appropriate assessment stage1 screening and stage 2 natura ... · mott macdonald may 2017 the...

Appropriate Assessment Stage1 Screening and

Stage 2 Natura Impact Statement

for

Marine Surveys

In the Shannon Estuary

Produced by

AQUAFACT International Services Ltd

On behalf of

Mott MacDonald

May 2017

AQUAFACT INTERNATIONAL SERVICES Ltd.,

12 Kilkerrin Park,

Galway

www.aquafact.ie

[email protected]

tel +353 (0) 91 756812

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1. Requirement for an Article 6 Assessment ........................................................................................... 1

1.2. The Aim of this Report ....................................................................................................................... 2

1.3. Consultation ..................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Appropriate Assessment Process 3

2.1. Legislative Context ............................................................................................................................ 3

2.2. Stages of AA ...................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2.1. Stage 1. Screening for Appropriate Assessment ........................................................................................ 5

2.2.2. Stage 2. Appropriate Assessment (NIS) ...................................................................................................... 6

2.2.3. Stage 3. Alternative Solutions .................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.4. Stage 4. Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI)/Derogation ........................................ 6

3. Description of the Works 8

4. Potential Impacts of the Surveys 11

4.1. Noise & Vibration ............................................................................................................................ 11

4.2. Habitat Disturbance ........................................................................................................................ 13

5. Description of the Receiving Environment 14

5.1. Annex I Habitats .............................................................................................................................. 14

5.2. Annex II Species .............................................................................................................................. 18

6. Stage 1 Appropriate Assessment Screening 24

6.1. Identification of Relevant Natura 2000 Sites and Qualifying Interests/Special Conservation Interests 24

6.2. Screening Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 30

6.3. Screening Statement ....................................................................................................................... 30

7. Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment Natura Impact Statement 31

7.1. Characteristics of Relevant Sites ...................................................................................................... 31

7.1.1. Lower River Shannon cSAC (IE001265) ..................................................................................................... 31

7.1.2. River Shannon and River Estuaries SPA (IE004077) ................................................................................. 31

7.2. Impact Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 33

7.2.1. Estuary (1130) .......................................................................................................................................... 33

7.2.2. Reef (1170) ............................................................................................................................................... 33

7.2.3. Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) [1349] ...................................................................................... 34

7.2.4. River Lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) ........................................................................................................ 35

7.2.5. Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) ........................................................................................................ 35

7.2.6. Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) .................................................................................................................. 36

7.2.7. Otter (Lutra lutra) [1355] ......................................................................................................................... 37

7.2.8. Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) [A017] ................................................................................................ 38

7.2.9. Black-headed Gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus) [A179] ......................................................................... 38

7.3. Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 39

7.4. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 39

8. References 40

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Stages in the AA process (Source: DEHLG, 2009). .......................................................................................... 5

Figure 3.1: Proposed geophysical survey area. ............................................................................................................. 10

Figure 4.1: Multibeam data of the survey area (Source: INFOMAR & Google Earth). ................................................... 15

Figure 4.2: Marine habitats in the survey area (NPWS, 2012). ..................................................................................... 16

Figure 4.3: Representative images from rocky seabed within the proposed geophysical survey area (AQUAFACT, 2008).

................................................................................................................................................................. 17

Figure 4.4: Annex 1 habitats in the vicinity of the proposed geophysical survey area. ................................................. 18

Figure 4.5:Annex 2 species in the vicinity of the proposed geophysical survey area. ................................................... 23

Figure 5.1: Location of all cSACs and SPAs within 15km of the proposed survey area. ................................................. 29

List of Tables

Table 5.1: Identification of relevant Natura 2000 sites. All those screened in are highlighted. .................................... 26

List of Appendices

Appendix 1 Consultation

Appendix 2 MMO Monitoring Protocol

1

JN1408

Stage 1 and Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment for Marine Surveys

in the Shannon Estuary

Mott MacDonald

May 2017

1. Introduction

1.1. Requirement for an Article 6 Assessment

The Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) and the Habitats Directive (92/42/EEC) put an obligation on EU Member

States to establish the Natura 2000 network of sites of highest biodiversity importance for rare and threatened

habitats and species across the EU. In Ireland, the Natura 2000 network of European sites comprises Special

Areas of Conservation (SACs, including candidate SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs, including proposed

SPAs). SACs are selected for the conservation of Annex I habitats (including priority types which are in danger

of disappearance) and Annex II species (other than birds). SPAs are selected for the conservation of Annex I

birds and other regularly occurring migratory birds and their habitats. The annexed habitats and species for

which each site is selected correspond to the qualifying interests of the sites and from these the conservation

objectives of the site are derived.

The Birds and Habitats Directives set out various procedures and obligations in relation to nature conservation

management in Member States in general, and of the Natura 2000 sites and their habitats and species in

particular. A key protection mechanism is the requirement to consider the possible nature conservation

implications of any plan or project on the Natura 2000 site network before any decision is made to allow that

plan or project to proceed. Not only is every new plan or project captured by this requirement but each plan

or project, when being considered for approval at any stage, must take into consideration the possible effects

it may have in combination with other plans and projects when going through the process known as

Appropriate Assessment (AA).

The obligation to undertake Appropriate Assessment (AA) derives from Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats

Directive, and both involve a number of steps and tests that need to be applied in sequential order. Article 6(3)

is concerned with the strict protection of sites, while Article 6(4) is the procedure for allowing derogation from

this strict protection in certain restricted circumstances. Each step in the assessment process precedes and

provides a basis for other steps. The results at each step must be documented and recorded carefully so there

is full traceability and transparency of the decisions made.

2

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

The proposed surveys will be carried out in the Lower River Shannon cSAC (IE001265) and River Shannon and

River Fergus Estuaries SPA (IE004077). For this reason, it is regarded as necessary that the proposal should be

subject to the AA process.

This document represents Stages 1 and 2 (Screening and Natura Impact Statement) of the Appropriate

Assessment process.

1.2. The Aim of this Report

The purpose of this report is to inform the AA process as required under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) in

instances where a plan or project may give rise to significant impacts on a Natura 2000 site. This screening

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

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

the Natura 2000 sites in the study area in the context of their conservation objectives and specifically on the

habitats and species for which the sites have been designated.

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

• Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland - Guidance for Planning Authorities (DEHLG

2009, Revised February 2010);

• Marine Natura Impact Statements in Irish Special Areas of Conservation – A Working Document.

April 2012 (DAHG, 2012);

• EU Guidance document on Article 6(4) of the 'Habitats Directive' 92/43/EEC (EC, 2007);

• 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).

The report is laid out as follows:

Section 2 outlines the Appropriate Assessment procedure. Section 3 covers the Description of the work,

Section 4 the Description of the receiving environment and Section 5 the potential impacts. Section 6 contains

the Stage 1 Appropriate Assessment Screening phase and Section 7 contains the Stage 2 Appropriate

3

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

Assessment Natura Impact Statement which contains a description of the Natura 2000 sites and their

Qualifying Interests (QIs)/Special Conservation Interests (SCIs) and assess the impact on them. Section 7 also

assesses the cumulative impacts of the proposal.

