be adversely

affected and integrity of the Lambay Island SAC (000204) will be maintained.

41




6.3 Cumulative Impacts Foreshore licence applications for several other proposed projects appear adjacent to the proposed

survey area, refer Section 2.7 above. However, these geophysical site investigation surveys are not

planned for that area during the same period so there can be no cumulative effect.

However, if surveys did have the potential to overlap the mitigation measures as set out above

(section 6.2) will be applied throughout the duration of the proposed marine surveys, therefore in-

combination effects on marine mammals will be avoided.

6.4 Conclusion The screening aspect of this report identified the impacts that may affect Natura 2000 sites as

disturbance from vibration and underwater noise associated with surveys and injury due to collision

(survey vessels/Sampling equipment). Two Natura sites, Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC (003000) and

Lambay Island SAC (000204), and their relevant qualifying interests (Harbour Porpoise, Grey Seal,

Harbour Seal) were screened in.

This NIS has examined and analysed, in light of the best scientific knowledge available, with respect to

those European sites within the zone of influence of the proposed project, the potential impact

sources and pathways, how these could impact on the sites’ QI species and whether the predicted

impacts would adversely affect the integrity of the European sites. Mitigation measures are set out

above (see section 6.2), and they ensure that any impacts on the conservation objectives of European

sites will be avoided during the proposed project such that there will be no risk of adverse effects on

these European sites.

It has been objectively concluded following an examination, analysis and evaluation of the relevant

information, including in particular the nature of the predicted impacts from the proposed project and

with the implementation of the mitigation measures proposed, that the proposed marine surveys will

not pose a risk of adversely affecting (either directly or indirectly) the integrity of any European site

or its qualifying interests either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, and there is no

reasonable scientific doubt in relation to this conclusion.

It is concluded that the proposed marine surveys will not pose a risk of adversely affecting (either

directly or indirectly) the integrity of any of the Natura 2000 sites, either alone or in combination with

other plans or projects.

42




7 Article 12: Assessment for Non-Qualifying Marine Mammals

All cetaceans are European Protected Species (EPS) protected under Annex IV of the EC Habitats

Directive (92/43/EEC), which lists Species of Community Interest in need of strict protection. It is an

offence to deliberately capture, kill, injure or disturb animals classed as EPS. Ireland has recorded 25

species of cetacean and two species of pinnipeds all of which are recognised as protected species

under the EU Habitats Directive and the Irish Wildlife Act. Marine mammals present in the survey area

are restricted to cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and pinnipeds (seals) and of the 25

species known to be present in Irish Waters, approximately 12 have been recorded off the east coast

and may be present in the offshore survey area at least on a seasonal basis.

The purpose of this section is to examine the possible impacts of the proposed activities on those non-

qualifying mammals identified as being present in the area and address protective measures aimed at

reducing any impact to these species. This examination is under Article 12 of the Habitats Directive

and does not form part of the Appropriate Assessment Screening Report or the subsequent Natura

Impact Statement which has examined the Natura Sites and their qualifying interests and reached a

conclusion in relation to those sites independently.

7.1 Identification of Relevant Non-Qualifying Marine Mammals

According to Ireland Marine Atlas (2019a) the area subject of the proposed works under the Site

Investigation Licence Application is known to be within the range of the following Marine Mammals

which are not qualifying interests and therefore not subject to Appropriate Assessment under Article

6(3) of the Habitats Directive:

1. Fin Whale

2. Humpback Whale

3. Minke Whale

4. Common Dolphin

5. Risso’s Dolphin

Three other species known to be present in the area (one cetacean – Harbour Porpoise and two

pinnipeds – Grey and Harbour Seals) are qualifying interests for two of the Natura 2000 sites (Rockabill

to Dalkey Island SAC (003000) and Lambay Island SAC (000204)). These were examined in the

Appropriate Assessment Screening Report and subsequent Natura Impact Statement and are

addressed separately in those reports.

7.2 Impact Assessment and Protective Measures under Article 12

The five species identified in Section 7.1 are most likely to be affected by:



43




Fin, Humpback and Minke Whale all hear in the low frequency range (75-75,000 Hz) (DAHG, 2014).

The greatest impact on these species from the proposed surveys would be Shipping, Sub-Bottom

Profiler and Drilling (depending on the frequency). These activities have the potential to be within the

hearing threshold of these species. Common dolphin and Risso’s dolphin hear in the mid frequency

range (150 – 160,000Hz) (DAHG, 2014). The greatest potential impact on these species from the

proposed surveys would be Shipping Noise, Ultra High Resolution Seismic and Sub-Bottom Profiler and

Drilling (depending on the frequency). There is also a risk of injury to any marine mammal due to

collision (survey vessels/Sampling equipment).

Protective Measures: The proposed works will be short in duration and of a temporary nature. The

best practice measures in relation to geophysical acoustic surveys as specified in ‘Guidance to Manage

the Risk to Marine Mammals from Man-made Sound Sources in Irish Waters’(section 4.3.4) (DAHG,

2014) will be followed at all times, with pre-monitoring by a qualified and experienced MMO. In

addition, the ‘soft-start’ procedure will be used to ensure that there will be minimal disturbance to

these species (see Appendix 2 for MMO protocols) and the survey vessels will be slow moving which

will make any risk due to collision unlikely.

