· creating the environment for business page v © entec uk limited doc reg no. 28646_clviii045...

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Offshore Renewable Energy Strategic Action Plan Plan 2009-2020

Habitats Regulations Assessment - Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment

(Final Report)

June 2011

This project is part financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the European Sustainable Competitiveness Programme for Northern Ireland.

C r ea t i ng t h e en v i ro n men t f o r bu s i n es s

Page ii © Entec UK Limited

Doc Reg No. 28646_CLviii045 June 2011

Copyright and Non-Disclosure Notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Entec (© Entec UK Limited 2011) save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by Entec under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Entec. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.

Third-Party Disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third-party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Entec at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third-party who is able to access it by any means. Entec excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.

Document Revisions

No. Details Date

i Initial draft screening report 02 Nov 2010

ii Draft screening report for comment 10 Nov 2010

iii Second draft screening report for comment

24 Dec 2010

iv Final draft screening report for comments

13 Jan 2011

v Screening report and draft appropriate assessment for comment

15 Mar 2011

vi Final screening report and appropriate assessment for comment

22 Mar 2011

vii Draft Final Report 13/06/2011

Viii Final report 05/07/2011


Page iii © Entec UK Limited


Report for Barbara Swann Netherleigh Massey Avenue Belfast BT4 2JP

Main Contributors Alexia Chapman Colin McAllister John Pomfret Mike Raven Alan Kirby

Issued by ………………………………………………………… Alexia Chapman

Approved by

………………………………………………………… John Pomfret

Entec UK Limited Gables House Kenilworth Road Leamington Spa Warwickshire CV32 6JX England Tel: +44 (0) 1926 439000 Fax: +44 (0) 1926 439010 Doc Reg No. 28646_CLviii045 h:\projects\28646 ni offshore renewables hra (subfile)\docs\11.final report\28646_ni hra_ final v4.doc

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Offshore Renewable Energy Strategic Action Plan 2009-2020 Habitats Regulations Assessment - Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment (Final Report)

June 2011

Entec UK Limited

In accordance with an environmentally responsible approach, this document is printed on recycled paper produced from 100% post-consumer waste, or on ECF (elemental chlorine free) paper


Page iv © Entec UK Limited



Page v © Entec UK Limited


Contents 1. Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose of this Report 1 1.2 Overall approach to the HRA 3 1.2.1 Screening and Appropriate Assessment 3 1.2.2 The relationship between HRAs at the plan and project levels 4 1.2.3 The approach to the HRA of the ORESAP 7 1.3 Structure of this report 9

2. The ORESAP 11

2.1 Plan definition 11 2.2 Technologies included in ORESAP 12 2.2.1 Offshore wind 12 2.2.2 Tidal Energy 13 2.3 Location of the plan 14 2.3.1 Resource zones 14 2.3.2 Export cables and onshore works 15 2.4 Scale and nature of development 17 2.4.1 Offshore wind 17 2.4.2 Tidal power 18 2.4.3 Nature of activities and mitigation measures 19 2.4.4 Timescales 25

3. Pre-screening process 27

3.1 Summary of the pre-screening process 27 3.2 Stepwise approach to pre-screening 27 3.3 Step 1 - Environmental changes 29 3.4 Step 2 - Preliminary assessment of sites (pre-screening) 35 3.5 Step 3 - Identification of interest features’ sensitivities 37 3.6 Step 4 - Second stage of assessment of sites 45 3.6.1 Overview 45 3.6.2 Offshore and coastal habitats and non-mobile species 45 3.6.3 Mobile or migratory mammals and migratory fish 48 3.6.4 Birds 51 3.7 Sites entering the screening process 56


Page vi © Entec UK Limited


4. Screening process 79

4.1 Purpose of screening 79 4.2 Approach to screening 79 4.3 Methodology 81 4.3.1 Effects on habitats and non-mobile species 81 4.3.2 Effects on mobile or migratory mammals 83 4.3.3 Effects on migratory fish 83 4.3.4 Effects on the bird interest of SPAs and Ramsar sites 84 4.3.5 Screening forms 86 4.3.6 Mitigation measures 88 4.3.7 In-combination effects 88

5. Summary of screening outcomes 93

6. Appropriate Assessment 131

6.1 Introduction 131 6.2 Methodology and Chapter Structure 133 6.3 Potential for Adverse Effects on Habitat Interest Features 134 6.3.1 Introduction 134 6.3.2 Interest Features and Sensitivities 135 6.3.3 Potential effects of the ORESAP 136 6.3.4 Mitigations at Plan Level 142 6.3.5 Effects on Sites 143 6.4 Birds 146 6.4.1 Introduction 146 6.4.2 Interest Features and Sensitivities 146 6.4.3 Potential effects of the ORESAP 146 6.4.4 Species Assessment 147 6.4.5 Effects on Sites 157 6.4.6 Conclusions 157

7. Summary of Appropriate Assessment outcome 161

7.1 Conclusions regarding habitats 161 7.2 Conclusions regarding species 162 7.3 Overall conclusion 162


Page vii © Entec UK Limited


8. Future actions 177

8.1 Project-level HRA work 177 8.2 ORESAP review process 177

Table 2.1 Development parameters for resource zones 14 Table 2.2 Resource zones 15 Table 2.3 Area of commercial wind resource zones possibly occupied by turbines if maximum capacity reached 17 Table 2.4 Area of commercial tidal resource zones possibly occupied by devices if maximum capacity reached 18 Table 2.5 Basic mitigation measures for ORESAP activities (assumed included in the ORESAP) 21 Table 3.1 ORESAP activities that could affect European/Ramsar site interest features (without mitigation) 30 Table 3.2 Reasons for including sites in the ORESAP HRA Screening 35 Table 3.3 Interest feature sensitivities and associated ORESAP activities 38 Table 3.4 Migratory and seabird species potentially affected by ORESAP activities 52 Table 3.5 SACs entering the screening process (including dSACs, pSACs, cSACs and SCIs) 57 Table 3.6 SPAs entering the screening process (including pSPAs and SPA extensions) 59 Table 3.7 Ramsar sites entering the screening process 72 Table 4.1 Sources of possible in-combination effects 89 Table 5.1 Screening outcomes - SACs (including dSACs, pSACs, cSACs and SCIs) 95 Table 5.2 Screening outcomes - SPAs (including pSPAs and SPA extensions) 98 Table 5.3 Screening outcomes - Ramsar sites 120 Table 6.1 Sites to be taken forward to Appropriate Assessment 131 Table 6.2 Definitions of terminology used to describe habitats 135 Table 6.3 Summary of Site Appropriate Assessment for habitats 144 Table 6.4 Species for which no adverse significant effects are predicted 148 Table 6.5 Migratory and seabird species potentially affected by ORESAP activities 151 Table 6.6 Sites discounted during the AA process 158 Table 7.1 SPA and Ramsar sites where further investigation is required regarding effects of the ORESAP on birds 163

Figure 2.1 Locations of resource zones considered in the SEA 16 Figure 4.1 Tidal ellipses at Admiralty monitoring points and commercial resource zones 82

Appendix A Responses to consultation Appendix B Maps showing screened sites Appendix C SAC Site Screening Forms Appendix D SPA Habitat Screening Forms Appendix E Ramsar Site Screening Forms


Page viii © Entec UK Limited



Page 1


1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of this Report The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) has prepared a draft plan, the Offshore Renewable Energy Strategic Action Plan (ORESAP), for development of renewable energy in the territorial waters of Northern Ireland. Initially eight potential resource zones located around the coast of Northern Ireland (NI) were identified: one for wave energy, two for wind energy and five for tidal stream energy. The draft plan was subjected to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)1 and of these resource zones the ORESAP SEA Environmental Report identified that only four zones should be considered for full scale commercial development - the two wind resource zones off the north and east coasts and two tidal resource zones off the north coast.

The other 3 smaller tidal resource zones off the east coast were not considered suitable for commercial scale development due to potential significant adverse effects on the environment and other users. Given that there is limited wave resource off the north coast, this technology has not been included within the overall commercial scale target-setting of ORESAP.

While not precluding small scale demonstration projects in these other zones, provided they can fulfil the requirements of the Habitats Regulations and other relevant regulations at specific project level, these will not form part of the final ORESAP, which will include proposals for development of the four commercial scale zones only.

DETI considers that the ORESAP constitutes a plan as described in Rule 43(1) of The Conservation (Nature Habitats, &c.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (SR 1995 No. 380) (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations) and Regulation 25(1) of The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007 No. 1842) (as amended) (the Offshore Habitats Regulations). In this report, these two sets of regulations are referred to collectively as the Onshore and Offshore Habitats Regulations.

The Onshore and Offshore Habitats Regulations require that a “competent authority”2 must undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) of the implications of the plan for European sites before deciding to undertake or give any consent, permission or other authorisation for a plan or project which is not directly connected with or necessary for management of European sites, but which is likely to have a significant effect on such sites (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects). Under UK policy, the same requirements apply to Ramsar sites.

1 Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI). 2009. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of Offshore Wind and Marine Renewable Energy in Northern Ireland. Environmental Report Volume 1: Main Report. 2 See Rule 5 of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (SR 1995 No. 380) (as amended) and Regulation 5 of The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007 No. 1842).


Page 2


Thus there is a need to screen the ORESAP to determine whether there is a ‘Likely Significant Effect’ (LSE) on European or Ramsar sites. If one or more LSEs are identified then an AA of the ORESAP will be required. As part of the AA, DETI, as the competent authority, may need to amend the ORESAP to eliminate or reduce potentially damaging effects on European or Ramsar sites, so that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the sites. Depending on the outcome of the AA, DETI could, in principle, move on to consider alternative solutions that would have a lesser effect on the relevant site(s) and also to consider if there were imperative reasons of overriding public interest sufficient to justify potential adverse effects on the European/Ramsar site(s). This overall process (including assessment of LSE and AA) is referred to as a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA).

The Habitats Regulations only specifically apply to Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), candidate SACs (cSACs), Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) and Special Protection Area (SPAs). However, UK policy extends the requirements for HRA to include Ramsar sites and potential SPAs (pSPAs), including proposed extensions or additions to existing SPAs. In this report, relevant sites are referred to as European and Ramsar sites (see Box 1.1).

Box 1.1 Possible future European and Ramsar sites

JNCC and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency have proposed (or are currently investigating) a number of new European sites in UK territorial waters and beyond the 12 nautical mile zone, many of which are still at the draft SAC/possible SAC and possible SPA stage. There is no statutory or policy requirement to undertake HRA on sites at these various stages of development until they progress to cSAC or SCI or to potential SPA. In order for the HRA of the ORESAP to be as robust as possible, however, it is considered necessary to undertake an assessment of these draft SACs and possible SPAs. The rationale for this is that by the time that project-level HRAs are carried out for renewable energy developments in Northern Ireland waters, the designation of the sites may have progressed to the point where there is a statutory requirement for effects upon them to be assessed. Clearly it is difficult to make an assessment of sites that are in the process of designation, as, in some cases, information about these sites and their interest features is not yet available or is only available in draft form. However, these sites have been included in the pre-screening and screening processes and, in so far as it is possible, their interest features have been taken into consideration. Although not forming part of the formal HRA process, they have been subjected to the same type of assessment, as far as practicable on the data available. Hereafter in this report, the generic terms SAC, SPA and European sites are used to include all stages of the designation and classification processes respectively.

As the body responsible for deciding to undertake the ORESAP, DETI is a competent authority under the Onshore and Offshore Habitats Regulations for undertaking the HRA of the plan. Other bodies (e.g. port authorities and local planning authorities) may also be competent authorities in relation to subsequent project developments relating to one or more of the zones. At the project delivery level, a decision may be made as to whether one of these authorities will act as the lead competent authority, as allowed by the Onshore and Offshore Habitats Regulations.