1.3. Consultation

During the preparation of this document, consultation was carried out with the National Parks and Wildlife

Service (NPWS) of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG) to identify the scoping opinion

of the NPWS in relation to the proposal and to the ecological constraints and sensitivities of the habitats and

species in the area. In addition, a meeting was held with Dr. David Lyons to brief him on the project and seek

his advice. Appendix 1 shows the consultation letter and response.

2. Appropriate Assessment Process

2.1. Legislative Context

The requirements for AA derive directly from Article 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC)

(DEHLG, 2009). AA is an impact assessment process that fits within the decision-making framework and tests

of Articles 6(3) and 6(4). 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.

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

4

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

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.’

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’.

‘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 the environment or, further to an opinion from the

Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest’.

In addition, the European Court of Justice (Waddenzee Ruling – Case C-127/02) has made a ruling in relation

to AA:

‘Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site is to be subject

to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the sites conservation objectives if

it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that it will have a significant effect on that

site, either individually or in combination with other plans of projects and that the plan or project may only

be authorised where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects’

It is the responsibility of the competent authorities, in this instance the Marine Planning and Foreshore Section

of the Department of the Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, to make a decision as to

whether or not the proposed marine surveys (both alone and in combination with other plans and projects)

should be permitted, taking into consideration any potential impact upon the Natura 2000 sites in question.

5

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

2.2. Stages of AA

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 Appropriate Assessment (preparation

of an NIS). 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.

According to DAHG (2012) Marine NIS Guidelines, AA Screening should include:

1. Description of the plan or project, and local site or plan area characteristics;

2. Identification of relevant SAC, compilation of information on their qualifying interests and

conservation objectives;

6

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

3. Assessment of the likely effects – direct, indirect, cumulative – undertaken on the basis of available

information (desk study, field survey and/or primary research), which will result in a screening

assessment and screening statement.

2.2.2. Stage 2. Appropriate Assessment (NIS)

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 (NIS), 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

7

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

IROPI case1. 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.

1 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

8

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

3. Description of the Works

The proposed survey area is wholly within the foreshore and the survey area is outlined in Figure 3.1 below.

The proposed activity involves various marine surveys to assist in the selection of a new route for a high voltage

electricity cable installation between Moneypoint Power Station, Co. Clare and Kilpaddoge Substation, Co.

Kerry (located approximately 1.5km northwest of Tarbert village) including:

1. Bathymetry - seabed levels/water depths

MBES - Multibeam echo sounder (MBES) - GeoAcoustics GeoSwath Plus interferometric echo sounder

or similar (250 KHz operating frequency); and SBES - Single beam echo sounder (SBES) - Knudsen 320M

or similar

2. Side Scan Sonar - seabed type and targets

GeoAcoustics 160 system or similar (410kHz transducers)

3. Sub-Bottom Profiling- seabed geology

GeoAcoustics 5430A profiling system or similar ‘Pinger’ system for shallower geophysics.

4. Magnetometry (Total Magnetic Field Survey)- identify marine archaeology/wrecks/UXO targets, cables

and pipelines

Geometrics G-882 caesium vapour magnetometer or similar.

5. Vibrocore Sampling [approximately 55 - 60 (3 to 6m depths)]

Modular vibrocorer or similar.

6. Cone Penetration Tests [approximately 25]

7. Trial pits [approximately 14]

Subject to securing the necessary consents, it is anticipated that the non-intrusive works will occur in

September/October 2017 allowing for weather risk and that the intrusive works will be carried out in

October/November/December 2017 again allowing for weather risk. It is anticipated that the non-intrusive

works will occur over an 8 day period and the intrusive works over a 10 to 15 day period. The dates and

timeframes may change dependent on the outcomes of the consenting process.

9

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

While the type of vessels employed will be a matter for the contractor, similar surveys in the past have used a

number of different vessels types including single engine fibreglass hull vessels, multi-cat workboats with

drafts between 1.2 and 1.9m and varying in length between 10 and 20m. It is anticipated that similar vessels

will be used for the proposed surveys.

Having regard to the proposed Ground Intrusive (GI) works (Vibrocore and Cone Penetration Tests, Items 5

and 6 above), Figure 3.1 also shows the proposed locations. The Trial Pits (Item 7 above) will be on the beaches

at the alternative landfall options under consideration and these are also shown in Figure 3.1.

In addition to the above, EirGrid intends to complete an environmental survey within the study area which will

comprise of an ecological walkover survey of the area between the high water mark and low water mark,

benthic sampling programme and will include video/still photographs. Sediment samples may be obtained for

biological classification, physical and chemical analysis. The sampling locations will depend on the

interpretation of the physical characteristics of the estuary bed but will be typically 0.1m2 (x 4 replicates) at

each location. The final scope of the environmental survey is dependent upon the diversity of benthic habitats.

In line with best practice guidelines (DAHG, 2014), which are now being incorporated into the standard

operating procedures for geophysical surveys carried out in Irish waters, a qualified and experienced MMO

will be employed during all multibeam, single beam, side-scan sonar and sub-bottom profiling. MMO

monitoring will include pre-start monitoring and ramp-up procedures ‘soft-start’. Appendix 2 contains details

on the MMO Monitoring Protocols relevant to these surveys. These protocols have been employed successfully

in previous similar surveys in the Shannon Estuary (e.g. INFOMAR and Eirgrid surveys).

In addition, a Notice to Mariners will be issued regarding the survey work and notices will be issued to the

fishing community regarding the survey.

10

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

Figure 3.1: Proposed

marine survey area and

indicative locations of

vibrocores, trial pits and

twin vibrocore/CPT

locations area (the

actual locations of the

trial pits, vibrocores and

CPT locations will be

determined following

completion of the

geophysical surveys).

11

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

4. Potential Impacts of the Surveys

4.1. Noise & Vibration

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

to produce sound at frequencies within the range of marine mammal and fish hearing. Bottlenose dolphins

hear in the mid frequency range (0.15 kHz to 160 kHz) (DAHG, 2014), with the best sensitivity between 10 kHz

and 60 kHz (Johnson, 1967; Ljungblad et al., 1982; Au, 1993). Hearing in salmon is poor, responding only to

low frequency tones (below 0.38 kHz) with best hearing at 0.16 kHz (threshold 95 dB re 1µPa). While there are

no data available for hearing in lamprey, it is highly unlikely that they detect sound close to 10 kHz (Popper,

2005). The lamprey ear is relatively simple and there is nothing within the structure of the ear or associated

structures to suggest any specialisations that would make them into anything but a hearing generalist, with

maximum hearing to no more than several hundred Hz. Otters spend much of their time in water, but

underwater sounds have not been studied. There is no published data on the hearing of a Eurasian otter, but

as they spend less time with their head beneath the water than cetaceans it can be assumed that their hearing

underwater is unlikely to be as sensitive as that of a cetacean.

Magnetometers passively measure magnetic field strengths of ferrous objects lying on or within the seabed.

This activity will not generate noise will therefore not impact marine species.

Core penetration testing (CPT) is an in situ testing method used to determine the geotechnical engineering

properties of the seabed and assessing subsurface stratigraphy. This activity will not generate noise and will

therefore not impact marine species. Multibeam and single beam surveys have operating frequencies between

33 and 400 kHz and side-scan sonar has an operating frequency of 100 to 400kHz or higher. Lamprey and

salmon are not sensitive to these very high frequencies and they will not be impacted by them. Bottlenose

dolphins and potentially otters will be sensitive to these surveys.

