Appropriate Assessment November

16519‐6003‐E Screening for Appropriate Assessment November 2015

i

Screening for Appropriate AssessmentCorbawn Lane Beach Access Improvement Works


ii

ISSUE FORM Project number 16519 Document number 6003 Document revision E Document title Corbawn Lane Beach Access Improvement Works, Shankill, Dublin 18 Document status Final Document prepared by MKy – MWP – August 2015Document checked by MK – MWP – 2015/08/21


iii

Table of contents

1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................. 1

1.1 Screening for Appropriate Assessment ............................................................................... 1

2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Purpose of Assessment ....................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Legislative context .............................................................................................................. 2

2.3 Stages of Appropriate Assessment ...................................................................................... 2

3 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 3

3.1 Appropriate Assesment Guidance ....................................................................................... 3

3.2 Desk top review .................................................................................................................. 3

3.3 Screening for Appropriate Assessment ............................................................................... 3

4 SCREENING FOR APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 4

4.1 Management of Natura 2000 sites ...................................................................................... 4

4.2 Description of Plan/Project ................................................................................................. 4

4.2.1 Brief Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 4 4.2.2 Purpose of the Project .......................................................................................................................... 4 4.2.3 Site Location .......................................................................................................................................... 5 4.2.4 Description of the Site ........................................................................................................................... 5 4.2.5 Characteristics of the Project .................................................................................................................... 8 4.2.6 Identification of Other Projects or Plans or Activities ......................................................................... 11

4.3 Identification of Natura 2000 Sites ..................................................................................... 11

4.3.1 Zone of Impact Influence .................................................................................................................... 11 4.3.2 Identification of Natura 2000 and Ramsar Sites ................................................................................. 11 4.3.3 Characteristics of Natura 2000 and Ramsar Sites ............................................................................... 12 4.3.4 Conservation Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 14 4.3.5 Designated sites outside the zone of potential impact influence ....................................................... 15 4.3.6 Designated sites within the zone of potential impact influence ......................................................... 16

4.4 Assessment of Significance of Potential Impacts ................................................................ 18

4.4.1 Habitat Loss ......................................................................................................................................... 18 4.4.2 Habitat Alteration ............................................................................................................................... 18 4.4.3 Habitat or Species Fragmentation ....................................................................................................... 20 4.4.4 Disturbance and/or Displacement of Species ..................................................................................... 20 4.4.5 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 20 4.4.6 Cumulative/In‐combination Impacts .................................................................................................. 21

4.5 Conclusion of Screening Stage ........................................................................................... 21

5 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 22


iv

TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: Designated conservation sites within 15km radius of proposal site....................................... 12 Table 2: Designated site with qualifying features of conservation interest ......................................... 12 Table 3. Designated conservation sites potentially affected by altered sediment regime..............15 Table 4. Designated conservation sites with overlapping conservation objectives and range.........15 Table 5. Designated conservation sites with associated habitats potentially affected by altered sediment regime.............................................................................................................................17

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Site location map ..................................................................................................................... 5

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1 Stages of Appropriate Assessment Appendix 2 Drawings of the proposal


1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

1.1 SCREENING FOR APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT Project Title Corbawn Lane Beach Access Improvement WorksProject Proponent Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County CouncilProject Location Corbawn Lane, Shankill, Dublin 18

Screening for Appropriate Assessment

The Screening for Appropriate Assessment is undertaken to determine the potential for likely significant effects of a project, individually, or in combination with other plans or projects, in view of the conservation objectives of the site on a Natura 2000 Site.

Conclusion It has been objectively concluded during the screening process that significantimpacts to Natura 2000 or Ramsar site are not expected to ensue from the project considered in this report

1


2

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT This Screening for Appropriate Assessment has been undertaken to determine the potential for significant impacts on a proposal to carry out coastal protection improvement works in Corbawn Lane, on nearby sites with European conservation designations (i.e. Natura 2000 Sites).

This Screening for Appropriate Assessment has been undertaken by Malachy Walsh and Partners ecologists.

2.2 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) seeks to conserve natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora by the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) seeks to protect birds of special importance by the designation of Special Protected Areas (SPAs). It is the responsibility of each member state to designate SPAs and cSACs, both of which will form part of Natura 2000, a network of protected sites throughout the European Community. Further information is available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/

http://www.npws.ie/planning/appropriateassessment/

The current assessment was conducted within this legislative framework and also the DoEHLG (2009) guidelines. As outlined in these, it is the responsibility of the proponent of the project Dún Laoghaire‐Rathdown County Council to provide a comprehensive and objective Screening for Appropriate Assessment, which can then be used by the competent authority in order to conduct the Appropriate Assessment (DoEHLG, 2009).