This HRA Report has been produced by Entec UK Ltd for the purpose of informing DETI, as the competent authority with regard to an HRA of the ORESAP, firstly as to whether an AA of the ORESAP may be needed under the Habitats Regulations and for which European and Ramsar sites such an Appropriate Assessment would be required and secondly to provide the information required to allow DETI to carry out any such AA.


Page 3


Eliminatemost of

inland sites

PreliminarySAC/SPA/Ramsar list

Interest features

Habitats,non-mobile spbirds on site

Potentialeffects(SEA)

In-c

ombi

natio

n ef

fect

s

Sensitivities &vulnerabilities

Migratorymammals/

fish

Birds whenoff-site

Plandefinition

(ORESAP)

Basicmitigation

Indirecteffects

Directeffects

Pre-screening

Screening

Seals,cetaceans,otters, bats,

migratory fish

Foraging,migrating

HRA offshore renewable energy screening approach

Eliminatemost of

inland sites

PreliminarySAC/SPA/Ramsar list

Interest features

Habitats,non-mobile spbirds on site

Potentialeffects(SEA)

In-c

ombi

natio

n ef

fect

s

Sensitivities &vulnerabilities

Migratorymammals/

fish

Birds whenoff-site

Plandefinition

(ORESAP)

Basicmitigation

Indirecteffects

Directeffects

Pre-screening

Screening

Seals,cetaceans,otters, bats,

migratory fish

Foraging,migrating

HRA offshore renewable energy screening approach

1.2 Overall approach to the HRA

1.2.1 Screening and Appropriate Assessment

The Onshore and Offshore Habitats Regulations effectively set out a two stage process for assessing plans and projects in relation to European sites.

Screening

First it is necessary to determine whether there is a likely significant effect (LSE) of the plan or project on each site. In accordance with case law, this must be carried out using a precautionary approach, in other words, if it cannot be shown with confidence that there will be no LSE, the site must be ‘screened in’ for the process to proceed to Appropriate Assessment. Although there is no clear definition of the boundary between the level of detail of information used in the screening process and the additional information that may be used in the more detailed Appropriate Assessment, the process that has been adopted in most cases has been for the screening process to consider receptor characteristics in terms of:

• site boundaries; and

• mobility of designated interest features;

and effects characteristics in terms of:

• resource or development zone boundaries; and

• extension of effects outside zone boundaries based on simple indicators such as tidal ellipses.

In this report, we have further subdivided the screening stage by inserting a pre-screening process as a means of documenting the fact that we have taken a highly precautionary approach, considering European and Ramsar sites over a very wide geographical areas and then refining these areas to produce a list of sites entering the screening process.


Page 4


Appropriate Assessment

Having ‘screened out’ European and Ramsar sites where we can be confident there is no LSE, the Onshore and Offshore Habitats Regulations require that the remaining sites are subjected to AA. At plan level, this will typically involve a more quantified approach based on local circumstances, for example taking account of sediment characteristics when assessing the extent of indirect effects of sediment mobilisation on habitats or taking account of local bird migration data when assessing collision risk with wind turbines. At plan level much of this information is not available because the nature of the projects to be developed is not known.

1.2.2 The relationship between HRAs at the plan and project levels

The aim of the ORESAP is to set a strategic framework for the development of offshore wind and marine renewables in the territorial waters of Northern Ireland. Specific renewable energy projects for delivery of the plan are yet to be defined, which means that the likelihood of significant effects and the nature of the effects themselves can only be determined in very general terms at plan-level. Even if there is sufficient information available to enable a conclusion to be reached that there are LSEs, there may be insufficient information to undertake an AA without relying on conditions in the plan that will need to be addressed by further assessment at project level. This means inevitably that, for many aspects of the plan, the final conclusions of the HRA process at plan level will be dependent on choices that are made at the project-level being shown to comply with the conditions (such as incorporation of mitigation measures) on which the plan-level HRA has relied.

There is no formal government guidance available for how to carry out HRA on marine renewables plans, indeed there is little formal guidance available on carrying out HRA on any plans. Guidance has been produced for HRAs of Plans for plan-making bodies in Scotland3. This guidance identifies the following three tests that should be applied when deciding whether lower-tier assessments are appropriate in relation to the effects of a proposal on a specific European or Ramsar site.

“In order to ascertain that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of a European site, a plan-making body may only rely on mitigation measures in a lower tier plan appraisal if the following three criteria are all met:

A] The higher tier plan appraisal cannot reasonably predict the effects on a European site in a meaningful way; whereas

B] The lower tier plan, which will identify more precisely the nature, scale or location of development, and thus its potential effects, retains enough flexibility within the terms of the higher tier plan over the exact location, scale or nature of the proposal to enable an adverse effect on site integrity to be avoided; and

C] The Habitats Regulations Appraisal of the plan at the lower tier is required as a matter of law or Government policy.”

3 David Tyldesley and Associates, 2010. Habitats Regulations Appraisal of Plans: Guidance for Plan-Making Bodies in Scotland Report to Scottish Natural Heritage, version 1.0.


Page 5


These tests are used in HRAs of the various types of development plan prepared by local planning authorities to ascertain whether it is appropriate also to carry out the HRA of particular plan elements at a lower tier plan level4 if there is insufficient information available (for example of design or siting of development) to allow all of the assessment required to be meaningfully carried out on a higher level plan. To address this issue, our approach involves the assessment of the proposals within a draft high level Plan (the ORESAP) and identification of conditions which should be included in the finalised Plan to ensure that it can be delivered without an adverse effect on the integrity of sites. These conditions would require the issue to be assessed at a lower level – in this case at the specific project level – when there will be more information available about the proposal and its potential effects, in order to ensure that only project designs that comply with the Plan (which means they must not have an adverse effect on integrity) are allowed to proceed. Any development proposals brought forward that would have an adverse effect on integrity that could not be avoided by measures developed at project level would, by definition, be non-compliant with the plan and therefore not allowed to proceed.

Our approach to undertaking HRA of the ORESAP has been influenced by our experience in undertaking the HRA of the UK Round 3 Plan for offshore wind energy for The Crown Estate (TCE). Under the Habitats Regulations and the Offshore Habitats Regulations, TCE is a competent authority for the Round 3 Plan. Entec provided technical support to TCE to allow it to undertake a full HRA at the plan level (this included an Appropriate Assessment (AA) for those sites where likely significant effects could not be excluded at screening stage). The outcomes of the Round 3 Plan HRA will need to be taken into consideration by Round 3 developers at the project level, who may need to carry out further assessment to show that their projects are compliant with the basis on which the plan was assessed.

Although the potential effects associated with the Round 3 Plan were identified it was acknowledged that it was not possible to know every detail of the projects which might flow from it, particularly given the pace of evolution of offshore renewable technologies and the zone based nature of the Plan. A key part of the HRA approach adopted by Entec and TCE that helped to address the nature conservation bodies concerns was to ensure that it was possible for the plan to be adopted and the proposals within it to be actioned at the project level, without an unavoidable adverse effect occurring on European or Ramsar sites. The HRA methodology was developed with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and Natural England, the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) were involved throughout the process. All these organisations were consulted on the work that was undertaken and did not raise any concerns about the approach that was adopted for the Round 3 Plan HRA. It is our understanding that a similar approach to HRA has since been followed by TCE for the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Round 1 Plan (for tidal energy projects). Given the similarities between the ORESAP and TCE plans, a similar approach has been adopted for this HRA.

4 Although the guidance applies to ‘deferring’ HRA to a lower tier plan (and not to projects) this approach has also been used in recent HRAs for offshore plans, e.g the Offshore Wind Round 3 and the Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Plan, to defer detailed HRA to the project level provided it can be shown that the plan can be implemented without having an adverse effect on the integrity of European and Ramsar sites.


Page 6


The work that has been undertaken to inform this HRA Report makes it clear that there is insufficient available information regarding aspects of the way in which the ORESAP will be implemented (for example in terms of device design) and in some cases a lack of information on the vulnerability of some biological receptors (for example in terms of detailed information on bird migration routes through a specific proposed development site within a resource zone), to enable all aspects of the plan to be assessed fully at this stage. As a result, some potential effects cannot be assessed completely at the ORESAP level, whether at the screening or AA stage; thus test A (above) is met. For the effects that cannot be meaningfully assessed, there will be a requirement for further HRA work to be carried out at a later date in relation to individual projects coming forward within the ORESAP. As the individual projects will all require HRA, test C is also met.

For the second test (B) to be met, there is a need for the ORESAP to include conditions that will ensure no adverse effect on integrity of European and Ramsar sites and for lower tier plans or projects to be able to change the nature and/or scale and/or location of what is being proposed in order to avoid such adverse effects and thus comply with the plan. If the ORESAP is to meet this test, it is imperative that it provides the flexibility that is required to enable individual projects to be designed in such a way that there is no adverse effect on the integrity of European/Ramsar sites.

The SEA Environmental Report concluded that up to 900MW of offshore wind could be developed in NI waters without significant adverse impact on the environment. This involved two main commercial scale resource zones – one off the North coast (300MW) and the other off the East coast (600MW). The Environmental Report and the draft ORESAP noted the north coast zone’s proximity to the Giant’s Causeway / Causeway Coast AONB and the potential visual impact which any development in that zone might have. It was noted that any potential effects on seascape would need to be assessed in greater detail at the project design and development stage.

While this development opportunity was not ruled out in either document, the draft ORESAP (published December 2009) proposed that at least 600MW of offshore wind energy capacity and 300MW of tidal energy resources in Northern Ireland waters should be developed by 2020 and that DETI would keep these targets under review. In considering how best to meet test B while still giving a degree of flexibility as it takes forward the ORESAP, DETI is proposing to amend these ORESAP targets also to include the 300MW from wind energy resources on the North coast at this overall strategic level. This ensures that this higher resource level has been properly assessed under the HRA process and provides the opportunity for this level of development to take place. Such development would, of course, be subject to projects, at Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and AA stages, addressing the necessary conditions already identified in the SEA Environmental Report and which will be identified through this current HRA process and included within the finalised ORESAP.

The revised wording of the ORESAP will therefore include as targets:

‘To develop up to 900MW from offshore wind and up to 300MW from tidal resources in Northern Ireland waters by 2020 and to keep these targets under review in light of ongoing development and deployment of offshore renewables.’


Page 7


By amending the text to that set out above this allows DETI and the NIEA as regulators to approve projects from zero up to 900MW of offshore wind and 300MW of tidal energy (and allows some flexibility to amend these targets at a later date if appropriate). Crucially for HRA, it gives DETI and NIEA flexibility to refuse any and all development that has been assessed at the project level as having an adverse effect on the integrity of a European or Ramsar siteand where measures at the project level to avoid these effects cannot be identified.

The HRA Report has been conducted on the basis that DETI will change the text in the ORESAP to reflect the recommendation above. On this basis all three of the tests have been met and it is possible to defer detailed assessment of the effects of the plan to the project level, subject to the ORESAP stipluating that no developments proposed as part of its implementation will be allowed to proceed if they would have an adverse effect on integrity of any European or Ramsar site (in the light of the site’s conservation objectives) and subject to inclusion of appropriate conditions in the ORESAP to ensure that this is the case.

It could be argued that, as all three tests have been met and that there is a lack of detail at this stage about the projects that will make up the plan, it is most appropriate not to carry out any HRA work at the ORESAP level and to rely wholly on lower-tier assessments of projects. However, the Onshore and Offshore Regulations do require HRA at the plan-level. This should include both the assessment of LSE and, if necessary AA, as far as possible, including definition of any avoidance or mitigation that can be identified at plan-level. There may be at least some elements of the plan or types of effect for which useful assessment work can be carried out at this stage, with a view to this enabling valid conclusions to be reached about LSE (at the screening stage) or adverse effects on integrity (at the AA stage). Even if definitive conclusions cannot be reached about certain effects, assessment work or research that is undertaken relating to such effects will play an important role in supporting work that will have to be undertaken to inform project-level HRA.