Sub-bottom profiling has an operating frequency of 2-7 kHz for Chirp and Pinger and the parametric source: of

approximately 100 kHz primary frequency and 2-15/30 kHz secondary frequency. The sound level has an

12

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

intensity in the range of 200dB re 1 µPa @ 1m. Bottlenose dolphins will be sensitive to this noise and there is

a potential for injury. Salmon and lamprey have poor hearing and will not be impacted by sub-bottom profiling.

Vibrocoring is a technology and a technique for collecting core samples of underwater sediments. The vibrating

mechanism of the vibrocorer will be powered by two large electrical motors. The nominal frequency of the

motors is approximately 50 Hz. Salmon and lamprey may be sensitive to this noise depending on the sound

level. Bottlenose dolphins will not be sensitive to this level of noise.

Based on previous similar surveys in the Shannon, it is anticipated that a vessel <20m in length will be employed

to conduct the surveys. Vessel noise is a combination of tonal sounds at specific frequencies (e.g. propeller

blade rotational frequency and its harmonics) and broadband noise2 (Vella et al., 2001). Propeller cavitation

noise is the primary source of sound from underway vessels, whilst noise from propulsion machinery originates

inside a vessel and reaches the water via the vessel hull. Noise from shipping is roughly related to vessel size,

larger ships have larger, slower rotating propellers, which produce louder, lower frequency sounds (SMRU,

2001). Overall, vessel noise covers a wide range of frequencies from 10Hz to 10kHz. A typical 12m fishing vessel

moving at 7 knots will have a peak frequency of 300 Hz with sound pressure level of 150 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m

(DAHG, 2014). Dolphins, salmon and lamprey would hear vessel noise.

Multibeam, side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiling and vibrocoring are the activities that have the potential to

have the greatest impact.

The digging of trial pits will involve the excavation of small sections of the intertidal (area) using an excavator

(either from a boat or from land depending on access). The noise generated by the excavator may temporarily

disturb otters foraging in the area.

In addition, benthic invertebrates do not have any auditory structures through which they are able to hear and

they will therefore not be impacted by any noise inducing activities. They do nonetheless react to vibrations

and infaunal or tube dwelling species such as anemones, annelids, crustaceans, molluscs, echinoderms and

2 also called wideband noise - noise whose energy is distributed over a wide section of the audible range as opposed to Narrowband

noise.

13

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

cephalochords will retract into the sea bed or tube if they sense vibrations. The high frequency of seismic

acoustics will not generate any vibration effects on the sediment and the invertebrates will therefore not react.

Vibrocoring will produce vibration effects on the seabed and this may disturb benthic fauna.

4.2. Habitat Disturbance

Vibrocoring and the excavation of trial pits will alter and disturb the habitats over which they occur. The

diameter of the vibrocores will be 100mm and they will range between 3 and 6m in depth. There will be

between 55 and 60 vibrocore locations in total, of which 25 will be dual vibrocore and cone penetration testing

locations (see Figure 3.1). In a typical undisturbed sediment column the upper few inches may be a loose

watery material that is easily resuspended by any nearby motion. This material can be stirred up by the

vibrocore tube as it penetrates. Assuming that the upper 5cm of each core will be suspended, it is estimated

that 0.00039m3 of material will be suspended for every core. In total, 0.0234m3 will be resuspended for 60

cores. Given the fact that the Shannon River catchment is ca 15,700 km2 of mainly agricultural land, its waters

are known to be turbid (see McMahon et al., 1992). This quantity of sediment is negligible against background

levels recognising that this location is in the lowest reaches of the River Shannon and has been the subject of

extensive geotechnical surveys previously (for example Soil Mechanics-Pelorus Surveys, 2009). Immediately

following the removal of cores via vibrocoring, the void in the seabed will fill in on itself leaving only a minor

impression on the seabed.

If, during vibrocoring, rock (Annex I reef habitat) is encountered, penetration of the core will be refused with

insignificant impact on reef habitat.

The locations of the trial pits can be seen in Figure 3.1. Trial pits will be machine dug up to 5 metres depth to

determine the soil profile and, where applicable, depth to bedrock, within the intertidal and shoreline areas

at each landfall point. Trial pits will typically be 3m x 1m in size but may be enlarged if necessary to increase

stability and provide visibility to the logging engineer.There will be approximately 14 of them and an excavator

will be used to dig them. These trial pits will be reinstated following excavation. Over the course of a tidal cycle

the sediment surface will return to normal.

14

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

The impact of cone penetration testing on the seabed will be minimal, consisting of a thud on the seabed by

the tip of the cone, with an immeasurably small quantity of resuspended sediments. Of the 55-60 vibrocore

locations shown in Figure 3.1, approximately 25 will be dual vibrocore and cone penetration testing. If this

occurs over rocky areas (i.e. Annex I reef habitat), the cone tip will have no impact on this habitat in the area

as the impact area involved will be so small i.e. less than 0.001% of the total area of habitat. Recolonisation

will occur rapidly from either the damaged species itself or from neighbouring specimens of the same species.

No sediment will be resuspended. The locations can be seen in Figure 3.1.

Benthic grab sampling will also be carried out at representative locations along the selected cable route. It is

proposed that a 0.1m2 Day grab is used to collect these samples. Grab sampling can only occur in soft

sediments e.g. muds, sands. Following the removal of a grab sample the void will begin to fill in naturally over

time.

All of the above intrusive works will occur within the ‘estuary’ habitat and some may also occur within the

‘reef’ habitat.

5. Description of the Receiving Environment

5.1. Annex I Habitats

The proposed cable route will run from the high water mark across the estuary in waters with a maximum

depth of c. 60m. Substrate type between 0-30m towards the southern shore consists of a mix of sand, slightly

gravelly sand, gravelly sand, slightly gravelly muddy sand, gravelly muddy sand and sandy gravel (AQUAFACT,

2008; 2009). Slightly gravelly sandy mud is present between 0-10m towards the northern shore and the 30-

60m zone consists of a rocky seabed with boulders, cobbles and gravel. Figure 5.1 shows multibeam data of

the seabed in the survey area indicating seabed topography and bathymetry.

15

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

Figure 5.1: Multibeam data of the survey area (Source: INFOMAR & Google Earth).

Figure 5.2 shows the marine habitats in the survey area derived from NPWS Conservation Objective mapping

for Lower River Shannon cSAC (IE002165). The habitats that overlap the survey area include ‘subtidal sand to

mixed sediment with Nucula nucleus community complex’, ‘faunal turf dominated subtidal reef community’,

‘subtidal sand to mixed sediment with Nephtys spp. community complex’, ‘fucoid dominated intertidal reef

community complex’ and ‘Laminaria dominated community complex’.

16

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

Figure 5.2: Marine habitats in the survey area (NPWS, 2012).