2.3 STAGES OF APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT The Appropriate Assessment process is a four‐stage process with 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 stages are set out in Appendix 1. This proposal has proceeded as far as Stage 1.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/

http://www.npws.ie/planning/appropriateassessment/


3

3 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

3.1 APPROPRIATE ASSESMENT GUIDANCE This Screening for Appropriate Assessment, or Stage 1, has been undertaken in accordance with the European Commission Methodological Guidance on the provision of Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC (EC, 2001) and the European Commission Guidance ‘Managing Natura 2000 sites’ (EC, 2000) and guidance prepared by the NPWS (DoEHLG, 2009).

3.2 DESK TOP REVIEW In order to complete the Screening for Appropriate Assessment certain information on the existing environment is required. A desk study was carried out to collate available information on the site’s natural environment. This comprised a review of the following publications, data and datasets:

• OSI Aerial photography and 1:50000 mapping • National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) • National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC) (on‐line map‐viewer) • BirdWatch Ireland • Teagasc soil area maps (NBDC website) • Geological Survey Ireland (GSI) area maps • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) water quality data • Eastern River Basin District (ERBD) datasets (Water Framework Directive) • Dún Laoghaire‐Rathdown Coastal Defence Strategy (2010) • Dún Laoghaire‐Rathdown Coastal Defence Strategy Statement for Appropriate Assessment

(2010) • Corbawn Lane Beach Access Preliminary Report (2015) • Other information sources and reports footnoted in the course of the report.

3.3 SCREENING FOR APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT As set out in the NPWS guidance, the task of establishing whether a plan or project is likely to have an effect on a Natura 2000 site(s) is based on a preliminary impact assessment using available information and data, including that outlined above, and other available environmental information, supplemented as necessary by local site information and ecological surveys. This is followed by a determination of whether there is a risk that the effects identified could be significant. The precautionary principle approach is required. Once the potential impacts that may arise from the proposal are identified the significance of these is assessed through the use of key indicators:

• Habitat loss • Habitat alteration • Habitat or species fragmentation • Disturbance and/or displacement of species • Water quality and resource.


4

4 SCREENING FOR APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

Screening for Appropriate Assessment (Stage 1) determines the need for a full Appropriate Assessment (Stage 2) and consists of a number of steps, each of which is addressed in the following sections of this report:

4.1 Establish whether the project is necessary for the management of a Natura 2000 site; 4.2 Description of the proposed access improvement works at Corbawn Lane, Shankill, Co.

Dublin; 4.3 Identification of Natura 2000 sites potentially affected; 4.4 Identification and description of individual and cumulative impacts of the project; 4.5 Assessment of the significance of the impacts on the integrity of Natura 2000 sites; 4.6 Conclusion of screening stage.

4.1 MANAGEMENT OF NATURA 2000 SITES The proposal is not connected with or necessary to the conservation management of a Natura 2000 site.

4.2 DESCRIPTION OF PLAN/PROJECT

4.2.1 Brief Project Description A number of refurbishment options for Corbawn Lane beach access were assessed by Malachy Walsh and Partners in June 2015 with the aim of protecting the area from coastal erosion through selection of a preferred option based on agreed criteria with Dún Laoghaire‐Rathdown County Council. The preferred and most cost effective option identified is to protect the existing access structure with a combination of concrete underpinning, rock revetment and cliff stabilisation. The proposed works to be carried out at Corbawn Lane include:

• Underpinning the existing access structure which will require excavation of 1.5 m under the existing structure.

• Protect the base of the cliff in the immediate vicinity of the access structure using rock armour and a concrete wing wall. This will require excavation up to 1.5 m into existing bed level to place toe rock armour.

• Stabilise the cliff each side of the access structure (with soil nailing) as well as 180m north and 60m south of the access structure with revetment to give added protection to the properties on Seafield Road and significantly delay effects of coastal erosion on this seacliff.

4.2.2 Purpose of the Project Ongoing erosion at the location has led to a situation where the concrete public access structure is at risk of future instability due to the over steep nature of the glacial till cliff on which the access structure is located. The underlying foundation of the access structure is also being undermined and outflanked due to coastal erosion, with the foundation toe of the structure being exposed. There are currently 25m and 50m lengths of revetment to the south and north of the access structure respectively. The works are necessary to stabilise the public access structure as well as the cliffs


5

adjacent to this structure which are over‐steep and at risk of falling on to the beach. These coastal protection measures are also important for the protection of the ten properties which are located back from the cliff face to the immediate north of Corbawn Lane, on Seafield Road.