1.2.3 The approach to the HRA of the ORESAP

The overall approach to this HRA of the ORESAP has been to establish:

• environmental changes that could result from activities that could form part of the construction, operation or decommissioning works associated with delivery of the ORESAP (see Table 3.1);

• the relationship between these activities and European/Ramsar site interest features that could be affected by them (see Table 3.3); and

• the European/Ramsar sites that could be significantly affected by the ORESAP (see Table 3.4, Table 3.5 and Table 3.6).

On this basis, the following interest features have been taken forward for assessment:

• the habitats present as interest features themselves or of importance in supporting interest features in the identified sites (see Table 3.4, Table 3.5 and Table 3.6);


Page 8


• non-mobile species present in the SACs/Ramsar sites as interest features (see Table 3.4 and Table 3.6);

• mobile or migratory species, including mammals and migratory fish present in the SACs/Ramsar sites as interest features (see Table 3.4, Table 3.5 and Table 3.6).

• birds which are as interest features for the SPAs/Ramsar sites (see Table 3.5 and Table 3.6).

Within each of these categories, one of the following conclusions is reached for each European/Ramsar site as a result of screening different aspects of the ORESAP and incorporating the basic mitigation measures which form part of the plan.

• Category A - no potential effects whatsoever on a European and Ramsar site (no LSE)

- Where elements of the plan will not themselves lead to renewable energy development (e.g. because they relate to design or other qualitative criteria for developments) or are intended to protect the natural environment, by steering renewable energy developments away from European and Ramsar Sites;

• Category B - potential effects may occur but there would be no likely significant effects (LSE) on a European and Ramsar site, either alone or in combination,

- This category is appropriate when it can be shown at plan level that there is no LSE or, if the HRA cannot reasonably assess the effects of a policy in a meaningful way but includes conditions (which must be demonstrably practicable at project level) ensuring that a lower tier plan or project, for which HRA must be required, is free to change the nature/scale/location of the proposal such that adverse effects on integrity can definitely be avoided at that stage in the process;

• Category C – likely significant effects on a European and Ramsar site, alone

- Elements of the plan that provide for, or steer, a quantity or type of renewable energy development onto a European or Ramsar site, or a location that is ecologically, hydrologically or physically connected to it, such that direct or indirect effects are likely;

• Category D – likely significant effects on a European and Ramsar site, in-combination with other plans or projects,

- Individual developments in the plan would not be likely to have significant effects, but the cumulative effect of all developments allowed for in the plan being implemented, or the combined effect with other developments taking place in the same area, would be significant.

For those components which fall within category C or D, recommendations are made as to how the ORESAP could be amended with a view to them being reallocated to A or B (i.e. no likely significant effects). This may involve rewording the draft plan to modify aspects of it that have been identified as having the potential to have a significant effect on European or Ramsar sites. This approach accords with the High Court ruling (Judgment of


Page 9


Sullivan J 1st May 2008 [2008] EWHC 1204 Admin, 2008 WL2148207) that supports the incorporation of avoidance and reduction measures into plans or projects at the HRA screening stage. This ensures that subsequent Appropriate Assessment work is focused on likely significant effects that cannot readily be avoided, thereby saving competent authorities both time and costs.

The conclusions of the screening process in respect of each aspect of the plan and each interest feature or type of interest feature are summarised in Chapter 5 and the conclusions are combined to provide an overall conclusion for each site in accordance with the categories listed above.

In each case where reliance is placed on assessment at the project-level, such assessments may need to be preceded by the collection of further local data at the project-level, to add to the information provided by the ORESAP SEA Environmental Report, this HRA Screening Report and any associated Appropriate Assessment report. The project-level HRAs may also lead to a need further to define project-level mitigation measures in order to comply with conditions in the ORESAP, so that by incorporating these into the project design it will be possible to demonstrate that the project will have no adverse effect on integrity of European or Ramsar sites, a key part of ensuring compliance with the Plan.

It should be noted that detailed consideration of the potential effects of grid strengthening or cable landfall are not considered in any detail within this HRA Screening Report, as this is being addressed in a separate plan - the Onshore Renewable Energy Plan - which itself is currently the subject of an SEA and AA. In addition, this report does not consider the ongoing work of the Isles Study into the Feasibility Study of an Offshore Grid being undertaken by DETI, the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and Scotland. However, this report does set out potential ways that likely significant effects can be avoided. In respect of cable landfalls, we consider that it is possible to achieve the necessary connectivity while avoiding likely significant effects and propose appropriate mitigation for inclusion in the ORESAP to ensure that this is achieved.

1.3 Structure of this report This report sets out the screening process for the ORESAP, justifying the choice of protected sites to be screened, and detailing the outcome of the screening process as defined in Section 1.2.3.

The remainder of this report is divided into the following sections:

• Section 2 - The ORESAP: a description of the Plan;

• Section 3 - Pre-screening process: the methodology and results of preliminary work to identify which European and Ramsar sites should be screened as part of the HRA process;

• Section 4 - Screening process: the methodology for screening those sites identified through the pre-screening process;


Page 10


• Section 5 - Summary of screening outcomes: this includes the results of the screening process and details of the proposed next stages of HRA-related work;

• Section 6 – Appropriate Assessment: this describes the AA and the outcomes from this stage of the HRA;

• Section 7 – Conclusions: this summarises the overall conclusions of the HRA process.


Page 11


2. The ORESAP

2.1 Plan definition Notwithstanding the flexibility within the ORESAP, in order to undertake a plan-level HRA it is necessary to make some assumptions about what will be involved in the implementation of the Plan. The starting point for these assumptions was basic information derived from the draft plan and the SEA about the development proposals relating to the eight resource zones, including:

• the location and extent of each resource zone;

• the proposed maximum capacities in terms of electricity generation;

• the types of device that could be installed in each resource zone; and,

• mitigation measures that could be incorporated at the project level.

The basic assumptions made in the HRA around each of these factors are included in the remainder of this chapter.

If necessary, the starting assumptions set out in this chapter may be modified and/or new assumptions incorporated within the plan definition if it is assessed that this will enable (if possible) the HRA to conclude with sufficient certainty that the Plan will avoid LSE (or adverse effects on integrity). It is very important, in refining the Plan in this way, that it remains viable (i.e. it will not be undeliverable from a technical or financial perspective), otherwise the HRA of the Plan will have little or no value, as the Plan could not be delivered using the assumptions on which the assessment had been based.

If at the project-level it is found that the assumptions included in this report are no longer valid (e.g. due to technology advances, changes in deployment techniques or further evidence from research studies) it is expected that developers will be required to demonstrate, through the HRA process, that there will not be any LSE on European and Ramsar sites (or adverse effect on their integrity). It should also be noted that, although it is anticipated that there will be a requirement for developers to adhere to the terms of the Plan, this will not necessarily preclude the need for developers to undertake project-specific HRA work based on detailed scheme proposals. The Plan will include mitigation measures which developers will also be expected to implement unless they demonstrate that alternatives are available that will not have a significant adverse effect on European or Ramsar sites.

The potential effects of grid strengthening5 and cable landfall have not been considered in any detail within this report, although in respect of cable landfalls we consider that it is possible to achieve the necessary connectivity while avoiding likely significant effects.

5 An Onshore Grid Reinforcement Study and accompanying SEA have been commissioned by DETI. The accompanying HRA to the grid reinforcement project project should consider this ORESAP HRA Report.


Page 12


2.2 Technologies included in ORESAP A description of the renewable technologies that will be supported by the ORESAP is set out in the SEA Environmental Report (Chapter 7). The following sections describing the technologies are based on the information contained in the SEA Environmental Report and this should be consulted for further details. It should be noted that the descriptions of the technologies and installation methods in this section should not be taken as indicative of the scale and construction methods which may be employed by offshore renewable energy developers in NI waters

2.2.1 Offshore wind

Wind turbines generally consist of a rotor placed on top of a tower and work by placing the rotor into a wind flow. The rotor is turned by the wind and this rotary motion is then used to generate electricity. Wind turbines can be made to a variety of scales and the power produced by the turbine depends on the ‘swept area’ of the rotor, for example a turbine with a rotor diameter of 2m would produce roughly four times the power of a turbine with a 1m diameter rotor.

Commercial scale offshore wind farms most commonly consist of arrays of horizontal axis wind turbines. These turbines can have a tower height of up to more than 100m and blades of over 40m length giving a total height to the top of the blade tip of up to 140m. Such turbines typically have an installed capacity of around 3MW although it is possible that larger wind turbines with an installed capacity of 5MW may be used in the future. The turbines are placed at a suitable distance from each other to prevent wake effects.

Most offshore wind developments have, to date, been installed in relatively shallow water of less than 30 metres in depth on either gravity foundations or steel monopiles. A description of these and other possible installation methods is set out below.

• Monopiles – these are bases which are inserted into the seabed, usually by pile driving or drilling. The use of monopiles is most common in water less than 30m deep, although piling in deeper waters is possible. Some use of monopiles is expected in ORESAP developments, particularly in the shallower sections of zones.

• Jackets/tripods – these are tubular structures which are pin-piled into the seabed using multiple piles. Jackets are usually metal lattice structures supported by four legs, whilst tripods are typically more solid steel structures with three supports. These bases can be installed in deeper water, and may be the preferred option in water over 30m deep. These bases are expected to be widely used in ORESAP developments.

• Gravity bases – these are pre-cast concrete bases which are placed on prepared areas of the seabed (which has usually been levelled and laid with gravel). These have been used for turbines in water depths over 30m, and could be used in the development of ORESAP zones.


Page 13


• Suction caissons – these are concrete ‘bucket’ structures which are lowered to the seabed. When the water is pumped out from them, the suction drives the turbine base into the sea bed. These bases can be used in waters up to 40m deep.

• Floating bases – these are in the process of being developed. They generally require mooring of the base to the seabed via tensioned mooring lines, similar to the arrangement used for floating oil platforms. They are generally being designed for use in very deep water and are less likely to be used in ORESAP offshore wind farms.

2.2.2 Tidal Energy

Tidal energy resources are regular and predictable and can be located close to land providing advantages in terms of grid connection and maintenance. A variety of tidal energy device types exists, such as horizontal axis turbines, vertical axis turbines and venturi effect devices. These devices can be attached to the seabed by a variety of methods similar to those previously described for offshore wind, including gravity bases, moored tethered foundations and piled foundations. It should be noted that as the ORESAP did not consider the use of tidal barrages or lagoons as a potential resource for Northern Ireland, so these are not considered in this section. Descriptions of typical tidal energy devices are set out below.

• Horizontal Axis Turbines - Tidal stream energy presents similarities with wind energy, although as water is 800 times denser than air and has a much slower flow rate, water turbines experience much larger forces and moments than wind turbines. This has lead to the development of turbines with smaller diameters and blades with different designs. Horizontal axis turbines are currently a main area of development for tidal power. SeaGen, which was installed in Strangford Lough in April 2008, is an example of a horizontal axis turbine. Turbines can be either fully exposed, as in SeaGen, or enclosed in circular ducts.

• Vertical Axis Turbines - Vertical axis turbines work in the same way as horizontal axis turbines, except that their axis of rotation is vertical. Vertical axis turbines can harness energy from flows in any direction and may be more efficient than horizontal axis turbines in low flow conditions although horizontal axis turbines have greater efficiency and durability in strong tidal flows.

• Venturi Devices - Venturi devices use shrouding to constrict tidal water flow. In some devices, the constriction results in a low pressure area in the device which can be used to suck air through a turbine and drive a generator. This means that there are no moving parts in contact with water. Shrouding can also be used to simply increase the water flow velocity through a turbine (shrouded turbine) using the venturi effect.

• Hydroplanes and Oscillating Hydrofoils - Hydroplanes and oscillating hydrofoils extract energy from the oscillations created by tidal flow. Oscillating hydrofoils work on the principle that the oscillating motion that occurs between two angles is converted by suitable systems (usually hydraulic) to rotary motion to drive a generator. As for tidal turbines, oscillating hydrofoils can have a vertical or horizontal axis.