AQUAFACT (2008; 2009) recorded the following species from the ‘subtidal sand to mixed sediment with Nucula

nucleus community complex’: the polychaetes Macrochaeta clavicornis, Nephtys hombergii, Paradoneis lyra,

Sphaerosyllis bulbosa, Capitella sp. complex, Scoloplos armiger and Spirobranchus sp., the bivalves Nucula

nucleus, Nucula nitidosa, Nucula tenuis and Abra alba, the amphipods Unicola crenatipalma, Abludomelita

obtusata, Pisidia longicornis and Maera othonis, the mysid shrimp Gastrosaccus spinifer and the gooseberry

sea-squirt Dendrodoa grossularia. AQUAFACT (2008) recorded the following species from the ‘subtidal sand to

mixed sediment with Nephtys spp. community complex’: the polychaetes Terebellides stroemi, Nephtys

hombergii and Scoloplos armiger and the amphipods Metaphoxus pectinatus and Ampelisca brevicornis.

Within the ‘faunal turf dominated subtidal reef community’, AQUAFACT (2008; 2009) recorded a rocky seabed

with boulders up to 0.5m in diameter either in tight clumps or more diffuse with some intervening mud, sands

and gravel. Species of note included the queen scallop Aequipecten opercularis, the green crab Carcinus

17

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

maenas, harbour crab Liocarcinus depurator, spider crab Maja squinado, the dahlia anemone Urticina feline,

the gooseberry sea-squirt Dendrodoa grossularia, Sabellaria sp. and other tubeworms and a variety of sponges

and hydroids. Figure 5.3 shows some images from the rocky seabed.

Figure 5.3: Representative images from rocky seabed within the proposed geophysical survey area (AQUAFACT, 2008).

The ‘fucoid dominated intertidal reef’ is characterised by Fucus spiralis on the upper shore, F. vesiculosus on

the mid shore and F. serratus on the lower shore (AQUAFACT, 2008; 2009). The associated fauna included

talitrids, limpets Patella vulgata, dogwhelks Nucella lapillus, periwinkles Littorina littorea and L. obtusata,

hermit crab Pagurus bernhardus, barnacles and the polychaetes Spirobranchus sp. and spirorbid spp.

Figure 5.4 shows the Annex 1 habitats in the vicinity of the proposed survey area. The proposed geophysical

survey area overlaps the reef (1170) and estuary (1130) habitats. The stony bank (1220) habitat is located

above the high water mark and the surveys will not encroach on this.

18

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

Figure 5.4: Annex 1 habitats in the vicinity of the proposed geophysical survey area.

5.2. Annex II Species

The Annex 2 species bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus habitat and otter Lutra lutra habitat can be seen in

Figure 5.5.

The Shannon Estuary is the most important site in Ireland for bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and was

designated as a cSAC for this species in 1999 (Berrow et al., 2012a). This is one of only two sites designated for

this species in Ireland and one of only about 20 in Europe. A recent study on genetics of bottlenose dolphins

in Ireland suggested that the bottlenose dolphins in the Shannon Estuary are genetically discrete and thus of

very high conservation value (Mirimin et al., 2011). Bottlenose dolphins have been known to use the estuary

since at least 1835 (Knott, 1997) and probably for much longer. The first study of the dolphins in the estuary

was carried out in 1993-1994 (Berrow et al., 1996), which showed the dolphins were resident and calved in

19

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

the estuary making it of high conservation value. A larger study carried out between 1996 and 1998 derived

an abundance estimate of 113±163 dolphins in the estuary (95% Confident Intervals of 94-1614) and identified

a number of critical habitats (Ingram, 2000; Ingram & Rogan, 2002). The proposed survey area overlaps their

critical habitat. A similar abundance estimate of 121±14 was calculated in 2003 (95% Confident Intervals of

103-163) (Ingram & Rogan, 2003). These population estimates were carried out again in 2006 and 2008

(Englund et al., 2007; 2008) and most recently in 2010 (Berrow et al. 2010).

The 2010 population assessment recorded a total of 64 dolphin groups with 547 individuals (Berrow et al.,

2010). Of the 547 individuals sighted, 116 were unique individuals. Group size ranged from 1-50 overall. Lone

dolphins were reported on two occasions. Dolphins were located throughout the survey area with

concentrations off Kilcredaun Head, Kilbaha, Leck Point in the outer estuary and Carrig Buoy in the middle

estuary (c. 3.2km west of the proposed survey area). Of the 116 individual dolphins recorded during this survey

47% (55 out of 116) were considered resident (i.e. they had been recorded previously in the Shannon Estuary)

and 53% were “new” dolphins not recorded previously. Previous abundance estimates for bottlenose dolphins

in the Lower River Shannon cSAC ranged from 114 in 2008 to 140 in 2006 and the 2010 estimate was within

this range and also within the 95% Confidence Intervals for all surveys carried out to date. This suggests that,

within the power of the survey technique, the population of bottlenose dolphins in the Lower River Shannon

cSAC is relatively stable (Berrow et al., 2012b).

Ingram & Rogan (2002) attempted to describe the dolphins preferred habitat requirements and suggested they

preferentially use areas with the greatest benthic slope and depth for foraging. These sites in the Shannon are

characterised by strong currents, particularly on the ebb tide which are thought to influence the distribution

and movement of fish, especially salmon (Salmo salar) which is believed to be a preferred prey item of the

Shannon dolphins (O’Brien & Berrow, 2012).

Figure 5.5 shows monthly sightings data throughout the Estuary over a 2 year period from 1996-1997. In 2012,

as part of the Strategic Integrated Framework Plan for the Shannon Estuary, Berrow et al. (2012a) attempted

to identify and rate the important areas for bottlenose dolphins in the Shannon Estuary. Figure 5.6 shows the

(3) Estimate with its standard deviations is given, showing the level of uncertainty

(4) Confidence intervals means that there is 95% confidence that the real figure lies within the range presented

20

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

effort corrected encounter rate of bottlenose dolphins from Shannon dolphin tour boat data between 2000 -

2010 (Berrow et al., 2012a). These data allowed Berrow et al. (2012a) to validate their habitat scoring system

which was based on current speed (faster the better), seabed slope (greater the better) and water depth

(deeper the better). Figure 5.7 shows the scoring assessment for habitat suitability for bottlenose dolphins in

the Shannon Estuary.

Figure 5.5: Location of sightings of dolphin groups encountered during boat surveys between 1996 and 1997 (length of

line denotes group size) (Rogan et al., 2000).

21

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

Figure 5.6: Effort corrected encounter rate of bottlenose dolphins from Shannon dolphin tour boat data between 2000-

2010 (Berrow et al., 2012a).

Figure 5.7: Scoring assessment for habitat suitability for bottlenose dolphins in the Shannon Estuary.

As part of the Strategic Integrated Framework Plan for the Shannon Estuary, long-term Static Acoustic

Monitoring (SAM) was carried out at 4 deep water jetty sites in the Shannon Estuary, one of which was

Moneypoint (O’Brien & Berrow, 2012). A C-POD was deployed from the jetty at Moneypoint for a period of

368 C-POD days from November 5th 2011 to November 4th 2012. The C-POD had a range of c. 800m. Bottlenose

22

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

dolphins were detected on 80% of the days (294 days) at Moneypoint. Season had a significant effect on

dolphin presence at Moneypoint with a peak in detections during the winter (Dec-Feb). Most dolphin

detections were recorded at night showing they are more active at the site during this period. Tidal cycle and

tidal phase were not found to be significant factors at Moneypoint.