4.2.3 Site Location Corbawn Lane beach access is located in Shankill, Dublin 18 approximately 1km east of the intersection of the R119 and R837 roads. This access structure is utilised by members of the public to access the sand and shingle strand of Killiney Bay. The proposed revetment will be located in front of the existing access structure. Revetment will also be constructed 180m to the north and 60m to the south of the access structure to stabilise the cliffs. The location of the proposal area is illustrated in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Location of proposal at Corbawn Lane Beach Access, Shankill, Dublin 18

4.2.4 Description of the Site The existing site consists of a concrete public access structure leading to a sand and shingle strand, which is at risk of future instability due to coastal erosion. The structure is being undermined and outflanked as shown in Photographs 1 and 2 below. The structure is approx. 7m in height, 24m wide and 10m deep. The height of the cliffs is on average 11m from the base to the crest. The beach is exposed to wind and wave action with visible signs of erosion along the cliffs and access structure as shown in Photograph 3.


6

Photograph 1: Corbawn Lane access structure

Photograph 2: Corbawn Lane access structure northern side


7

Photograph 3: Overview of beach facing north towards seacliffs adjacent to Seafield Road


8

4.2.5 Characteristics of the Project The proposal is described below and has been confirmed with the client, Dún Laoghaire‐Rathdown County Council, after a Preliminary Report was conducted in June 2015. Detailed drawings of the proposal are attached as Appendix 2 of this report.

Size, scale, area, land‐take

Existing Site:

• The existing site consists of a concrete public access structure at risk of future instability due to coastal erosion. The structure is being undermined and outflanked.

• The structure is approximately 7m in height, 24 m wide and 10m deep. • The cliffs immediately adjacent to the access structure are over‐steep

and at risk of falling on to the beach and the access structure itself over steep glacial till cliff sitting on underlying bedrock.

• There are 25m and 50m lengths of revetment to the south and north of the access structure respectively.

• The foundation toe of the structure has been exposed due to erosion. • To the immediate north of Corbawn Lane are ten properties on

Seafield Road. • The height of the cliff is on average 11m from the base to the crest.

Site Access for Proposal: • There will be no land‐take required for this proposal. • Limited excavation will be required to facilitate rock armour

placement. • Site compound will be off the beach and within a compound locally. • Site access for scaffolding equipment and soil nail bars and mesh to

the base of the works will be via the access structure and Seafield road.

• Access for material such as cementitious grout and drilling equipment will be made from the cliff crest level.

• Rock armour material will be imported to the site using a barge.

Details of physical changes that will take place during the various stages of implementing the proposal

Access Structure Protection Measures:

• The perimeter of the access structure will be underpinned with concrete to withstand current and future undermining caused by wave action.

Cliff Protection Measures:

• A rock armour revetment in front of the access structure where underpinning has been under taken, and 180m and 60m in length running north and south will be constructed.

• The revetments will have a footprint width up to 10m maximum. • The crest of the revetments will reach up to 3.5m above the existing

beach level and be buried some 1.5m into the beach. • The rock revetments will have a combined plan area of approximately

2400m2 and some 3710m3 of rock material. • High specification geotextile will be laid on top of the fill to protect it

from loss of fines. The primary rock armour consisting of 2.75T rocks will sit on top of the Geotextile in two layers with a thickness of approximately 2.1m. The under layer consisting of 0.25T rocks will be placed on the Geotextile to the rear of the primary armour with a thickness varying from 0.8m to 2m. Selected larger rocks of 4.0T will be placed at the front of the revetment toe.


9

Cliff Stabilisation Measures:• The method of stabilising the cliff face will be through soil nailing. • The cliff face will be cleared of vegetation in horizontal layers (2‐2.5m

in height). • Self drilling Hollow bar soil nails will be drilled into the faces at 1.5m

centres. • The bars will be left in place and the drilled hole filled with grout. • Mesh netting reinforcement will be placed in layers to the cliff face. • Bearing plates will be attached to the ends of the soil nails. • Shotcrete will be applied to the face of the works. • The base of the shotcrete will sit on a concrete beam bearing on the

existing bedrock at the till/bedrock junction. Temporary Works:

• To carry out the works scaffolding will be used. • This will be constructed from the base upwards. • It will be tied into the existing rock face. • It will be increased in height as vegetation clearing works progress.

Importing of Material:

• Scaffolding, soil nails and mesh for constructing the temporary works will be brought to the site along the shoreline from the access structure.

• Other material and tools will also be lowered down from the cliff crest with lifting equipment.

• Heavier materials such as rock armour will be imported to the site via barge.

Description of resource requirements for the construction/operation and decommissioning of the proposal (water resources, construction material, human presence etc)

Rock armour:• An excavator will be required on‐site full time during excavation and

placing of rock armour. Soil nailing:

• 80, 8m long self drilling hollow bar soil nails at 1.5m centres; • 292m2 of cliff face will be shotcreted at a minimum of 150mm thick; • 10m3 of cast in‐situ concrete for the base bearing beam.

On‐site personnel: • There will be 7‐8 construction workers on‐site during proposal works.

Description of timescale for the various activities that will take place as a result of implementation (including likely start and finish date)

• Likely start date: March 2016. • Likely finish date: End of October 2016.