Page 14


2.3 Location of the plan

2.3.1 Resource zones

To assist in the delivery of offshore renewable energy the ORESAP set out a number of resource zones for each technology where the energy resources were most abundant. To assist in the identification of these resource zones a number of development parameters for each technology were identified. The development parameters used are set out in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Development parameters for resource zones

Development/operational parameter Wind Tidal Wave

Average water depth 15 - 100m 30 - 70m up to 100m

Approximate MW/km2 10 50 10

Average turbine/device generating capacity 5MW 1MW 0.5 - 5MW

Average scale of commercial development (MW) 300MW 50MW 30MW

Average scale of commercial development (km2) 30km2 1km2 3km2

Source: DETI (2009) ORESAP SEA Environmental Report Table 8.6

These parameters were used to help identify eight resource zones in the ORESAP, two for wind energy, five for tidal energy and one for wave energy as listed in Table 2.2. These resource zones are shown in Figure 2.1.

After assessment of these eight resource zones in the SEA, only four of the zones have been identified as being suitable for commercial scale development (shaded green in Table 2.2). The ORESAP does not preclude development of small scale demonstration projects in the other zones, provided these can fulfil the requirements of the Habitats Regulations and other relevant regulations, but these do not form part of the ORESAP and its electricity generation targets, therefore these non-commercial zones are not considered further in this report. Thus, for the purposes of plan definition for the HRA, it has been assumed that only the four resource zones identified for commercial development are potentially available for development as part of the ORESAP and that only the resource for which each zone has been identified will be supported (i.e. wind development will be located in the commercial wind zones and tidal devices will be located in the commercial tidal zones). As explained earlier, wave energy developments have not been included within the ORESAP.


Page 15


Table 2.2 Resource zones

Resource zone

Type of energy development

Resource zone name Zone area (km2)

Zones for commercial development included in the ORESAP

Wi1 Wind energy North Coast 483 Commercial zone – included in ORESAP

Wa1 Wave energy North Coast 297 Not commercial – not included in ORESAP

Ti1 Tidal energy North Coast 35 Commercial zone – included in ORESAP

Ti2 Tidal energy Rathlin Island and Torr Head 362 Commercial zone – included in ORESAP

Ti3 Tidal energy Maiden Islands 31 Not commercial – not included in ORESAP

Ti4 Tidal energy Copeland Island 70 Not commercial – not included in ORESAP

Ti5 Tidal energy Strangford Narrows 56 Not commercial – not included in ORESAP

Wi2 Wind energy East coast 1160 Commercial zone – included in ORESAP

Whilst the resource zones cover a large area of potential device placement, in reality there are likely to be some physical constraints on the location of particular types of device.

This HRA covers all tidal and offshore wind energy generation devices, intra-array cabling and ancillary structures (e.g. offshore substations), as well as the export cables as far as the tie in with terrestrial cable systems linking to intermediate facilities and the onshore electricity transmission system (see Section 2.2.1). For the purposes of the HRA, it has been assumed that all devices, intra-array cabling and ancillary structures (e.g. offshore substations) will lie within the four commercial resource zones identified in the ORESAP, with the only marine development associated with commercial development outside these zones being the export cables.

2.3.2 Export cables and onshore works

Where feasible within this HRA we have identified whether it is possible for cable landfall from the offshore resource zones to avoid likely significant effects, however detailed consideration of the potential effects of cable landfall has not been considered as the location of such landfall is not currently known. This will need to be considered at the project level. In each case we consider that it is possible to identify cable routes and landfall sites that are far enough away from European and Ramsar sites to ensure that there will be no LSE.

It should also be noted that the transmission infrastructure linking the offshore zones to the onshore transmission grid is, at the time of writing this HRA, undergoing a separate SEA in investigating options for grid strengthening and upgrading. The Onshore Grid Reinforcement Study is being undertaken by NIE, as owner of the grid, in co-operation with the system operator SONI.


Page 16


Figure 2.1 Locations of resource zones considered in the SEA


Page 17


2.4 Scale and nature of development

2.4.1 Offshore wind

Area occupied by turbines

The potential location and spacing of wind turbines within the ORESAP resource zones (and consequently the total area occupied by turbine arrays) is not yet known given the strategic level of the Plan. The location of projects will be determined by the opportunities and constraints in each zone and will be subject to the Northern Ireland Leasing Round. Developers will take into account bathymetry, seabed geology and wind resource as well as the need to minimise wake effects, the economic pressure to minimise intra-array and export cable lengths and the requirement to consider constraints imposed by the environment or other users of the sea. At this stage, it is not possible to identify the actual area of each zone which could be occupied by wind turbines and this has therefore not been included within the definition of the ORESAP. However, it is possible to make some generalisations regarding the scale of offshore wind development that could be supported in each of the commercial wind resource zones by the ORESAP.

In terms of the area occupied by an offshore wind array, a key consideration is the spacing between the turbines. The wind conditions offshore are less turbulent than those onshore and consequently the spacing between offshore turbines needs to be larger than that of onshore turbines to avoid wake effects. The SEA notes (Section 7.3.2) that turbines are most efficient if placed 5-10 times the rotor diameter apart and that about 1km is typically allowed between 5MW turbines. Taking these factors into account the SEA Environmental Report sets out (in Table 12.1) that a 300MW offshore wind development (based on 5MW turbines) could be expected to occupy 30km2 in area. It should be noted however that this area is broadly independent of the capacity of the turbines that are installed. This is because turbine size is related to capacity, so as turbine capacity increases, the size of the turbine’s rotor diameter increases, as does the necessary minimum spacing between turbines, given the need to maintain efficient operation.

Using 30km2 as the typical area occupied by a 300MW offshore wind development Table 2.3 shows the approximate area of each commercial wind ORESAP resource zone that might be occupied by wind farms if the maximum capacity were to be achieved.

Table 2.3 Area of commercial wind resource zones possibly occupied by turbines if maximum capacity reached

Zone Zone name Maximum zone capacity (MW)

Possible area occupied by turbines (km2)

Maximum proportion of resource zone likely to be

occupied by turbines

Wi1 North Coast 300 30km2 6.2%

Wi2 East Coast 600 60km2 5.2%

Source: DETI (2009) ORESAP SEA Environmental Report Tables 12.1, 12.11


Page 18


The figures in Table 2.3 are included only for the purposes of illustrating the scale of ORESAP developments and should not be taken as the actual area of each of the commercial resource zones which could be occupied by turbines, which may vary according to the wind resource available at specific locations, turbine types used and detailed layout design.

2.4.2 Tidal power

Area occupied by devices

The potential layout and spacing of tidal developments within the ORESAP resource zones is not yet known given the strategic level of the Plan but will be dependant on similar factors outlined for wind turbines, i.e. the resource available, bathymetry, seabed geology, economics and environmental and other constraints. The SEA Environmental Report sets out that a typical tidal energy development would have a capacity of 50MW and would extend to an area of 1km2. Taking into account the environmental effects and effects on other marine users, the SEA estimated that, in total, up to 300MW of installed capacity could potentially be provided from tidal energy developments in Northern Ireland waters. Given these factors the approximate area of each commercial ORESAP tidal resource zone that might be occupied by tidal developments is set out in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Area of commercial tidal resource zones possibly occupied by devices if maximum capacity reached

Zone Zone name Maximum constrained zone capacity (MW)

Possible area occupied by tidal energy development

(km2)

% of total zone area

Ti1 North Coast 100 2km2 5.7%

Ti2 Rathlin Island and Torr Head

200 4km2 1.1%

Source: DETI (2009) ORESAP SEA Environmental Report Tables 12.1, 12.12


Page 19


2.4.3 Nature of activities and mitigation measures

Types of activities

It is assumed that as a minimum the following activities will be undertaken by developers within the strategic framework of the ORESAP:

• survey and site investigation work;

• device installation;

• cable laying and associated infrastructure (intra-array and export cables, offshore and onshore);

• installation of additional infrastructure (anemometry masts, tidal buoys, offshore substations, interconnectors etc.);

• device and cable operation;

• repair and maintenance work;

• decommissioning and infrastructure removal (or safe abandonment in situ).

Mitigation incorporated into the plan

As a large number of offshore wind farm projects have now passed through the consenting process and have been constructed (or are in the process of construction), it has become clear that there are various mitigation methods that can be employed in order to reduce potential adverse effects of offshore wind projects on the environment. These range from basic ‘best practice’ mitigation measures through to complex site-specific activities designed to mitigate effects on specific receptors at specific locations. The same principles apply to tidal power systems, for example the MCT SeaGen project in Strangford Lough includes the monitoring of environmental effects and the application of suitable environmental safeguards.

The commercial offshore renewable capacity targets set in the ORESAP (up to 900MW of wind development and 300MW of tidal development) were developed taking into account the potential environmental effects and mitigation measures that could be employed as set out in the SEA Environmental Report and represent what is considered by DETI to be deliverable development by 2020 without unacceptable environmental effects or unacceptable impacts on other marine users.

Notwithstanding this, it is necessary to re-assess potential effects on European and Ramsar sites of the development of these target capacities in the resource zones, as set out in the final ORESAP, in accordance with the Onshore and Offshore Habitats Regulations. This HRA Screening chapter establishes whether the commercial development supported by the ORESAP can be carried out without causing a LSE on any European or Ramsar site or, if this


Page 20


cannot be shown, recommends that the site is taken forward for consideration as part of the AA of the ORESAP, which assesses whether the ORESAP will have an adverse effect on the integrity of any European or Ramsar sites.

In assessing whether there are any LSE associated with development in the commercial resource zones, basic mitigation measures (such as those set out in the SEA Environmental Report and reproduced and added to in Table 2.5) that can generally be expected of offshore renewables development can be taken into account and are considered to form part of the ORESAP. The final ORESAP will explicitly include these measures, which are generally based on construction techniques and timings, form part of ‘best practice’ guidance6 and are drawn from mitigation measures already routinely employed in offshore renewables developments. The default position in the ORESAP is that these should be employed to avoid adverse effects on receptors arising from the potential causes listed, unless the developer can show that particular measures are not necessary or can be replaced by better methods in the specific context of their project.

The mitigation measures included in this HRA are considered to be measures which would not place an unacceptable burden on an offshore developer in terms of cost or complexity, and reflect conditions commonly requested by statutory consultees/consenting bodies. They have been included in the ORESAP because they are sufficiently well tried and tested that they can be relied upon to mitigate, completely or partially, specific potential effects of the ORESAP on European or Ramsar sites. They are also likely to be relevant for other development projects or plans that may have in-combination effects with the ORESAP. It is recommended that the mitigation measures be considered on a sequential basis, with avoidance and reduction measures being considered first, where appropriate.

The detailed project-specific mitigation measures that can be incorporated into individual projects by developers are outside the scope of this plan-level HRA (see section 1.2.1). Such additional mitigation measures agreed between developers and regulators as part of specific project plans would be taken into consideration at project-level. Statutory nature conservation agencies will be able to provide advice on the appropriateness and applicability of mitigation measures.

6 EU, 2010. Guidance document: Wind energy developments and Natura 2000. Report prepared with the assistance of Ecosystems Ltd under contract to the European Commission (contract N°070307/2008/513837/SER/B2). European Commission, 2010.