As stated earlier, dolphins calve in the estuary. The breeding season is between May and September (Rogan

et al., 2000). It is also used as a nursery area for mother calf pairs. Highest numbers in the estuary tend to

coincide with the breeding season. However, as stated above, highest numbers recorded around Moneypoint

fall outside the breeding season.

Otters typically forage within 80m of the coastline but can transverse distances of up to 500m between islands

and between the mainland and islands. Their habitat overlaps the coastal section of the proposed survey area.

Bailey & Rochford (2006) revealed that otters are present throughout the Shannon Estuary. The sightings

reported through the National Biodiversity Data Centre identify areas where freshwater enters the estuary as

being more typical of otter usage e.g. Ballylongford Bay, Tarbert Bay, Kilrush (Data from the Lutra lutra

database held by the National Biodiversity Data Centre www.biodiversityireland.ie, 05/04/2017). That being

said, otters do have the potential to occur within the proposed survey area for periods of time.

23

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

Figure 5.8: Annex 2 species in the vicinity of the proposed geophysical survey area.

The proposed survey area also overlaps the River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA (IE004077). The site

is of Special Conservation Interest (SCI) for the following species: Cormorant, Whooper Swan, Light-bellied

Brent Goose, Shelduck, Wigeon, Teal, Pintail, Shoveler, Scaup, Ringed Plover, Golden Plover, Grey Plover,

Lapwing, Knot, Dunlin, Black-tailed Godwit, Bar-tailed Godwit, Curlew, Redshank, Greenshank and Black-

headed Gull. It is also of special conservation interest for holding an assemblage of over 20,000 wintering

waterbirds. The E.U. Birds Directive pays particular attention to wetlands and, as these form part of this SPA,

the site and its associated waterbirds are of special conservation interest for Wetland & Waterbirds. Of the 21

SCIs, only 2, the cormorant and black-headed gull, are open water species which have the potential to occur

within the survey area. All the other species are either waders, duck or geese and these will be found only on

mud flats or wading/dabbling in shallow water.

24

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

The sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) is a migratory species which grows to maturity in the sea and migrates

to freshwater to spawn. They migrate through the estuary from the sea in April and May (Hardisty, 1969) and

spawn in rivers in late May or June and then return to sea. The river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) is a migratory

species which grows to maturity in estuaries and migrates to freshwater to spawn from October to December

(Maitland, 2003). Spawning occurs in the rivers in March and April. Between July and September young adults

at 3-5 years of age migrate during darkness to the estuary. Both are qualifying interests of the Lower River

Shannon cSAC and have the potential to occur within the survey area.

Atlantic salmon Salmo salar are also qualifying interests of the Lower River Shannon cSAC. There are a number

of rivers, which flow into the Shannon Estuary, which are fished for salmon and sea trout (Salmo trutta). These

include the River Fergus, Castleconnell Salmon Fishery, River Mulchair, River Maigue and River Deel. The

presence of migratory fish species in the upper River Shannon indicates that there is a high likelihood that this

same species may occur within the study area at some point in their life-cycle. Smolts typically head out to sea

between March and June and adults return to the river between March and August.

6. Stage 1 Appropriate Assessment Screening

6.1. Identification of Relevant Natura 2000 Sites and Qualifying Interests/Special Conservation

Interests

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

assessment. All are listed in Table 4.1 and can be seen in Figure 6.1. Of these, the Natura 2000 sites deemed

relevant and screened in for Appropriate Assessment are those which have Conservations Objectives or

Qualifying Interests (QIs)/Special Conservation Interests (SCIs) which may be impacted by the proposed works.

The potential impacts are discussed in detail in Section 4 of this report.

Those sites or individual qualifying interests that are screened out for Appropriate Assessment and require no

further assessment at this stage (primarily as a result of being too great a distance away from the site and

having different habitat requirements) are not assessed further. Sites/QIs/SCIs that are screened in for further

assessment are highlighted in Table 6.1.

25

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

26

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

Table 6.1: 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 In /

Out

Lower River

Shannon cSAC

(IE002165)

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time [1110] c. 20km west

No pathway for interaction due to

distance Screened Out

Estuaries [1130] Overlap

Potential interaction during geophysical

surveys Screened In

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide [1140] c. 1.6km east



Coastal lagoons [1150] c. 4.7km west



Large shallow inlets and bays [1160] c. 2.5km west



Reefs [1170] Overlap


surveys Screened In

Perennial vegetation of stony banks [1220] Within survey area

Habitat located above high water mark

so no pathway for interaction Screened Out

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts [1230] c. 1.2km east



Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand [1310] c. 3.5km northeast



Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) [1330] c. 600m northeast



Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) [1410] c. 3.4km northeast



Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion

fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation [3260] c. 3.4km east



Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils

(Molinion caeruleae) [6410] c. 60km east



Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-

Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) [91E0] c. 30km southeast



Margaritifera margaritifera (Freshwater Pearl Mussel) [1029] c. 10km northeast


distance and habitat type Screened Out

27

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017


Site


Out

Lower River

Shannon cSAC

(IE002165)

Petromyzon marinus (Sea Lamprey) [1095] Potential to pass

through survey area


surveys Screened In

Lampetra planeri (Brook Lamprey) [1096] Distance unknown



Lampetra fluviatilis (River Lamprey) [1099] Potential to pass

through survey area


surveys Screened In

Salmo salar (Salmon) [1106] Potential to pass

through survey area


surveys Screened In

Tursiops truncatus (Common Bottlenose Dolphin) [1349] Overlap


surveys Screened In

Lutra lutra (Otter) [1355] Overlap


surveys Screened In

Tullaher Lough &

Bog cSAC

(IE002343)

Active raised bogs [7110]

11.9km northwest No pathway for interaction due to


Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration [7120]

Transition mires and quaking bogs [7140]

Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion [7150]

Moanveanlagh Bog

cSAC (E002351)

Active raised bogs [7110] c. 13.3km south No pathway for interaction due to

distance and habitat type

Screened Out

Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration [7120]

Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion [7150]

River Shannon and

River Fergus

Estuaries SPA

(E004077)

Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) [A017] Overlap Potential interaction during geophysical

surveys Screened In

Whooper Swan (Cygnus cygnus) [A038] Overlap No pathway for interaction due to

habitat preference

Screened Out

Light-bellied Brent Goose (Branta bernicla hrota) [A046]

Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) [A048]

Wigeon (Anas penelope) [A050]

Teal (Anas crecca) [A052]

Pintail (Anas acuta) [A054]

Shoveler (Anas clypeata) [A056]

Scaup (Aythya marila) [A062]

Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) [A137]

Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria) [A140]

28

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017


Site


Out

River Shannon and

River Fergus

Estuaries SPA

(E004077)

Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) [A141] Overlap No pathway for interaction due to

habitat preference

Screened Out

Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) [A142]

Knot (Calidris canutus) [A143]

Dunlin (Calidris alpina) [A149]

Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa) [A156]

Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica) [A157]

Curlew (Numenius arquata) [A160]

Redshank (Tringa totanus) [A162]

Greenshank (Tringa nebularia) [A164]

Black-headed Gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus) [A179] Overlap Potential interaction during geophysical

surveys Screened In

Wetland and Waterbirds [A999] Overlap


habitat type Screened Out

Stack’s to

Mullaghareirk

Mountains, West

Limerick Hills and

Mount Eagle SPA

(IE004161)

Hen Harrier (Circus cyaneus) [A082] 7.4km southeast No pathway for interaction due to

distance and habitat preference

Screened Out

29

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

Figure 6.1: Location of all cSACs and

SPAs within 15km of the proposed

survey area.