Description of wastes arising and other residues (including quantities) and their disposal

• Waste material will be minimal; waste generated on‐site will be limited to excavated material and cleared vegetation.

• Cleared and excavated material will removed off‐site. • Application of grout and shotcrete will be undertaken in a controlled

manner utilising the temporary works structure to prevent pollution to the local environment.

Identification of wastes arising and other residues (including quantities) that may be of particular concern in the context of the Natura 2000 network

• Fuel/oil on‐site will be limited to the excavator. • Refuelling of all equipment will take place off‐site. • Fuel will be stored in the site compound which will be located off‐site. • Spill kits will be available on‐site for any potential albeit unlikely

spills/leaks. • Potentially contaminated land will be removed off‐site in the unlikely

event of a spill/leak.


10

Description of any additional services required to implement the project or plan, their location and means of construction

None

Additional criteria as described None


11

4.2.6 Identification of Other Projects or Plans or Activities From review of the Dún Laoghaire‐Rathdown County Council on‐line planning enquiry system, development in the area over the last five years has almost been exclusively for construction of domestic dwellings or extensions to them. A 22km cycleway and walkway known as the Sutton to Sandycove Cycleway/Footway (S2S) has been granted permission by Dublin City Council. This proposed cycleway/footway has been included in the Draft Dún Laoghaire‐Rathdown County Development Plan (2016‐2022). This proposed cycleway/footway will not occur within the footprint of the proposed development at Corbawn Lane. Further proposed cycleways are outlined in the Woodbrook/Shanganagh Local Area Plan (2006‐2016). Similarly, these proposed cycleways will not occur in the vicinity of the proposal area, therefore cumulative impacts with these planned cycleway/footway developments are not considered likely to occur. It is considered that human activity associated with use of the beach as an amenity by locals and tourists would be the most likely ongoing activity which could act in combination with the proposed development to create cumulative impacts.

4.3 IDENTIFICATION OF NATURA 2000 SITES

4.3.1 Zone of Impact Influence The screening stage of AA involves compiling a ‘long list’ of European sites within a zone of potential impact influence for later analysis which may or may ultimately not be significantly impacted upon by the proposal. All Natura 2000 sites within 15km of the proposal location will be characterised in the context of the rationale for designation and qualifying features, in accordance with NPWS guidance. In line with the precautionary principle, this report considers any Natura 2000 sites that lie outside 15km that may be significantly impacted as a result of the proposed works. Following this, the potential impacts associated with the proposal will be identified before an assessment is made of the likely significance of these impacts.

As described above, the test for the screening for Appropriate Assessment is to assess, in view of best scientific knowledge, if the development, individually or in combination with other plan/project is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site. If there are any significant, potentially significant, or uncertain effects, it will be necessary to proceed to Appropriate Assessment and submit an NIS.

4.3.2 Identification of Natura 2000 and Ramsar Sites Adopting the precautionary principle in identifying potentially affected European sites, it has been decided to include all cSACs and SPAs/Ramsar sites, within a 15km radius of the proposal site. The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, more commonly known as the Ramsar Convention, was ratified by Ireland in 1984. Ramsar sites are also subject to AA screening. Although not specifically required, it would be considered best practice to include Ramsar sites (classified under the Ramsar Convention 1971) in the appropriate assessment process1 .

Table 1 below lists the designated cSACs, SPA and Ramsar sites of relevance within 15km of the proposal site. 1 EPA, A Note on Waste Water Discharging Licence Appropriate Assessments


12

Table 1: Designated conservation sites within 15km radius of proposal site No. Designated Site Site

Code Approximate distance of site to nearest point of designated site

1* Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC 003000 1.8km to the North East 2* Dalkey Islands SPA 004172 3.9km to the North East 3 Ballyman Glen SAC 000713 4.5km to the South West 4 Bray Head SAC 000714 4.9km to the South 5 Knocksink Wood SAC 000725 6.5km to the South West 6* South Dublin Bay SAC 000210 7.1km to the North West 7* South Dublin Bay and Tolka River SPA 004024 7.5km to the North 8 Wicklow Mountains SAC 002122 8.9km to the South West 9 Wicklow Mountains SPA 004040 8.9km to the South West 10* North Dublin Bay SAC 000206 12.2km to the North 11 Sandymount Strand/Tolka Estuary Ramsar 832 12.5km to the North West 12* North Bull Island SPA 004006 13.1km to the North 13 Howth Head Coast SPA 004113 14.7km to the North East 14 The Murrough Wetlands SAC 002249 14.7km to the South 15 North Bull Island Ramsar 406 15.0km to the North 16 The Murrough SPA 004186 15.0km to the South * There is overlap between these Natura 2000 sites, therefore conservation objectives for each site are used in conjunction with those from the overlapping sites