Page 21


Table 2.5 Basic mitigation measures for ORESAP activities (assumed included in the ORESAP)

Activity Potential causes of effects

Basic mitigations

Survey Noise Physical disturbance Vessel activity

Design of an appropriate survey methodology to provide required data whilst avoiding excessive habitat / species disturbance; plan to be produced to the satisfaction of statutory consultees and regulators Where there is evidence that this would mitigate adverse effects on sensitive species, timing of survey work to avoid sensitive life-cycle stages where possible (e.g. avoiding geotechnical surveys in diadromous fish migration seasons) It is also recommended to read the JNCC guidelines7 on minimising the risk of injury to marine mammals from noise produced during seismic surveys

Device installation/ decommissioning (including repowering)

Noise Where there is evidence that this would mitigate adverse effects on sensitive species, timing of piling activities to avoid sensitive life-cycle stages (e.g. diadromous fish migration seasons) Minimise, where possible, use of high noise emission activities Where appropriate, use full sound insulation on plant and equipment design If piling is undertaken use techniques such as soft start and/or Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADD) Use of bubble curtains (expensive and only effective in shallow water) Use of mammal observers and Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) system to facilitate implementation of exclusion zone during noisy activities (500m zone recommended by JNCC). The exclusion zone should take into considration breeding and migration cycles. Where projects are being undertaken close together, so that cumulative effects of construction noise may occur, this should be mitigated through appropriate timings of activities It is also recommended to read the JNCC guidelines8 on minimising the risk of injury to marine mammals from piling noise

Sediment mobilisation Suspended sediment dispersion modelling at the project stage Minimise dredging Use device installation method that minimises sediment re-suspension (device dependent) Carry out work in appropriate tidal conditions to minimise spatial extent of effect Avoid siting devices in areas where sediment transport pathways are modelled as highly sensitive to change Micrositing of devices to avoid sensitive habitats/species or areas of sediment contamination, where sediment re-mobilisation could result in toxic effects or smothering

Physical habitat disturbance

Careful site selection avoiding sensitive sites for devices

7 JNCC, 2010. JNCC guidelines for minimising the risk of injury and disturbance to marine mammals from seismic surveys. JNCC, Marine Advice, Aberdeen. 8 JNCC, 2010. Statutory nature conservation agency protocol for minimising the risk of injury to marine mammals from piling noise. JNCC, Marine Advice, Aberdeen.


Page 22



Basic mitigations

Device installation/ decommissioning (including repowering) (continued)

Toxic contamination Use low toxicity materials Minimise contact of potentially harmful materials with water Minimise quantity of potentially harmful materials used Carry out potentially hazardous operations under appropriate weather/tide conditions Avoid device/infrastructure placement within 500m of areas of known sediment contamination Carry out pre-installation bottom surveys Use installation methods that minimise disturbance of sediments Avoid sensitive time periods for local receptors Risk assessment and contingency planning If munitions are encountered Crown Estates (2006) guidance Dealing with munitions in marine aggregates should be followed

Vessel activity Enforce speed limits for vessels used in construction and establish a code of conduct to avoid disturbance to marine mammals both during construction activities and in transit to the construction area if entering areas of high animal abundance Implementation of SOPEP (Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan) Use of Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) vessel anchoring/positioning methodology and implementation of an appropriate Pollution Event Contingency Plan There is the potential for ducted (or cowled) propellers to cause fatal injuries to seals9; vessels with this type of propeller are in widespread use but use of such propellers for dynamic positioning of vessels during wind farm construction may present particular risks to seals. There are no clear cut generic mitigation measures for this and mitigation measures (e.g. use of marine mammal observers) should be drawn up on a site-specific basis to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities

Changes in coastal processes

Modelling the effects on coastal processes should form part of pre-project activities to optimise location

Minimising collision risks for animals and birds

Where possible avoid installation activities at night if bird collision is identified as a risk (birds are more vulnerable to collisions at night due to lighting of work areas and consequent attraction of birds)10

Device operation Scour Careful site selection to minimise scour Use of appropriately designed/located scour protection for device bases or anchors

Physical habitat disturbance

Careful site selection and assessment of effects Avoid device placement in sensitive areas/features

Operational noise Use full sound insulation on plant where appropriate. Noise from operating turbines can be reduced by using isolators. However this has not been tested over the long term or to account for cumulative effects

9 Thompson, D., Bexton, S., Brownlow, A., Wood, D., Patterson, T., Pye, K., Lonergan, M., & Milne, R., 2010. Report on recent seal mortalities in UK waters caused by extensive lacerations. Report produced by the Sea Mammal Research Unit, St Andrews. 10 Jones, J. and Francis, C.M., 2003. The effects of light characteristics on avian mortality at lighthouses. J. Avian Biol., 34, 328-333.


Page 23



Basic mitigations

Device operation (continued)

Maintenance vessel activity

Design for minimum device maintenance Enforce speed limits for vessels used in maintenance and establish a code of conduct to avoid disturbance to marine mammals both during maintenance activities and in transit to the construction area if entering areas of high animal abundance Implementation of SOPEP (Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan) Compliance with all relevant regulations including COLREGS Use of Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) vessel anchoring/positioning methodology and implementation of an appropriate Pollution Event Contingency Plan

Decrease of water flow Careful site selection and assessment of effects on water flow

Contamination Minimise use of antifoulants Use of non-toxic antifoulants Design devices to minimise leakage of pollutants Carry out potentially hazardous operations under appropriate weather/tide conditions Minimise use of sacrificial anodes Use of low toxicity grout Minimise contact of grout with water Minimise quantity of grout used Risk assessment and contingency planning

Minimising collision and other risks for animals and birds

Design device for minimal impact Improve the visibility of rotating tidal device blades through lighting and/or colour for minimising fish collision Use Acoustic Deterrent Devices where benefit of such devices can be demonstrated Tidal turbine blades should not be shiny (diving birds may mistake them for fish) Use of protective netting or grids Consider siting wind turbines close together to minimise the area accommodated by a wind farm, grouping turbines to avoid alignment perpendicular to main bird flight paths and providing corridors (up to a few kilometres wide) between groups of turbines to allow passage by birds Soften collision by adding smooth and/or softer edges Consideration should be given to whether any surface platforms have moving parts that could cause injury

Barrier to movement Do not site devices in particularly sensitive areas – e.g. migration routes, feeding, breeding areas Protect against entrapment by incorporating escape hatches into device design Avoid placing devices in constrained waterways where it could block or cause a significant perceptual barrier to marine mammals


Page 24



Basic mitigations

Cable installation/ decommissioning

Physical habitat disturbance Sediment mobilisation Toxic contamination Noise Vessel activity

Selection of cable landfalls to avoid adverse effects on European and Ramsar sites Micrositing of cables to avoid particularly sensitive coastal / intertidal / subtidal habitats, areas particularly important for bird interest features and areas of known contamination where sediment re-mobilisation could result in toxic effects Where there is evidence that this would mitigate adverse effects on sensitive species, timing of cable installation activities to avoid sensitive life-cycle stages (e.g. diadromous fish migration seasons, bird breeding/overwintering periods) Intertidal cabling works undertaken at low tide to reduce the level of resuspension and transport of sediments Careful planning of terrestrial site access to avoid sensitive habitats on the upper shore (e.g. vegetated shingle) and employment of appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts on these habitats Use of appropriate installation techniques to avoid adverse impacts on intertidal / coastal habitat features Where cable trenching in the intertidal is unavoidable, backfilling of trenches to reduce the potential for sediment remobilisation and facilitate recovery of benthic communities Use of cable laying techniques most appropriate to the nature of the intertidal / subtidal substrate to avoid excessive sediment mobilisation Enforce speed limits for vessels used in construction and establish a code of conduct to avoid disturbance to marine mammals both during construction activities and in transit to the construction area if entering areas of high animal abundance Implementation of SOPEP (Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan) Use of Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) vessel anchoring/positioning methodology and implementation of an appropriate Pollution Event Contingency Plan There is the potential for ducted (or cowled) propellers to cause fatal injuries to seals9; vessels with this type of propeller are in widespread use but use of such propellers for dynamic positioning of vessels during wind farm decommissioning and cable installation may present particular risks to seals. There are no clear cut generic mitigation measures for this and mitigation measures (e.g. use of marine mammal observers) should be drawn up on a site-specific basis to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities Suspended sediment dispersion modelling at the project stage

Cable operation Electromagnetic fields Scour

Burial of cables to an appropriate depth where this is considered necessary to mitigate effects on electrosensitive species, including Salmo salar11 Cable protection in the intertidal / subtidal area (e.g. burial, scour protection, pinning over bedrock) to reduce excessive scour

Source: adapted from DETI (2009) ORESAP SEA Environmental Report Table 14.2

11 Gill, A.B. & Bartlett, M., 2010. Literature review on the potential effects of electromagnetic fields and subsea noise from marine renewable energy developments on Atlantic salmon, sea trout and European eel. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 401.


Page 25


2.4.4 Timescales

The ORESAP will aim to deliver up to 900MW of operational offshore wind power generation and 300MW of tidal power by 2020, although it is possible that construction could extend beyond 2020. It is assumed that initial activity will be related to planning and obtaining consents, with construction starting later in the programme and development will commence when developers have signed development leases with The Crown Estate. .

The operational lifetime of commercial scale renewable energy farms developed within the framework of the ORESAP can be assumed to be 50 years as this is the likely duration of the Crown Estate leases for commercial development, although this has yet to be determined. There will be active maintenance during this time and possibly re-powering with replacement or enhanced components.

Renewable energy developers will be required to decommission at the end of their operating life-time or the end of the lease period (whichever is sooner) and a decommissioning plan will need to be agreed with the appropriate authority, generally prior to consenting of a project. There are various options that are open to renewable energy developers in terms of the procedures and methods adopted in decommissioning turbines, cables and other infrastructure; the choice of option is likely to be informed by a consideration of the possible effects on the marine environment, legislative requirements, safety considerations for navigation and personnel, costs of removal, and best available technology at the time of decommissioning. Developers will be required to adhere to the guidance set out by the UK government in respect to decommissioning requirements12.

12 DTI, 2006. Decommissioning of Offshore Renewable Energy Installations under the Energy Act 2004 – Guidance Notes for Industry. DTI, London.


Page 26



Page 27


3. Pre-screening process

3.1 Summary of the pre-screening process Owing to the large spatial scale and overall nature of the plan and the large number of European sites potentially affected by it, it was considered appropriate to undertake a ‘pre-screening’ exercise to identify an initial set of sites which should be screened as part of the HRA. Inclusion of sites depended upon the potential for:

• direct and indirect effects on habitat that is an interest feature or supports interest features, or on non-mobile species which are interest features or on mobile species which are interest features when on site – determined by factors such as proximity of activity in relation to tidal excursion in the area;

• effects on mobile mammals and fish when off site, determined by factors such as known foraging distances or migratory patterns;

• effects on birds when off site, determined by factors such as known foraging distances or migratory patterns.

The remainder of this section sets out the pre-screening methodology in more detail, and lists the sites which emerged from the pre-screening process to be taken forward for screening.

3.2 Stepwise approach to pre-screening The process for defining which European and Ramsar sites could be significantly affected by the ORESAP (i.e. the spatial extent of the HRA) has been subdivided into four steps.

• Step 1 - the starting point for defining the spatial scope was to identify which environmental changes could be caused by the activities that will be undertaken as part of the ORESAP. It is these changes that have the potential to affect the interest features for which the sites have been designated (i.e. there is a pathway which starts with development-related activities, these cause environmental changes, which in turn could cause ecological effects).

• Step 2 - preliminary assessment of the sites that could be significantly affected by the ORESAP based upon their location and the activities identified under Step 1.

• Step 3 - identification of the sensitivities (in relation to ORESAP activities) of the interest features in those sites which were selected in Step 2 (see Box 3.1).


Page 28


Box 3.1 Definition of sensitivity

The sensitivity of an interest feature can be defined as “the intolerance of a habitat, community or individual (or individual colony) of a species to damage, or death, from an external factor 13”.

• Step 4 - second stage of assessment of the selected sites, based upon the potential for their interest features to be affected. This assessment draws on information from Step 3.

The outcome of this process was a set of sites which was taken forward into the screening process. The method for screening these sites for likely significant effects (LSE) is detailed in Section 4 of this report. The remainder of this section sets out the approach to the pre-screening Steps 1-4.

The data sources used for identifying the European and Ramsar sites within the pre-screening process are shown in Box 3.2.

Box 3.2 Data sources

GIS data sources that were used in defining the subset of European and Ramsar sites to be included in the HRA are listed below.