30

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

6.2. Screening Assessment

After an initial review of all Natura 2000 sites within 15km of the proposed survey area, it was considered that

“no pathway” exists by which the proposed survey activities could impact upon on the following Natura 2000

sites:

• Moanveanlagh Bog cSAC (E002351)

• Tullaher Lough & Bog cSAC (IE002343)

• Stack’s to Mullaghareirk Mountains, West Limerick Hills and Mount Eagle SPA (IE004161)

Due to distance and / or habitat preferences there is no potential for any effects on these Natura 2000 sites

and they can be screened out for AA.

However, there are two Natura 2000 sites identified in Table 6.1 above that have been screened in for further

assessment as significant effects cannot be rules out. These Natura 2000 site and their QIs/SCIs which have

the potential to be significantly impacted are listed below:

• Lower River Shannon cSAC (IE001265): Reefs [1170], Estuaries [1130], River Lamprey Lampetra

fluviatilis [1099], Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus [1095], Salmon Salmo salar [1106], Common

Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops truncatus [1349] and Otter (Lutra lutra) [1355].

• River Shannon and River Estuaries SPA (IE004077): Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) [A017] Black-

headed Gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus [A179].

6.3. Screening Statement

Due to the uncertainty of significant impacts on two Natura 2000 sites at this stage, it is recommended that

the assessment proceed to Stage 2 Natura Impact Statement for the two Natura 2000 sites and their habitats

and species listed above.

31

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

7. Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment Natura Impact Statement

7.1. Characteristics of Relevant Sites

The characteristics of the relevant sites are described below. The Conservation Objectives of the sites are

discussed in Section 7.2 Impact Assessment in the context of the potential impacts on them. The habitats and

species found within the sites are discussed in Section 4 above.

7.1.1. Lower River Shannon cSAC (IE001265)

The Lower River Shannon cSAC is a very large site which stretches along the Shannon valley from Killaloe in Co.

Clare to Loop Head/ Kerry Head, a distance of 120km. The site thus encompasses the Shannon, Feale, Mulkear

and Fergus estuaries, the freshwater lower reaches of the River Shannon (between Killaloe and Limerick), the

freshwater stretches of much of the Feale and Mulkear catchments and the marine area between Loop Head

and Kerry Head. Rivers within the sub-catchment of the Feale include the Galey, Smearlagh, Oolagh,

Allaughaun, Owveg, Clydagh, Caher, Breanagh and Glenacarney. Rivers within the sub-catchment of the

Mulkear include the Killeenagarriff, Annagh, Newport, the Dead River, the Bilboa, Glashacloonaraveela,

Gortnageragh and Cahernahallia.

The habitats and species of relevance to the proposed survey include bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus of

which there is a resident population in the estuary, Atlantic salmon Salmo salar which migrates through the

estuary, river lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis and sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus which reside as adults in the

estuary and the reef and estuary habitats over which the survey will occur.

7.1.2. River Shannon and River Estuaries SPA (IE004077)

The estuaries of the River Shannon and River Fergus form the largest estuarine complex in Ireland. The site

comprises the entire estuarine habitat from Limerick City westwards as far as Doonaha in Co. Clare and

Dooneen Point in Co. Kerry. The site has vast expanses of intertidal flats which contain a diverse

macroinvertebrate community which provides a rich food resource for the wintering birds. Salt marsh

vegetation frequently fringes the mudflats and this provides important high tide roost areas for the wintering

birds. Elsewhere in the site the shoreline comprises stony or shingle beaches. The site is a Special Protection

Area (SPA) under the E.U. Birds Directive, of special conservation interest for the following species: Cormorant,

Whooper Swan, Light bellied Brent Goose, Shelduck, Wigeon, Teal, Pintail, Shoveler, Scaup, Ringed Plover,

32

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

Golden Plover, Grey Plover, Lapwing, Knot, Dunlin, Black-tailed Godwit, Bar-tailed Godwit, Curlew, Redshank,

Greenshank and Black-headed Gull. It is also of special conservation interest for holding an assemblage of over

20,000 wintering waterbirds. The E.U. Birds Directive pays particular attention to wetlands and, as these form

part of this SPA, the site and its associated waterbirds are of special conservation interest for Wetland &

Waterbirds. Of relevance to the proposed survey are the cormorant and black-headed gull.

33

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

7.2. Impact Assessment

7.2.1. Estuary (1130)

The Shannon Estuary is a highly turbid environment and any minor increases in suspended sediments due to

vibrocoring and CPT will be insignificant against background levels.

Immediately following the removal of cores via vibrocoring, the void in the seabed will fill in on itself leaving

only a minor impression on the seabed. The vibrations caused by vibrocoring will cause infaunal or tube

dwelling species such as anemones, annelids, crustaceans, molluscs, echinoderms and cephalochords to react

by retracting into the sea bed or tube. This reaction will be temporary and will cease once the vibrations cease.

The minor disturbances to the seabed will have no measureable impacts on this habitat.

Noise from the geophysical surveys and vessel will have no negative impact on benthic invertebrates found in

this habitat as benthic invertebrates do not have any auditory structures through which they are able to hear.

The conservation objectives to maintain the favourable conservation condition of this habitat in the Lower

River Shannon cSAC are to:

• Ensure the habitat area of 24,273ha (NPWS, 2012) remains stable and

• To conserve the community structure and extent.

Given the above it has been concluded that there will be no adverse effects on the estuarine habitat in Lower

River Shannon cSAC as there will be no change to habitat area and community structure and extent.

7.2.2. Reef (1170)

If CPT or vibrocoring occurs over rocky areas, they will meet resistance and the survey equipment will be

relocated to suitable ground. The contact between the cone tip or corer and the reef habitat will not be of a

level that could damage the rock. If contact is made with an epifaunal community or species, then some

damage to the community/species could occur. The damaged areas would be miniscule in terms of the overall

reef area i.e. less than 0.001% of the habitat type, and recolonisation would occur rapidly from either the

damaged species itself or from neighbouring specimens of the same species.

34

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

Noise from the geophysical surveys and vessel will have no negative impact on benthic invertebrates found in

this habitat as benthic invertebrates do not have any auditory structures through which they are able to hear.

Vibrocoring in nearby soft-sediment areas may invoke a reaction in the reef dwelling species and cause them

to retreat into tubes nor into crevices in the reef. This reaction will be temporary and will cease once the

vibrations cease.

The conservation objectives to maintain the favourable conservation condition of this habitat in the Lower

River Shannon cSAC are to:

• Ensure the habitat area of 21,421ha (NPWS, 2012) remains stable and

• To conserve the community structure and extent.