4.3.3 Characteristics of Natura 2000 and Ramsar Sites The following table lists the features of interest for the cSAC and SPA sites that lie within 15km of the proposal site. Information pertaining to designated sites is from site synopses, conservation objectives and other information available on www.npws.ie and on the Ramsar website. Table 2: Designated site with qualifying features of conservation interest Designated Site Qualifying features of conservation interest Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC 003000

Reefs [1170]Phocoena phocoena (Harbour Porpoise) [1351]

Dalkey Island SPA 004172 Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii) [A192]Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) [A193] Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea) [A194]

Ballyman Glen SAC 000713 Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion) [7220] Alkaline fens [7230

Bray Head SAC 000714 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts [1230] European dry heaths [4030]

Knocksink Wood SAC 000725

Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion) [7220] Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno‐Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) [91E0]

South Dublin Bay SAC 000210

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide [1140]

South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA 004024

Light‐bellied Brent Goose (Branta bernicla hrota) [A046] Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) [A130] Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) [A137] Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) [A141]


13

Knot (Calidris canutus) [A143]Sanderling (Calidris alba) [A144] Dunlin (Calidris alpina) [A149] Bar‐tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica) [A157] Redshank (Tringa totanus) [A162] Black‐headed Gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus) [A179] Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii) [A192] Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) [A193] Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea) [A194] Wetland and Waterbirds [A999]

Wicklow Mountains SAC 002122

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or Isoeto‐Nanojuncetea [3130] Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds [3160] Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix [4010] European dry heaths [4030] Alpine and Boreal heaths [4060] Species‐rich Nardus grasslands, on siliceous substrates in mountain areas (and submountain areas, in Continental Europe) [6230] Blanket bogs (* if active bog) [7130] Siliceous scree of the montane to snow levels (Androsacetalia alpinae and Galeopsietalia ladani) [8110] Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation [8210] Siliceous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation [8220] Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles [91A0] Lutra lutra (Otter) [1355]

Wicklow Mountains SPA 004040

Merlin (Falco columbarius) [A098]Peregrine (Falco peregrinus) [A103]

North Dublin Bay SAC 000206

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide [1140] Annual vegetation of drift lines [1210] Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand [1310] Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco‐Puccinellietalia maritimae) [1330] Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) [1410] Embryonic shifting dunes [2110] Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes) [2120] Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes) [2130] Humid dune slacks [2190] Petalophyllum ralfsii (Petalwort) [1395]

North Bull Island SPA 004006

Light‐bellied Brent Goose (Branta bernicla hrota) [A046] Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) [A048] Teal (Anas crecca) [A052] Pintail (Anas acuta) [A054] Shoveler (Anas clypeata) [A056] Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) [A130] Golden Plover (Pluvialis apricaria) [A140] Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) [A141] Knot (Calidris canutus) [A143] Sanderling (Calidris alba) [A144] Dunlin (Calidris alpina) [A149] Black‐tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa) [A156] Bar‐tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica) [A157] Curlew (Numenius arquata) [A160] Redshank (Tringa totanus) [A162] Turnstone (Arenaria interpres) [A169]


14

Black‐headed Gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus) [A179] Wetland and Waterbirds [A999]

Howth Head Coast SPA 004113

Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) [A188]

The Murrough Wetlands SAC 002249

Annual vegetation of drift lines [1210]Perennial vegetation of stony banks [1220] Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco‐Puccinellietalia maritimae) [1330] Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) [1410] Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae [7210] Alkaline fens [7230]

The Murrough SPA 004186 Red‐throated Diver (Gavia stellata) [A001]Greylag Goose (Anser anser) [A043] Light‐bellied Brent Goose (Branta bernicla hrota) [A046] Wigeon (Anas penelope) [A050] Teal (Anas crecca) [A052] Black‐headed Gull (Chroicocephalus ridibundus) [A179] Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) [A184] Little Tern (Sterna albifrons) [A195] Wetland and Waterbirds [A999]

4.3.4 Conservation Objectives According to the Habitat’s Directive, the conservation status of a natural habitat will be taken as ‘favourable’ within its biogeographic range when:

• Its natural range and areas it covers within that range are stable or increasing, and • The specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long‐term maintenance exist

and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and • The conservation status of its typical species is favourable as defined below.

According to the Habitat’s Directive, the conservation status of a species means the sum of the influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long‐term distribution and abundance of its populations. The conservation status will be taken as ’favourable’ within its biogeographic range when:

• Population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long‐term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, and

• The natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future, and

• There is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long‐term basis.

The specific conservation objectives for each site are available on www.npws.ie. These have been accessed for the sites listed in the Tables above on the 12th August 2015. Equivalent objectives are not available for Ramsar sites.

Generic conservation objectives were available for the following sites:

http://www.npws.ie/


15

• Bray Head SAC 000714 • Ballyman Glen SAC 000713 • Knocksink Wood SAC 000725 • Wicklow Mountains SAC 002122 • Wicklow Mountains SPA 004040 • The Murrough Wetlands SAC 002249 • Dalkey Islands SPA 004172 • Howth Head Coast SPA 004113 • The Murrough SPA 004186.