7.3 Conclusion

Given the short duration and temporary nature of the proposed survey works, the fact that the best

practice measures in relation to geophysical acoustic surveys as specified in ‘Guidance to Manage the

Risk to Marine Mammals from Man-made Sound Sources in Irish Waters’(section 4.3.4) (DAHG, 2014)

will be followed at all times, with pre-monitoring by a qualified and experienced MMO followed by

the use of the ‘soft-start’ procedure, there will be minimal disturbance to this species (see Appendix

2 for MMO protocols). In addition, the survey vessels will be slow moving and therefore any risk due

to collision is unlikely.

These measures ensure that no marine mammals (non-qualifying interests), whose range overlap the

survey area will be impacted by the proposed marine surveys.

44




References

1. Camphuysen, K. J., Fox, A. D., Leopold, M. F. and Petersen, I. K. (2004) Towards standardised

seabirds at sea census techniques in connection with environmental impact assessments for

offshore wind farms in the U.K.: a comparison of ship and aerial sampling methods for marine

birds, and their applicability to offshore wind farm assessments, NIOZ report to COWRIE (BAM

– 02-2002), Texel, 37pp

2. Crowe, O. 2005. Ireland’s Wetlands and their Waterbirds: Status and Distribution. Birdwatch

Ireland, Newcastle, Co. Wicklow.

3. DAHG. 2012. Marine Natura Impact Statements in Irish Special Areas of Conservation – A

Working Document. April 2012. Prepared by the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the

DAHG.

4. DAHG. 2014. Guidance to manage the risk to marine mammals from man-made sound sources

in Irish waters. January 2014. Prepared by the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the DAHG.

5. DEHLG, 2009. Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland – Guidance for Planning

Authorities (Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 2010 revision).

6. EC Environment Directorate-General (2000) Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The Provision of

Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC

7. European Commission Environment Directorate-General (2001) Assessment of Plans and

Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 sites: Methodical Guidance on the Provisions of

Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC

8. European Commission (2007) Guidance Document on Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive

92/43/EEC

9. Ireland Marine Atlas (2019a). Data from the [Species distribution Marine Mammals] theme

accessed through Ireland’s Marine Atlas at http://atlas.marine.ie/, [Accessed15102019])

10. Ireland Marine Atlas (2019b) (Data from the [Fisheries] theme accessed through Ireland’s

Marine Atlas at http://atlas.marine.ie/, [27082019])

11. Ireland Marine Atlas (2019c) (Data from the [Species Distribution Sea Fisheries] theme

accessed through Ireland’s Marine Atlas at http://atlas.marine.ie/, [27082019])

12. NPWS (2011) Site Synopsis: Lambay Island SPA (004069). Version date: 14.12.2011. National

Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

13. NPWS (2012) Conservation Objectives: Baldoyle Bay SAC 000199. Version 1.0. National Parks

and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

14. NPWS (2013a) Conservation Objectives: Rockabill SPA 004014. Version 1 (08/05/2013).

National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

15. NPWS (2013b) Conservation Objectives: Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC 003000. Version 1.


16. NPWS (2013c) Conservation Objectives: Lambay Island SAC 000204. Version 1. National Parks


17. NPWS (2013d) Conservation Objectives: Rogerstown Estuary SPA 004015. Version 1. National


18. NPWS (2013e) Conservation Objectives: Rogerstown Estuary SAC 000208. Version 1. National


45




19. NPWS (2013f) Conservation Objectives: Malahide Estuary SAC 000205. Version 1. National


20. NPWS (2013g) Conservation Objectives: Malahide Estuary SPA 004025. Version 1. National


21. NPWS (2013h) Conservation Objectives: Baldoyle Bay SPA 004016. Version 1. National Parks


22. NPWS (2014a) Site Synopsis: Lambay Island SAC 000204. Version date: 31.01.2014. National


23. NPWS (2014b) Site Synopsis: Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC 003000. Version date: 10.02.2014.


24. NPWS (2015) Site Synopsis: Rockabill SPA (004014). Version date: 30.5.2015. Department of

Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

25. NPWS (2016) Conservation Objectives: Howth Head SAC 000202. Version 1. Department of


26. NPWS (2017) Conservation Objectives: Ireland's Eye SAC 002193. Version 1. Department of


27. NPWS (2018a) Conservation objectives for Howth Head Coast SPA [004113]. Generic Version

6.0. Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

28. NPWS (2018b) Conservation objectives for Lambay Island SPA [004069]. Department of


29. NPWS (2018c) Conservation objectives for Skerries Islands SPA [004122]. Department of


30. NPWS (2018d) Conservation objectives for Ireland's Eye SPA [004117]. Generic Version 6.0.

Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

31. NPWS (2019) Harbour porpoise https://www.npws/marine/marine-species/harbour-

porpoise [Accessed 01 September 2019]

32. Southall, B. L., Bowles, A. E., Ellison, W. T., Finneran, J. J., Gentry, R. L., Greene., C. R. Jr., Kastak,

D., Ketten, D. R., Miller, J. H., Nachtigall, P. E., Richardson, W. J., Thomas, J. A., and Tyack, P. L.

(2007). Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic

Mammals 33(4): 411-521.

https://www.npws/marine/marine-species/harbour-porpoise

https://www.npws/marine/marine-species/harbour-porpoise

46

Appendix 1: Consultation

47

Appendix 2: MMO Monitoring Protocol (DAHG, 2014)

49

Appendix 3: Aquaculture Farms

Figure: Aquaculture Farms in the vicinity (Ref: Irish Marine Atlas)

nisa – foreshore licence application · section 7 - article 12 assessment for other marine...

Documents