Given the above it has been concluded that there will be no adverse effects on reef habitat in the Lower River

Shannon cSAC will not be compromised as there will be no change to habitat area and community structure

and extent.

7.2.3. Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) [1349]

Bottlenose dolphins hear in the mid frequency range (0.15 kHz to 160 kHz) (DAHG, 2014), with the best

sensitivity between 10 kHz and 60 kHz (Johnson, 1967; Ljungblad et al., 1982; Au, 1993). The greatest impact

on bottlenose dolphins from the proposed surveys would be the low frequency sub-bottom profiling activity

and from multibeam and side scan sonar (depending on the frequency). These activities have the potential to

be within the hearing threshold of bottlenose dolphins, however pre-monitoring by a qualified and

experienced MMO 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). Bottlenose dolphins will not be impacted by

sediment resuspension cause by vibrocoring and CPT as these species are adapted to living in the highly turbid

estuarine waters of the Shannon Estuary.

The conservation objectives (NPWS, 2012) to maintain the favourable conservation condition of this species in

the Lower River Shannon cSAC are to:

• Ensure that access to suitable habitat is not restricted by artificial barriers;

• Ensure that critical habitat is maintained in a natural condition and

• Any disturbance by human activities should occur at levels that will not adversely affect the population.

35

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

The short duration and temporary nature of the proposed survey works and the employment of an MMO and

the ‘soft-start’ procedure throughout the surveys will ensure that the conservation objectives for bottlenose

dolphins and the population of bottlenose dolphins are not adversely affected and that the integrity of the

cSAC is maintained.

7.2.4. River Lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis)

River lamprey have the potential to be impacted by the low frequency sounds produced by the sub-bottom

profiler and vibrocore. However, as the ‘soft-start’ procedure will be employed, lamprey can temporarily leave

the area if disturbed. Lamprey will not be impacted by sediment resuspension cause by vibrocoring and CPT

as these species are adapted to living in highly turbid estuarine environments.



• Ensure access to all watercourses;

• Ensure at least 3 age/size groups present;

• Maintain mean catchment juvenile density of at least 2/m2;

• No decline in extent and distribution of spawning beds; and

• Ensure that >50% of juvenile habitat sample sites are positive.

The short duration and temporary nature of the proposed survey works and the employment of the ‘soft-start’

procedure throughout the surveys will ensure that the conservation objectives for the river lamprey and the

population of river lamprey are not adversely affected and that the integrity of the cSAC is maintained.

7.2.5. Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus)

The works are anticipated to be carried out between September and November/December 2017 for a 25 day

period (depending on weather conditions this may vary). Sea lamprey migrate through the estuary between

April and June/early July. It is highly unlikely that sea lamprey will be present during the period of the works.

If however any individuals are present, they have the potential to be impacted by the low frequency sounds

produced by the sub-bottom profiler and vibrocore. However, as the ‘soft-start’ procedure will be employed,

lamprey can temporarily leave the area if disturbed. Lamprey will not be impacted by sediment resuspension

cause by vibrocoring and CPT as these species are adapted to living in highly turbid estuarine environments.

36

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017



• Ensure >75% of main stem length of rivers accessible from the estuary;

• Ensure at least 3 age/size groups present;

• Maintain juvenile density of at least 1/m2;

• No decline in extent and distribution of spawning beds and

• Ensure that >50% of juvenile habitat sample sites are positive.


procedure throughout the surveys will ensure that the conservation objectives for the sea lamprey and the

population of sea lamprey are not adversely affected and that the integrity of the cSAC is maintained.

7.2.6. Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar)

Atlantic salmon have the potential to be impacted by the low frequency sounds produced by the sub-bottom

profiler and vibrocore. Salmon will migrate through the area between March and August. The surveys are

planned for between September and November/December 2017 therefore the surveys will not overlap with

migrating salmon. If however any individuals are present, as the ‘soft-start’ procedure will be employed,

salmon can temporarily leave the area if disturbed. Salmon will not be impacted by sediment resuspension

cause by vibrocoring and CPT as this species are adapted to living in highly turbid estuarine environments.

The conservation objectives (NPWS, 2012) to restore the favourable conservation condition of this species in


• Ensure that 100% of the river channels are accessible from the estuary;

• Ensure that the conservation limit for each system is consistently exceeded;

• Maintain or exceed 0+ fry mean catchment-wide abundance threshold value;

• No significant decline in out-migrating smolt abundance;

• No decline in number and distribution of spawning redds due to anthropogenic causes and

• At least Q4 water quality at all sites sampled by EPA.

37

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017


procedure throughout the surveys will ensure that the conservation objectives for the salmon and the

population of salmon are not adversely affected and that the integrity of the cSAC is maintained.

7.2.7. Otter (Lutra lutra) [1355]

While there is no information available on hearing in otters, as they spend less time in the water their hearing

is not believed to be as sensitive as that of bottlenose dolphins, but it is likely that they will experience a

disturbance. However, the pre-monitoring by a qualified and experienced MMO followed by the use of the

‘soft-start’ procedure (see Appendix 2 for MMO protocols) will allow otters to temporarily vacate the area and

avoid more serious impacts. As a result, it is concluded that there will not be a significant impact on otter

species due to these activities.

Otter may also be disturbed by the excavation of trail pits on the intertidal shore. While the activities will

disturb any foraging otters, their displacement will be temporary and they will return following reinstatement

of the shore.

The conservation objectives (NPWS, 2012) to restore the favourable conservation condition of this species in

Lower River Shannon cSAC are to:

• Ensure no significant decline in distribution

• Ensure no significant decline in extent of terrestrial habitat

• Ensure no significant decline in extent of marine habitat

• Ensure no significant decline in extent of freshwater (river) habitat

• Ensure no significant decline in extent of freshwater (lake/lagoon) habitat

• Ensure no significant decline in couching sites and holts

• Ensure no significant decline in fish biomass available

• Ensure no significant increase in barriers to connectivity

The short duration and temporary nature of the proposed survey works and the employment of an MMO and

the ‘soft-start’ procedure throughout the surveys will ensure that the conservation objectives for otter and the

population of otters are not adversely affected and that the integrity of the cSAC is maintained.

38

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

7.2.8. Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) [A017]

Cormorant have the potential to be disturbed by the presence of the survey vessel, however the impact caused

by the addition of 1 vessel to the volumes of traffic that currently use the Shannon Estuary will be insignificant.

The Conservation Objective for the River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA with regards to cormorants

is to maintain the favourable conservation condition of this species (NPWS, 2012b) by having:

• No significant decline in breeding population abundance, productivity rate, distribution of breeding

colonies and prey biomass;

• No significant increase in barriers to connectivity;

• Restrict human activities to levels that will not adversely affect the breeding population;

• No significant decrease in the range, timing or intensity of use of areas by cormorant and

• Increase or stabilise the long term population trend.

Given the above it has been concluded that there will be no adverse effects on the cormorant population of

the River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA.

7.2.9. Black-headed Gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus) [A179]

Black-headed gulls have the potential to be disturbed by the presence of the survey vessel, however the impact

caused by the addition of 1 vessel to the volumes of traffic that currently use the Shannon Estuary will be

insignificant.