Site specific and more detailed conservation objectives were available for the following sites:

• Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC 003000 • South Dublin Bay SAC 000210 • North Dublin Bay SAC 000206 • South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA 004024 • North Bull Island SPA 004006.

Management plans were not available for any sites.

All conservation objectives together with other designated site information are available on www.npws.ie/protectedsites/ and at ramsar.wetlands.org/RamsarSitesInformationService.

4.3.5 Designated sites outside the zone of potential impact influence It is considered, bearing in mind the size, scale and location, that the proposal does not include any element that has the potential to significantly alter the favourable conservation status of species and habitats for which eight of the sixteen designated sites listed in Table 1 and Table 2, above, are designated. Three of the sites identified during screening are inland terrestrial sites which are considered unlikely to be negatively impacted by the proposal, owing to their distance inland from the proposal site and owing to a discernible lack of ecological pathways between these sites and the proposal site. These sites are:

• Wicklow Mountains SAC; • Knocksink Wood SAC; • Ballyman Glen SAC.

Of the eight remaining designation sites, a further five have been screened out due to a lack of potential ecological pathways between them and the proposal site. These five sites are listed in Table 3, below; the rationale underpinning the conclusion that impacts on these sites are not reasonably foreseeable is also outlined. Potential likely impacts identified in this assessment are most likely to occur through coastal/marine pathways. Table 3: Sites outside zone of potential impact influence Designated Site Distance Rationale for AssessmentBray Head SAC 000714

4.9km South Terrestrial habitats unlikely to be impacted by the proposal.

Howth Head Coast 14.7km Large separating distance between the designated site and the


16

SPA 004113 Northeast proposal site.

Kittiwake range unlikely to be impacted by the proposal.

Wicklow Mountains SPA 004040

8.9km to the South West

Merlin range unlikely to be impacted by the proposal.

Peregrine range unlikely to be impacted by the proposal.

The Murrough Wetlands SAC 002249 The Murrough Wetlands SPA 004186

14.7km South

15.0km South

Terrestrial habitats unlikely to be impacted by the proposal.

Large separating distance between the designated sites and the proposal site.

Proposed works unlikely to cause large‐scale point or diffuse sources of water pollution.

4.3.6 Designated sites within the zone of potential impact influence Of the designated sites, only the six Natura 2000 sites which are considered likely to be potentially impacted by the proposal are assessed further. The two Ramsar sites listed in Tables 1 and 2 above are considered in the context of their associated SPAs as specific Ramsar conservation objectives are not available. The following designated sites have potential to be negatively impacted by the proposal through an identifiable source‐pathway‐target vector. Potential likely impacts identified in this assessment are most likely to occur through coastal/marine pathways. These six sites are intrinsically linked and therefore have overlap in range and have overlapping conservation objectives. Table 4 lists designated sites according to their overlapping range. The rationale for assessing overlapping conservation sites in conjunction with their overlapping conservation objectives is given in Table 4. The two Ramsar sites will be assessed in terms of their corresponding SPAs, as site specific conservation objectives are not available for Ramsar sites. The following designated sites have potential to be impacted by the proposal:

• Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC; • Dalkey Island SPA; • South Dublin Bay SAC; • South Dublin Bay and Tolka River Estuary SPA/ Sandymount Strand/Tolka Estuary Ramsar; • North Dublin Bay SAC; • North Bull Island SPA/North Bull Island Ramsar.


17

Table 4: Designated sites with overlapping conservation objectives and range Designated Site Rationale for overlapRockabill to Dalkey Island SAC Dalkey Island SPA

• Overlap in designation area and range, • Bird species may feed in the intertidal/subtidal of the SAC,

therefore impacts to the designated habitats of the SAC may indirectly impact foraging and feeding behaviour of associated SPA bird species.

South Dublin Bay SAC South Dublin Bay and Tolka River Estuary SPA Sandymount Strand/Tolka Estuary Ramsar site North Dublin Bay SAC North Bull Island SPA North Bull Island Ramsar site


18

Identification of potential impacts Potential likely ecological impacts arising from the project are identified below: Description of elements of the project likely to give rise to potential ecological impacts sites.

− Construction of a permanent coastal defence structure − Use of machinery and human activity within the site − Presence of hydrocarbons in fuel tanks of on‐site construction machinery

Describe any likely direct, indirect or secondary ecological impacts of the project (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) by virtue of: • Size and scale; • Land‐take; • Distance from Natura 2000 Site or

key features of the Site; • Resource requirements; • Emissions; • Excavation requirements; • Transportation requirements; • Duration of construction, operation

etc.; and • Other.