• ORESAP zone boundaries from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI);

• the most recent ‘officially submitted’ protected site boundaries for the UK from the JNCC website: - Special Areas of Conservation – the full UK dataset (20 August 10); - SACs, cSACs and SCI with marine components (20 August 10); - SACs, cSACs and SCI with offshore components (20 August 10); - Special Protected Areas – the full UK dataset (20 August 10); - SPAs with marine components (20 August 10); - Ramsar sites (31 August 07); and

• European-wide Natura 2000 site boundaries and data from DG Environment of the European Commission; and

• Ramsar boundaries for the Republic of Ireland from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. In addition to these GIS data, interest features of UK SACs, SPAs and Ramsar sites were obtained from the JNCC website. Interest features for the Republic of Ireland were obtained from the DG Environment of the European Commission. Conservation Objectives for Scottish sites were obtained from SNH, for NI sites from DOENI, and for the Republic of Ireland from the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

13 Hiscock, K., 1996. Marine Nature Conservation Review: rationale and methods. Peterborough, JNCC.


Page 29


3.3 Step 1 - Environmental changes Drawing upon the data sources listed in Box 3.2, Table 3.1 summarises the main categories of activity that will form part of the ORESAP and the environmental changes that could be associated with these activities and that might result in effects on interest features of protected sites (SAC, SPA and Ramsar sites). These effects are all possible but may not all occur depending on mitigation employed (for example, if a cable is installed outside the overwintering bird season, disturbance of such birds will be avoided completely).

With regards to tidal stream generators, potential impacts caused by these devices have been based on the current technology available. It is worth noting that the method of installation of these devices is quite varied and can employ several different methods. For example, tidal stream generators can be secured through either piling or anchor placement, depending on the device.

The potential environmental changes associated with offshore renewable development activities can be assigned within six broad categories of operation (as used by NE and CCW for giving advice under Regulation 3314 of the Habitats Regulations) which may cause the deterioration of natural habitats or the habitats of species, or the disturbance of species. These categories are:

• physical loss/gain of habitat (PLG);

• physical damage to habitats or species(PD);

• non-physical disturbance – direct and indirect (DD);

• toxic contamination (TC);

• non-toxic contamination (NTC); and

• biological disturbance (BD).

14 Regulation 33 refers to the original Habitats Regulations S.I. 1994:2716 applicable in England, Wales and Scotland, now replaced there by Regulation 35 of S.I. 2010:490. The equivalent in Northern Ireland is Rule 28 of S.R.1995:380


Page 30


Table 3.1 ORESAP activities that could affect European/Ramsar site interest features (without mitigation)

Activity Potential environmental changes which may lead to effects on SAC/SPA/Ramsar habitats and species

Survey work Trawling surveys Seismic surveys

Physical damage to habitats or species (PD) Removal of species or habitat features (e.g. biogenic reefs) Injury to fish or marine mammals due to underwater pressure waves

Seismic surveys

Increased vessel activity

Direct Disturbance (DD) Noise and vibration (creating underwater pressure waves that may affect fish or marine mammals and/or airborne noise that may affect birds or bats) Increased noise disturbance to marine, avian and bats species and possibly shoreline mammals

Increase in risk of spillages/releases of oil or other

contaminants from increased vessel activity Mobilisation of contaminants by sediment

disturbance during sampling (e.g. trawls, cores)

Toxic contamination (TC) Toxic effects on marine species Toxic effects on marine species


Biological disturbance (BD) Increased risk of introduction of non-native species via vessels from elsewhere (e.g. in ballast water)

Installation (turbines, cables ancillary structures) Turbine foundation installation, anchor placement

and device placement Turbine foundation installation

Physical loss/gain of habitat (PLG) Seabed habitat loss at turbine, anchor and device locations Temporary change in substrate (e.g. gravel for gravity bases) Terrestrial habitat loss within footprint of above ground installations


Page 31



Monopile installation through percussive piling Device installation through drilling/piling Particular devices resting on sea bed and anchor

placement Laying cable in trench across subtidal or intertidal

seabed habitat Turbine foundation installation and/or laying cable in

trench across subtidal or intertidal seabed habitat Construction activities on land

Physical damage to habitats or species (PD) Injury to fish or marine mammals due to underwater pressure waves Increase in sediment disturbance causing effects such as suffocation and burial Injury to benthic community due to placement of device and/or anchor and loss of habitat Subtidal and intertidal area habitat disturbance (assuming cables buried) (short term habitat loss but overall damage that will recover in case of soft substrate) Temporary smothering of habitats and species by re-deposition of mobilised sediment Terrestrial habitat damage within construction sites for above ground installations outside footprint of permanent structures (potential for reinstatement)

Noise and vibration generating activities, particularly

percussive piling Increased vessel activity Increase in lighting from vessels and buoys

Indirect disturbance (DD) Noise and vibration (creating underwater pressure waves that may affect fish or marine mammals and/or airborne noise that may affect birds or bats) Increased noise disturbance to marine, avian and bats species and possibly shoreline mammals Potential adverse effect caused by an increase in lighting by vessels and devices.



disturbance during turbine, anchor or cable installation.


Mobilisation of sediments during turbine, anchor or

cable installation

Non-toxic contamination (NTC) Increases in turbidity potentially affecting marine pelagic species (fish and mammals)


Page 32




Biological disturbance (BD) Increased risk of introduction of non-native species via vessels from elsewhere

Operation and maintenance Presence of devices Presence of wind and tidal turbines, and anchors Presence of onshore above-ground installations

Physical loss/gain of habitat (PLG) Permanent loss of former seabed at device locations – in particular from piled devices and gravity bases Localised scouring of seabed, in particular where the sediment comprises sand and gravel Changed habitat availability (colonisation of turbine bases) and reef/’sanctuary’ effect via creation of fishing exclusion zones Terrestrial land-take for above ground installations

Presence of wind and tidal turbines and anchors Wind turbine operation Wind turbine operation Tidal turbine operation Tidal turbine operation

Increase in lighting from vessels and buoys

Physical damage to habitats or species (PD) Changes to hydrodynamics causing seabed disturbance through local scour, more distant erosion and smothering by re-deposition of mobilised sediment Pressure changes resulting from blade movements (e.g. effects on bat internal organs) Collision of seabirds with wind turbine blades Pressure changes resulting from blade movements (e.g. effects on fish internal organs) Collision with operation devices by marine mammals, fish and seabirds (diving and pursuit) – these extent of these effects is currently unknown, however, likely to be more significant with propeller type tidal devices than hydroplane devices (due to lower rates of motion and less moving parts) Potential adverse effect caused by an increase in lighting by vessels and devices.


Page 33



Operation of turbines

Presence and operation of turbines and other tidal

energy converters Operation of tidal stream generators Operation of subsea cables Operation of subsea cables Operation of onshore installations Increased vessel activity

Indirect disturbance (DD) Noise and vibration (underwater noise that may affect fish or marine mammals and/or airborne noise that may affect birds or bats) – greatest from tidal turbines Other behavioural effects through physical presence/barrier effect of operating turbines or other tidal devices (e.g. avoidance, disorientation of migrating mammals/fish/birds, displacement of birds from feeding areas) Adverse effects on coastal process resulting from the extraction of energy from the existing tidal regime. Electromagnetic fields around cables potentially affecting sensitive species Heat generated by cables potentially affecting seabed communities Night-time lighting potentially affecting bats and birds Increased noise disturbance to marine, avian and bats species and possibly shoreline mammals


contaminants from increased vessel activity Accidental spillage as a result of storm damage


Presence of turbines, devices and anchors

Biological disturbance (BD) Introduction of non-native species (e.g. creation of hard substrate colonisation routes)

Decommissioning Removal of turbines, anchors and foundations Removal of tidal devices that sit on the seabed Removal of unburied cables Removal of turbines but not foundations Removal of onshore above-ground installations

Physical loss/gain of habitat (PLG) Change in seabed habitat, removal of colonised hard substrate habitat, possible restoration of former habitat Change in seabed habitat, removal of colonised hard substrate habitat, possible restoration of former habitat Removal of colonised habitat (cables) Permanent change to marine habitat via structures left in situ (e.g. turbine bases) Change in terrestrial habitat, possible restoration of former habitat


Page 34



Removal of turbines (using percussive methods or

explosives) Removal of buried cables Removal of turbine foundations, anchors, devices or

buried cables Decommissioning works on land

Physical damage to habitats or species (PD) Injury to fish or marine mammals due to underwater pressure waves Subtidal and intertidal area disturbance (short term habitat loss but overall damage that will recover in case of soft substrate) Temporary smothering of habitats and species by re-deposition of mobilised sediment Terrestrial habitat damage within construction sites for above ground installations outside footprint of permanent structures (potential for reinstatement)

Noise and vibration generating activities, particularly

percussive demolition or use of explosives Increased vessel activity Increase in lighting from vessels and buoys

Indirect disturbance (DD) Noise and vibration (creating underwater pressure waves that may affect fish or marine mammals and/or airborne noise that may affect birds or bats) Increased noise disturbance to marine, avian and bats species and possibly shoreline mammals Potential adverse effect caused by an increase in lighting by vessels and devices.



disturbance during turbine or cable removal


Mobilisation of sediments during turbine, anchor,

device or cable removal

Non-toxic contamination (NTC) Increases in turbidity potentially affecting marine pelagic species (fish and mammals)


Biological disturbance (BD) Increased risk of introduction of non-native species via vessels from elsewhere

Source: TCE (2010) Round 3 Plan HRA and DETI (2009) ORESAP SEA Environmental Report Chapter 11


Page 35


3.4 Step 2 - Preliminary assessment of sites (pre-screening) The ORESAP could potentially have effects on European and Ramsar sites both within the UK and in other countries (the latter being referred to in this report as ‘transnational’ sites (i.e. sites that have been designated by other European member states under the Habitats and Birds Directives or by Ramsar signatories under the Ramsar Convention). In order to undertake the HRA Screening it is useful to decide which sites need to be screened (as obviously the ORESAP will not be likely to have a significant effect on a terrestrial site in Eastern Europe for example). It is therefore convenient to carry out this pre-screening step to ascertain which European and Ramsar sites are to undergo HRA Screening for the ORESAP.

Following this train of thought, the first step in the pre-screening is to rule out sites within the UK and ROI that have no bearing upon the ORESAP, effectively reducing the list of sites. For example, the ORESAP will not have any impacts upon the Humber Estuary SAC habitat interest features due to the distance between the two. Taking the location of the four resource zones and the nature of activities to be undertaken, Table 3.2 sets out the types of site that were included in or excluded from the HRA Screening process based on the designation type and reason for designation. The main aim behind producing Table 3.2 was to reduce the UK and ROI total list of N2K and Ramsar sites to a more manageable size by removing those sites where it is obvious that the ORESAP will have no effect upon, as detailed by the reasons column in the table.

Table 3.2 Reasons for including sites in the ORESAP HRA Screening

Designation Reason for including/excluding sites from HRA Screening

cSAC, SCI, SAC for habitat interest

• SAC sites on the east coast of the Britain were excluded due to the distance factor.

• SAC sites on the west coast of the Britain, including Scottish west coast islands, were included.

• All Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland coastal SACs were included.

• All offshore SACs on the western half of UK and ROI waters were included.

cSAC, SCI, SAC for bat interest only

• All UK and Republic of Ireland SACs containing bats as interest features were included.

cSAC, SCI, SAC for marine mammal interest only

• All SACs found in Britain, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland with Tursiops truncatus and/or Phocoena phocoena as interest features were included.

• All SACs found within approximately 60km of the resource zones with Halichoerus grypus and/or Phoca vitulina as interest features were included.

cSAC, SCI, SAC for otter interest only

• All SACs in Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland with Lutra lutra as an interest feature were included.

cSAC, SCI, SAC for migratory fish interest only

• All SACs in Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland with anadromous fish as an interest feature were included.

• All SACs on the Irish Sea coast of England and Scotland with anadromous fish as an interest feature were included.

pSPA, SPA for bird interest only

• All SPAs in the UK and Republic of Ireland containing migratory birds as interest features were included.