The Conservation Objective for the River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA with regards to black-headed

gulls is to maintain the favourable conservation condition of this species (NPWS, 2012b) by having:

• Increase or stabilise the long term population trend; and

• No significant decrease in the range, timing or intensity of use of areas by black-headed gull.

Given the above it has been concluded that there will be no adverse effects on the black-headed gull

population of the River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA.

39

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

7.3. Cumulative Impacts

Based on a review completed of the Foreshore Consent applications included on the Department of Housing,

Planning, Community and Local Government web-site

(http://www.housing.gov.ie/planning/foreshore/foreshore-consenting) completed on 26th May 2017, there

are no other geophysical site investigation surveys planned for that part or other parts of the Shannon during

the same period so there can be no sonic cumulative effects.

The level of commercial shipping in the Shannon has remained relatively stable over the last 10 years and the

addition of a small number of vessels required to carry out the proposed geophysical site investigation works

does not represent a significant increase in noise levels generated by them.

The level of dredging activities in the Shannon has remained relatively stable over the last 10 years and the

addition of a small number of vessels required to carry out the proposed geophysical site investigation works

does not represent a significant increase in noise levels.

There are no other known in-river developments planned for the Shannon.

7.4. Conclusion

This assessment has shown that given the suggested mitigation measures, there will be no adverse impact on

the Lower River Shannon cSAC or River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA as a result of the proposed

short-term and temporary marine surveys. A qualified and experienced MMO will be on board the survey

vessel and the ‘soft-start’ procedure will be employed. It is concluded that the conservation objectives and

integrity of the cSAC and SPA will not be adversely affected by the proposed survey work.

40

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

8. References

AQUAFACT. 2008. Marine ecological surveys for a proposed submarine cable route in the Shannon Estuary.

Report prepared for Environmental Resources Management Ltd. October 2008.

AQUAFACT. 2009. Marine ecological surveys for a proposed submarine cable route in the Shannon Estuary.

Report prepared for Environmental Resources Management Ltd. October 2009.

Au, W.W.L. 1993. The sonar of dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Bailey, M. & J. Rochford J. 2006. Otter Survey of Ireland 2004/2005. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 23. National

Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland.

Berrow, S. D., Holmes, B. & Kiely, O. (1996) Distribution and Abundance of Bottle-nosed Dolphins Tursiops

truncatus (Montagu) in the Shannon Estuary, Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy Biology

and Environment 96B (1), 1-9.

Berrow, S.D., O’Brien, J., Groth, L., Foley, A. & K. Voigt. 2010. Bottlenose Dolphin SAC Survey 2010. Report to

the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Shannon Dolphin and Wildlife Foundation. pp.24.

Berrow, S., O’Brien, J. & I. O’Connor. 2012a. Identification and rating of important areas for bottlenose

dolphins. Prepared for the Shannon Dolphin and Wildlife Foundation as part of the Strategic Integrated

Framework Plan for the Shannon Estuary. July 2012

Berrow, S., O’Brien,, J., Groth, L., Foley, A. and Voigt, K. 2012b. Abundance estimate of bottlenose dolphins

(Tursiops truncatus) in the Lower River Shannon candidate Special Area of Conservation, Ireland. Aquatic

Mammals 38(2): 136-144.

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.

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

January 2014.

DEHLG. 2009. Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland - Guidance for Planning Authorities

(Revised February 2010).

Englund, A., Ingram, S., and Rogan, E. (2007) Population status report for bottlenose dolphins using the lower

River Shannon SAC, 2006-2007. Final report to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1-35.

Englund, A., Ingram, S., and Rogan, E. (2008) An updated population status report for bottlenose dolphins using

the lower River Shannon SAC in 2008. Final report to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1- 34.

41

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

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.

Hardisty, , M.W. 1969. Information on the growth of the ammocoete larvae of the anadromous sea lamprey

Petromyzon marinus in British rivers. Journal of Zoology 159: 139-144.

Ingram, S. D. 2000. The ecology and conservation of bottlenose dolphins in the Shannon Estuary, Ireland,

University College Cork. PhD thesis, 1-213.

Ingram, S. and Rogan, E. 2002. Identifying critical areas and habitat preferences of bottlenose

dolphins. Marine Ecology Progress Series 244, 247-255.

Ingram, S., Rogan, E. 2003. Estimating abundance, site fidelity and ranging patterns of bottlenose dolphins

(Tursiops truncatus) in the Shannon Estuary and selected areas of the west-coast of Ireland. Report to

the National Parks and Wildlife Service, 1-28.

Johnson, C.S. 1967. Sound detection thresholds in marine mammals. In: Travolga, W.N. (ed.) Marine bio-

acoustics. Pergamon, Oxford. Pp. 247-260.

Knott, M.J. 1997. Two Months in Kilkee. Second Edition. Clasp Press, Ennis, Ireland. 255 pp.

Ljungblad, D.K., Scoggins, P.D. & W.G. Gilmartin. 1982. Auditory thresholds of a captive eastern Pacific

bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops spp. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 72: 1726-1729.

Maitland, P.S. 2003. Ecology of the river, brook and sea lamprey. Conserving Nature 2000 Rivers Ecology

Services No. 5. English Nature, Peterborough.

Mirimin, L., Miller, R., Dillane, E., Berrow, S.D., Ingram, S., Cross, T.F. & E. Rogan. 2011. Fine-scale population

genetic structuring of bottlenose dolphins using Irish coastal waters. Animal Conservation 1-12.

McMahon, T. and Quirke, J. 1992. Chemical observations in the water column and sediments of Galway Bay

and the Shannon Estuary. Lough Beltra workshop, 1988.

NPWS. 2012. Conservation Objectives: Lower River Shannon SAC 002165. Version 1.0. National Parks and

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

NPWS. 2012b. Conservation Objectives: River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA 004077. Version 1.0.

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

42

JN1408



Mott MacDonald

May 2017

O’Brien, J. & S. Berrow. 2012. The use of deep-water shipping berths by bottlenose dolphins in the Shannon

Estuary. Report prepared by Shannon Dolphin and Wildlife Foundation.

Popper, A.N. 2005. A review of hearing by sturgeon and lamprey. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

by Environmental Bioacoustics LLC.

Richardson, W.J., Greene, C.R.G. jr., Malme, C.I. and Thomson, D.H. (1995). Marine Mammals and Noise.

Academic Press, San Diego, 576 pp.

Rogan, E., Ingram, S., Holmes, B. & C. O’Flanagan. A Survey of Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the

Shannon Estuary. 2000. No. 9 Marine Resources Series. Marine Institute.

SMRU. 2001. Background information on marine mammals relevant to SEA2. Technical report TR_006.

Technical report produced for Strategic Environment Assessment - SEA2.

Vella, G., Rushforth, I., Mason, E., Hough, A., England, R., Styles, P., Holt, T. & P. Thorne. 2001. Assessment of

the effects of noise and vibration from offshore windfarms on marine wildlife. ETSU W/13/00566/REP.

Gepartment of Trade and Industry publication URN 01/1341.

Appendix 1

Consultation

Appendix 2

MMO Monitoring Protocol

appropriate assessment stage1 screening and stage 2 natura ... · mott macdonald may 2017 the...

Documents