Possible indirect impacts to coastal/marine water quality and potential impacts to the sediment transport regime were identified: • Possible risk of increased siltation in coastal waters due to

construction works; • Possible risk of changes to sedimentation transport regime in

Killiney/Dublin Bay area during lifetime of coastal defence structures due to prevention of erosion from seacliffs;

• Possible hydrocarbon leaks and spills during the construction of the proposed coastal defence structures;

• Possible concrete spills during construction.

Potential cumulative impacts as a consequence of human utilisation of the beach at the time of carrying out the proposal works.

4.4 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS This section considers the list of sites identified in section 4.3.3 above together with the potential ecological impacts identified in the previous section and determines whether the project is likely to have significant effects on Natura 2000 sites.

The likelihood of significant effects to a Natura 2000 site from the project was determined based on a number of indicators including:

• Habitat loss; • Habitat alteration; • Habitat or species fragmentation; • Disturbance and/or displacement of species; • Water quality and resource.

The likelihood of significant cumulative/in‐combination effects is assessed in Section 4.5.6.

4.4.1 Habitat Loss As the proposal area is not within a Natura 2000 site, direct habitat loss is not considered likely to occur to Natura 2000 sites within the zone of potential impact.

4.4.2 Habitat Alteration Coastal defence work has the potential to alter natural coastal processes. Potential impacts on coastal processes for this proposal relate to sediment transport issues. As the cliffs in the area erode they provide material to the sediment budget of the beach. This material is subsequently transported away from the area, predominantly to the north. The present structure prevents some


19

of this material from entering the sediment transport regime. Coastal erosion on the east coast is expected to increase due to increased occurrence of easterly winds and associated storms2. Designated habitats which have the potential to be impacted by the proposal are listed in Table 5 below. A core mutual conservation objective for designated coastal habitats within the potential impact zone of the proposal is to: “Maintain the natural circulation of sediment and organic matter, without any physical obstructions”. Table 5: Designated conservation sites and associated habitats potentially affected by altered sediment regime Roackabill to Dalkey Island SAC 003000 Reefs [1170]North Dublin Bay SAC 000206 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide [1140]

Annual vegetation of drift lines [1210] Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand [1310] Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco‐Puccinellietalia maritimae) [1330] Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritimi) [1410] Embryonic shifting dunes [2110] Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (white dunes) [2120] Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (grey dunes) [2130] Humid dune slacks [2190]

South Dublin Bay SAC 000210 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide [1140]

Designated bird species may also be impacted by the proposal due to changes in the sediment regime reducing the availability and abundance of prey items in the associated SPAs. A common conservation objective for the associated SPAs listed in section 4.3.6 above is to ensure that: “No significant decrease in the range, timing and intensity of use of areas ..... other than occurring form natural patterns or variations”. The proposal aims to ensure the continuation of coastal protection in the area, by stabilising the sediment loss in the area, through upgrading of the existing coastal protection structures. Potential impacts on sediment transport due to the proposal in both Corbawn Lane and Seafield Road were estimated in the Dún Laoghaire‐Rathdown County Council Coastal Defence Strategy Study (2010). It was found that the works originally proposed in the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council Coastal Defence Strategy Study (2010) in the vicinity of Corbawn Lane could potentially result in the loss of approx. 1.1% or 217m3/year of the sediment budget supply from the cliffs. Similarly, works originally proposed in the vicinity of Seafield Road could potentially result in the loss of approx. 2.2% or 435m3/year of the sediment supply from the cliffs. However, the planned works as detailed in this document and the Part 8 Planning Report (Doc No. 16519‐6002A) have a larger footprint than those works originally proposed in the Coastal Defence Strategy Study (2010). This results in a slight increase in the percentage loss per year of sediment budget supply. The loss of sediment supply in the vicinity of Corbawn Access is approximately 1.6% while the loss in the vicinity of Seafield Road is 2.3%.


20

Alteration of habitats owing to this loss of sediment supply is not considered likely to occur because the volumes of material prevented from entering the sediment budget will not be significant compared to the overall volume of sand being transported in the large Dublin Bay area. Furthermore, the potential volume of material reduced from the sediment budget supply in the context of the large receiving intertidal area, will not be significant and therefore changes to coastal processes are unlikely to occur and the natural circulation in the overall area will not be affected. Alteration of habitats or species as a consequence of the proposal is not considered likely to occur.

4.4.3 Habitat or Species Fragmentation As the proposal site does not occur within a Natura 2000 site, direct habitat or species fragmentation is not considered likely to occur. Indirect habitat or species fragmentation is not likely to occur owing to the localised nature and small scale of the proposed works, as well as the insignificant impacts to the sediment transport regime as discussed in the preceding section. Temporary avoidance of the area by designated bird species may occur during the proposal works. However, this is not considered to be significant as there is an abundance of similar feeding and foraging habitat in the overall coastal area. Furthermore, many of the designated bird species within the SPAs are wintering birds, and therefore will not be impacted by the timing of the proposed works. Additionally, a potential long‐term benefit of the proposal would be the creation of new habitat for rocky shore flora and fauna, which would increase feeding, foraging and resting habitats for bird species in the overall area.