Page 36


Designation Reason for including/excluding sites from HRA Screening

pSPA, SPA for supporting habitat interest

• SPA sites on the east coast of Britain were excluded due to the distance factor.

• SPA sites on the west coast of the Britain, including Scottish west coast islands, were included.

• All Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland coastal SPAs were included.

• All offshore SPAs on the western half of UK and ROI waters.

pRamsar, Ramsar for bird interest only

• All UK and Republic of Ireland Ramsar sites containing migratory birds as interest features were included.

pRamsar, Ramsar for habitat interest

• Ramsar sites on the east coast of Britain were excluded due to the distance factor.

• Ramsar sites on the west coast of the Britain, including Scottish west coast islands, were included.

• All Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland coastal Ramsar sites were included.

• All offshore Ramsar sites west of the coast of Britain, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland were included.

pRamsar, Ramsar for marine mammals interest only

• All Ramsar sites found in Britain, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland with Tursiops truncatus and Phocoena phocoena as interest features were included.

• All Ramsars found within approximately 60km of the resource zones containing Halichoerus grypus and Phoca vitulina were included.

pRamsar, Ramsar for migratory fish interest only

• All Ramsar sites in Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland with diadromous migratory fish as an interest feature were included.

• All Ramsar sites on the Irish Sea coast of England and Scotland with anadromous fish as an interest feature were included.

In summary Table 3.2 shows that offshore marine sites15, marine sites within territorial waters, coastal sites which have marine components16, sites with bat interest features or freshwater sites with diadromous migratory fish interest features, within a wide geographical area, have been automatically taken forward to the HRA Screening in Step 3.

Under Step 2, initial consideration was given to terrestrial sites (i.e. those not listed as having marine, offshore or migratory fish/mammal interest features), with a view to identifying which of these can be excluded from further assessment as part of the HRA. The term terrestrial site is also used here to include freshwater habitat. There is the potential for terrestrial sites located on the coast in the vicinity of proposed resource development zones to be affected by marine activities (for example, changes in tidal energy and sediment dynamics that could affect sand dune sites or increased levels of collision risk that could affect birds that breed onshore or migrate across the sea). Consequently where terrestrial sites have a coastal habitat interest feature that may be affected by ORESAP marine

15 UK offshore waters are defined as occurring beyond 12 nautical miles, within the UK Continental Shelf Designated Area. 16 SAC sites with marine components are those sites which contain qualifying Habitats Directive Annex I marine habitats and/or qualifying Annex II marine species (where these species are reliant on the marine environment within SAC boundaries). SPA sites with marine components are defined as those sites with qualifying Birds Directive Annex I species or regularly occurring migratory species that are dependent on the marine environment for all or part of their lifecycle, where these species are found in association with intertidal or subtidal habitats.


Page 37


activities, these sites have been taken forward to Step 3. The same applies to terrestrial sites that have interest features including bird species that could be affected by changes related to marine activity.

Sites where bat species are an interest feature have also been taken forward to Step 3 where the location of the ORESAP zones could affect bats flying over the sea. This reflects the fact that bats have been known to fly short distances over the sea and have been observed feeding at some offshore wind farm sites and oil and gas platforms.

For all other interest features on terrestrial sites (i.e. those habitats or species which are purely terrestrial or freshwater in nature), it is considered that the only environmental changes that could result in them being significantly affected by ORESAP would be disturbance or land-take associated with cable/substation installation or operation. This is outside the scope of this HRA but will be considered by the current Onshore Renewables and Grid SEA.

On this basis, it is concluded that the ORESAP can be undertaken without any LSE on purely terrestrial European and Ramsar sites that have no coastal component and which are not designated for their migratory fish, bat or bird interest, where this fish, bat or bird interest is vulnerable to changes associated with offshore activity. For this reason, the majority of UK and Republic of Ireland terrestrial SACs were removed from the initial subset of sites to be considered in Step 3 and subsequently from the HRA process.

Note that in this pre-screening step we have assumed that developers of resource zones will choose to avoid running cables through a terrestrial European or Ramsar site (and therefore there will be no direct loss of habitat). Examination of the distribution of such sites shows that avoidance is certainly technically feasible. Should this assumption be incorrect the possible effect of this activity on the interest features of the site will need to be dealt with through HRA at the project-level.

3.5 Step 3 - Identification of interest features’ sensitivities Table 3.3 lists the broad categories of interest features that are represented within the European/Ramsar sites that have been brought forward from Step 2. The interest features within the table are those which are potentially exposed to ORESAP activities.

For each of these categories, generic sensitivities of the interest features to effects that could arise from implementation of the ORESAP have been identified, drawing on information from advice given under the Habitats Regulations, the DETI SEA Environmental Report, European Union guidance6 and information from a variety of offshore wind farm Environmental Statements. ORESAP development activities that are relevant to one or more of these sensitivities are listed in the fourth column.


Page 38


Table 3.3 Interest feature sensitivities and associated ORESAP activities

Interest feature categories

Sensitivities

Cat

egor

y Relevant ORESAP zone activities

Surv

ey

Inst

alla

tion

Ope

ratio

n

Dec

omm

- is

sion

ing

Cetaceans Change in prey species populations PLG Establishment of fishery exclusion zones round wind or tidal energy developments may lead to increase in prey species. However, noise from wind and tidal turbines may decrease fish supply

Noise injury PD Seismic surveys

Noise injury PD Installation or removal of monopiles or cables (using percussive piling for installation or percussive methods/explosives for demolition)

Collision of migrating and foraging cetaceans with tidal turbine blades

PD Turbine operation

Noise disturbance DD Installation or removal of devices or cables

Noise disturbance DD Wind and tidal turbine operation

Noise disturbance DD Increased vessel activity

Barrier effects to the movement of migrating cetaceans

DD Tidal turbine presence and operation

Seals Change in prey species populations PLG Establishment of fishery exclusion zones round wind or tidal energy developments may lead to increase in prey species. However, noise from wind and tidal turbines may decrease fish supply

Noise injury PD Seismic surveys

Noise injury PD Installation or removal of monopiles or cables (using percussive piling for installation or percussive methods/explosives for demolition)

Direct damage to haul-out sites PD Cable installation or decommissioning


Page 39



Sensitivities

Cat

egor


Surv

ey

Inst

alla

tion

Ope

ratio

n

Dec

omm

- is

sion

ing

Seals (continued)

Modification of hydrodynamic functioning causing erosion of haul out sites

PD Presence of permanent nearshore structures protruding above the seabed (e.g. cable armouring), presence of tidal devices, possibly presence of wind turbines in zones closer to shore

Collision of migrating and foraging seals with tidal turbine blades


Noise disturbance DD Installation or removal of devices or cables

Noise disturbance DD Wind and tidal turbine operation

Noise disturbance DD Increased vessel activity

Bats Mortality due to collision of bats with turbine blades

PLG Turbine operation

Mortality due to pressure changes near turbine blades

PLG Turbine operation

Barrier effects to the movement of migrating bats

DD Turbine presence and operation

Otter Change in prey species populations PLG Establishment of fishery exclusion zones round wind or tidal energy developments may lead to increase in prey species. However, noise from wind and tidal turbines may decrease fish supply

Noise/visual disturbance DD Increased vessel activity at ports where shipping activity is currently infrequent or absent

Birds Loss of intertidal foraging habitat PLG Installation or removal of cables in the intertidal area

Loss of intertidal foraging habitat PLG Presence of permanent nearshore structures protruding above the seabed (e.g. cable armouring), presence of tidal devices, possibly presence of wind turbines in zones closer to shore causing changes to hydrodynamics and tidal regime resulting in erosion of intertidal habitat


Page 40



Sensitivities

Cat

egor


Surv

ey

Inst

alla

tion

Ope

ratio

n

Dec

omm

- is

sion

ing

Loss of subtidal foraging habitat PLG Presence of cable armouring, turbines, or devices sitting on the seabed causing direct loss of seabed habitat

Change in supply of prey for foraging birds in subtidal areas

PLG Establishment of fishery exclusion zones round wind or tidal energy developments may lead to increase in prey species. However, noise from wind and tidal turbines may decrease fish supply

Change in supply or availability of prey for foraging birds in intertidal and subtidal areas

PLG Habitat changes due to direct and indirect effects on intertidal and subtidal areas may decrease or increase food supply or availability for birds

Collision of migrating and foraging birds with wind turbine blades


Collision of diving birds with tidal turbine blades


Barrier effects to the movement of migrating and foraging birds

DD Wind turbine blade movement

Noise/visual disturbance and/or displacement from intertidal and onshore feeding/roosting/breeding areas

DD Installation or removal of cables across the shoreline

Noise/visual disturbance and/or displacement from offshore foraging areas

DD Installation or removal of subsea cables or devices

Noise/visual disturbance and/or displacement from offshore foraging areas

DD Device operation

Noise/visual disturbance at shore or on offshore feeding grounds

DD Increased vessel activity


Page 41



Sensitivities

Cat

egor


Surv

ey

Inst

alla

tion

Ope

ratio

n

Dec

omm

- is

sion

ing

Migratory fish *** (and freshwater pearl mussels which are dependent on migratory fish)

Noise injury (especially to early life stages) PD Seismic surveys

Noise injury (especially to early life stages) PD Installation or removal of monopiles or cables (using percussive piling for installation or percussive methods/explosives for demolition)

Noise disturbance (especially to shad and to fish larvae generally)

PD Installation or removal of devices or cables

Noise disturbance (especially to shad and to fish larvae generally)

PD Device operation, in particular pressure waves created by tidal turbines

Increased suspended solids concentration NTC Installation or removal of monopiles, anchors, devices or cables

Invertebrates Loss of intertidal habitat PLG Installation or removal of cables in the intertidal area

Loss of intertidal habitat PLG Presence of cable armouring or turbines causing changes to hydrodynamic and tidal regime resulting in erosion of intertidal habitat or a loss of sediment transport

Change in subtidal habitat PLG Presence of cable armouring or turbines, devices, and anchors causing change in seabed habitat

Smothering PD Re-deposition of sediments mobilised during turbine, device, anchor or cable installation or decommissioning. Re-deposition of sediments mobilised by scour around installed monopiles, anchors, and devices

Noise disturbance (long term) DD Device operation

Toxic contamination TC Mobilisation of contaminated sediments during turbine, device, anchor or cable installation or decommissioning

Increased suspended solids concentration NTC Installation or removal of turbines, devices, anchors or cables


Page 42



Sensitivities

Cat

egor


Surv

ey

Inst

alla

tion

Ope

ratio

n

Dec

omm

- is

sion

ing

Dunes Direct habitat loss by excavation PLG Installation or removal of cables across the upper shore

Hydrographic modification leading to change in sediment dynamics at the coast

PD Presence of permanent nearshore structures protruding above the seabed (e.g. cable armouring), possibly presence of turbines in zones closer to shore. Removal of energy from the system by tidal devices resulting in changes in sediment dynamics

Sea caves Toxic contamination TC Mobilisation of contaminated sediments during turbine, device, anchor or cable installation or decommissioning

Changes in intertidal habitat DD Presence of tidal devices causing a change in the tidal regime through the removal of energy from the system, thus causing a change in tidal height.