4.4.4 Disturbance and/or Displacement of Species Having regard to the scope, scale, distance and duration of the proposal, no significant disturbance or displacement impacts are considered likely on any Natura 2000 species or habitats as a result of the proposed works at Corbawn Lane owing to the factors discussed in the preceding sections above. There may be temporary avoidance of the area by foraging bird and mammal species, such as otter, however, this is not expected to be significant as there is an abundance of similar habitat in the area.

4.4.5 Water Quality The proposal has the potential to affect coastal /marine water quality immediately adjacent to the site during the construction phase of the proposal. However, significant negative impacts to water quality are not considered likely to occur due to the small scale of the proposed works involved. Waste material will be minimal due to the temporary work structure which will be employed. Scaffolding will be used to carry out the works in stages. All excavated and cleared material will be removed from the proposal site. Grout and shortcrete will be applied in a controlled manner utilising the temporary works structure. These measures will greatly reduce the potential for polluting material to enter the sea at Corbawn Lane. There is potential for hydrocarbons from on‐site machinery fuel spills/leaks to enter the marine environment. Machinery will be present on the foreshore, only for excavation and placement of rock armour. The number of on‐site machinery will be limited to one excavator. Therefore the volumes of fuel on site will be low. An additional factor reducing the potential impacts of a fuel spill is that the other delivery machinery will be restricted to the cliff top, above the mean high water mark and away from the intertidal area. As the excavator will be the only machine present for most of each working day, the risk of collision and thus significant risk that tank breach or rupture due to collision


21

will be greatly reduced. No refuelling will take place on the beach reducing the risk of accidental fuel spills/leaks. In the unlikely event that a fuel spill occurs, spill kits will be available on‐site and potentially contaminated material will be removed from the site by a licensed contractor.

4.4.6 Cumulative/In‐combination Impacts It is considered that because the project will be completed during the off season when numbers of visitors to the area are reduced, significant potential cumulative impacts that could create disturbance and or displacement are not likely to occur.

4.5 CONCLUSION OF SCREENING STAGE In conclusion, to determine the potential impacts, if any, of the project on nearby Natura 2000/Ramsar sites, a screening process for Appropriate Assessment was undertaken. The proposed development is within 15km of 10 Natura 2000 and 2 Ramsar sites.

It has been objectively concluded during the screening process that none of the designated sites within 15km of the project are likely to be significantly impacted by the proposal to undertake coastal defence works at Corbawn Lane beach access.


5 REFERENCES

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DoEHLG) (2009). Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland: Guidance for Planning Authorities. Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Devoy, R.J.N., 2008. Coastal vulnerability and the implications of sea‐level rise for Ireland. Journal of Coastal Research, 24(2), 325–341. EC (2000). Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. EC (2001). Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 Sites: Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Ramsar Convention Bureau (1971). Convention on wetlands of international importance especially as waterfowl habitat. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland.

22

16519‐6003‐D Screening for Appropriate Assessment November 2015

Appendix 1 Stages of Appropriate Assessment

Appendix

16519‐6003‐E Screening for Appropriate Assessment November 2015 Stage 1 ‐ Screening

This is the first stage of the Appropriate Assessment process and that undertaken to determine the likelihood of significant impacts as a result of a proposed project or plan. It determines need for a full Appropriate Assessment.

If it can be concluded that no significant impacts to Natura 2000 sites are likely then the assessment can stop here. If not, it must proceed to Stage 2 for further more detailed assessment.

Stage 2 ‐ Natura Impact Statement (NIS)

The second stage of the Appropriate Assessment process assesses the impact of the proposal (either alone or in combination with other projects or plans) on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site with respect to the conservation objectives of the site and its ecological structure and function. This is a much more detailed assessment that Stage 1. A Natura Impact Statement containing a professional scientific examination of the proposal is required and includes any mitigation measure to avoid, reduce or offset negative impacts.

If the outcome of Stage 2 is negative i.e. adverse impacts to the sites cannot be scientifically ruled out, despite mitigation, the plan or project should proceed to Stage 3 or be abandoned. Stage 3 ‐ Assessment of alternative solutions A detailed assessment must be undertaken to determine whether alternative ways of achieving the objective of the project/plan exists. Where no alternatives exist the project/plan must proceed to Stage 4. Stage 4 ‐ Assessment where no alternative solutions exist and where adverse impacts remain The final stage is the main derogation process examining whether there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) for allowing a plan or project to adversely affect a Natura 2000 site where no less damaging solution exists.

Appendix


Appendix

Appendix 2 Drawings of the proposal

See Planning Drawings

Documents

Appropriate Assessment November