Reefs (biogenic and rock)

Loss of habitat due to trawling PLG Survey work using trawls

Increase in habitat due to reduction in trawling

PLG Establishment of fishery exclusion zones will protect reef habitat from effects of trawling

Direct damage by excavation/piling/structure placement or removal

PLG Turbine, device, anchored or cable installation or removal

Modification of hydrography leading to erosion of biogenic reefs

PLG Presence of cable armouring, tidal turbines or monopiles leading to scour

Smothering PD Re-deposition of sediments mobilised during turbine, device, anchor or cable installation or decommissioning. Re-deposition of sediments mobilised by scour around installed monopiles, anchors, or devices

Toxic contamination to biogenic reefs TC Mobilisation of contaminated sediments during turbine, device, anchor or cable installation or decommissioning


Page 43



Sensitivities

Cat

egor


Surv

ey

Inst

alla

tion

Ope

ratio

n

Dec

omm

- is

sion

ing

Estuaries Direct habitat loss due to excavation PLG Installation or removal of cables within the estuary

Modification of hydrography leading to habitat loss through erosion

PLG Presence of cable armouring, tidal turbines or monopiles leading to scour and changes in hydrodynamics

Ship wash causing habitat loss through erosion

PLG Increased vessel activity in shallow areas


Introduction of non-native species BD Increased vessel activity to/from estuarine ports

Sea cliffs Direct habitat loss due to excavation PLG Installation or removal of cables across the shoreline

Changes in intertidal habitat DD Presence of tidal devices causing a change in the tidal regime through the removal of energy from the system, thus causing a change in tidal height

Coastal lagoons, bays and inlets

Direct habitat loss due to excavation PLG Installation or removal of cables in the intertidal area






Introduction of non-native species BD Increased vessel activity to/from ports in sheltered areas


Page 44



Sensitivities

Cat

egor


Surv

ey

Inst

alla

tion

Ope

ratio

n

Dec

omm

- is

sion

ing

Vegetation of uppermost tidal limit

Modification of hydrography leading to unsuitable conditions for growth

PLG Presence of tidal devices causing a change in the tidal regime through the removal of energy from the system, thus causing a change in tidal height

Saltmarsh Direct habitat loss due to excavation PLG Installation or removal of cables across the shoreline


PLG Presence of permanent nearshore structures protruding above the seabed (e.g. cable armouring), possibly presence of turbines in zones closer to shore. Removal of energy from the system by tidal devices resulting in changes in sediment dynamics



Subtidal sandbanks

Direct habitat loss due to excavation PLG Installation or removal of turbines or cables

Loss of seabed habitat PLG Presence of turbines, devices, and anchors



Mudflats and sandflats

Direct habitat loss due to excavation PLG Installation or removal of cables across the shoreline


PLG Presence of permanent nearshore structures protruding above the seabed (e.g. cable armouring), possibly presence of turbines in zones closer to shore. Removal of energy from the system by tidal devices resulting in changes in sediment dynamics



*** Note that juvenile stages of freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera) depend for their survival on the presence of salmonid fish as hosts, thus where both Atlantic salmon and pearl mussels are interest features of a freshwater site, if a likely significant effect on Atlantic salmon is identified, an LSE on pearl mussels is assumed.


Page 45


3.6 Step 4 - Second stage of assessment of sites

3.6.1 Overview

The subset of sites being taken forward for further assessment (i.e. those sites which brought forward from Step 2) can be divided into three categories:

• SACs that contain coastal or offshore habitat interest features and/or non-mobile species interest features and SPA/Ramsar sites containing habitats supporting bird interest features that may be affected by the ORESAP activities;

• SACs and Ramsar sites with interest features including mobile or migratory species of mammals or fish that may be affected by the ORESAP activities; and

• SPAs and Ramsar sites with interest features including bird populations that may be affected by the ORESAP activities.

This section of the report sets out the way in which the proposed spatial extent of the HRA (and thus the sites to be included) was defined for each of these groups of sites. The overall approach was to determine which sites could be within the geographic area that could be affected by the activities associated with the ORESAP, drawing upon information about the sensitivities of the features associated with each site.

A full list of all the sites emerging from Step 4 of the pre-screening process and being taken forward to the formal HRA screening stage is presented in Section 3.7, along with a summary of the reason(s) for their inclusion.

3.6.2 Offshore and coastal habitats and non-mobile species

Approach to the identification of sites that could be significantly affected

SACs with coastal or marine habitat or non-mobile species interest features and coastal habitats supporting birds within SPAs and Ramsar sites have been classified as being potentially either ‘directly’ or ‘indirectly’ affected by the ORESAP as described below. This distinction is largely semantic, and is intended to illustrate whether ORESAP activities will take place within the protected site boundary (producing ‘direct’ effects) or whether they will take place outside the site (‘indirect effects’). Whilst the nature and magnitude of the effect may differ between directly and indirectly affected sites, any identified effects on sites have been assessed in the same way in the HRA.

Directly affected sites

European and Ramsar sites were classified as directly affected sites if the boundary of an ORESAP resource zone physically overlaps the boundary of a site. Sites identified on this basis are shown in Table 3.5, Table 3.6 and Table 3.7 in Section 3.7 as being directly affected by one or more zones.


Page 46


Indirectly affected sites

Sediment mobilisation Indirect effects on coastal, marine and offshore sites (other than effects on mobile species, which are covered in Section 3.6.3 below) are likely to arise principally as a result of sediment disturbance, transportation and deposition, and the associated effects on sedimentary processes, benthic habitats and water quality. This effect could arise from device or cable installation, maintenance, scour during operation or decommissioning.

Extensive studies in relation to marine aggregates dredging show that even fine particles mobilised from the seabed generally settle out again to a large extent within the distance of one tidal excursion17. While the plume may remain visible beyond this point, concentrations of suspended solids are usually within the range of natural variation and much of the visible nature of the plume is due to lipids released from damaged benthic animals18. Such conclusions are borne out by recent studies in relation to dredging of the Princes Channel by the Port of London Authority19.

This observation is further supported in the case of wind farms by studies undertaken on wave and sediment processes in relation to Round 1 and Round 2 offshore wind farms in English territorial waters20. These indicate that effects on wave patterns (and therefore on coastal processes) are limited, even in nearshore shallow water wind farms. The studies also indicate that the effects of offshore wind farms on sediment in terms of scour are localised to the area of the turbines and do not extend far from the wind farm area.

A BERR study into the environmental effects of cabling for offshore wind farms21 indicates that sediments suspended by cabling activities do not travel large distances from the cable location, and that the distance travelled is largely influenced by the type of sediment mobilised and the strength of the tidal flows (i.e. the tidal excursion). Waves are not considered to exert an influence over the fate of suspended sediment. Studies and modelling undertaken for Round 1 and 2 offshore wind farms have shown that cabling during optimum tidal conditions results in a depositional footprint for fine sediments in the order of 200m either side of the cable.

On the basis of the above research, it was concluded that the only sites that were potentially at risk of indirect LSEs on habitats or non-mobile species due to sediment mobilisation and re-deposition were those within one tidal excursion (tidal ellipse) around the zone boundary, using data for a mean spring tide to ensure a precautionary

17 Tidal excursion is the path along which a water particle moves during one tidal cycle of flood and ebb. 18 Coastline Surveys Ltd (1998). Marine aggregate mining benthic and surface plume study. US Marine Minerals Management Service 19 Clay N., Bray N. and Hesk P. (2008) Maximising beneficial reuse through the use of a novel dredging contract. Terra et Aqua, 111, 13-20. 20 This work is summarised in Lambkin, D.O., Harris, J.M., Cooper, W.S., Coates, T., Coastal Process modelling for Offshore Windfarm Environmental Impact Assessment: Best Practice Guide (COWRIE COAST-07-08) 21 BERR (2008). Review of cabling techniques and environmental effects applicable to the offshore wind farm industry – Technical Report. BERR.


Page 47


approach. At this stage, all sites potentially within the length of the major axis of the tidal ellipse in any direction from a zone were included, using local tidal data from a nautical almanac, representing a highly precautionary approach, as most tidal ellipses have a minor axis that is much smaller than the major axis. This includes all coastal European sites and Ramsar sites in Northern Ireland and some Republic of Ireland sites close to the border.

Sites identified on this basis are shown in Table 3.5, Table 3.6 and Table 3.7 in Section 3.7 as being indirectly affected by a resource zone.

Changes in hydrodynamic regime It is also feasible that indirect effects on coastal, marine and offshore sites (other than effects on mobile species, which are covered in Section 3.6.3 below) could arise as a result of changes in the hydrodynamic regime, leading to changes in biological communities due to changes in current velocities causing erosion or deposition of sediment (including effects on coastal features such as sand dunes) or changes in water levels or wave exposure at the shore affecting coastal ecology. Such effects would be longer-term effects associated only with the presence of energy devices, anchorages or cable armouring during the operational phase.

Wind turbines will be widely spaced (typically from 800m apart to over 1km), therefore any scour effects will be separately localised around each turbine and, for engineering reasons, will be limited by use of scour protection. Where necessary, scour protection may also be applied to cables to limit scour (and resultant changes to the local hydrodynamic regime) but only to the extent deemed necessary, thus limiting changes in hydrodynamics resulting from the presence of scour protection that protrudes above the sea bed. On this basis, it has been assessed that the test used for inclusion of European/Ramsar sites in relation to transport of sediment mobilised during construction/decommissioning (i.e. sites within one tidal excursion of a zone) ensured that any sites that may be affected by erosion due to changes in the hydrodynamic regime arising from offshore wind farms were also carried forward for HRA screening.

Tidal energy devices present a different issue, as they are specifically designed to remove energy directly from the water column and, if installed near to the shore or in restricted channels (for example between an island and the shore or in narrow straits at entrances to sea loughs), may generate significant local changes in water currents and levels. Any scour effects will be determined by the type of device being installed and thus the type of installation used. Tidal energy devices that are installed using monopiles will have the same impact as wind turbines, although the distances between piles may be smaller. Other methods of installing tidal devices involve anchoring, for example drag embedment, gravity anchors, pins, and suction anchors, whereby scour may form around the anchors. Finally certain types of tidal devices sit on the seabed, potentially causing scour. Therefore, the basis for including European/Ramsar sites in relation to the transport of sediment caused by the construction/decommissioning of tidal devices was the same as that for wind turbines – i.e. sites within one tidal excursion of a zone.


Page 48


3.6.3 Mobile or migratory mammals and migratory fish

Marine mammals

An initial list was made of SACs in UK and Republic of Ireland waters with marine mammals as interest features. This included all SACs where one or more of the following Annex I species is an interest feature:

• grey seal (Halichoerus grypus);

• common seal (Phoca vitulina);

• harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena); or

• bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus).

SACs may be designated on the basis that they support a breeding population of the species, or that they contain habitats essential for the survival or reproduction of the species. Although harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) is present in UK waters, there are currently no UK sites with harbour porpoise as a qualifying feature (although the species is present in a number of sites at a non-significant population level). There are, however, several Republic of Ireland SACs with qualifying populations of harbour porpoise.

As well as SAC sites, Ramsar sites can also have marine mammals listed under Criterion 2 (supporting vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered species or threatened ecological communities), Criterion 3 (supports populations of plant and/or animal species important for maintaining the biological diversity of a particular biogeographic region) and Criterion 4 (supports plant and/or animal species at a critical stage in their life cycles, or provides refuge during adverse conditions).

Criteria for inclusion of SACs and Ramsar sites in the screening process on the basis of marine mammals were:

• all sites in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland with cetaceans as interest features were taken forward for screening;

• sites along the west coast of England, Wales and Scotland with cetaceans as interest features were also retained;

• sites from the east coast of Scotland and England were not included in the screening process, as it has been shown that populations in the North Sea and in the Irish Sea and adjacent Atlantic waters are distinct22; and

22 Parsons, K.M., Noble, L.R., Reid, R.J., and Thompson, P.M. (2002) Mitochondrial genetic diversity and population structuring of UK bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus): is the NE Scotland population demographically and geographically isolated? Biological Conservation, 1038: 175-182. also


Page 49


• sites containing seals were taken forward for screening if the site was within approximately 60km from a resource zone23. This is the approximate distance a seal will travel to forage. This led to inclusion of some Scottish sites.

The main potential effects of the ORESAP on these marine mammal species are likely to arise from the installation of devices and cables, particularly from piling noise, from other noise during operation and decommissioning and from the potential for injury from contact with tidal turbine blades

European/Ramsar sites identified on the basis of marine mammals are shown in Table 3.5 and Table 3.7 in Section 3.7.

Other mammals

Other mobile mammal species that are interest features of SACs and could be affected by ORESAP activity are the European otter (Lutra lutra) and bat species included in Annex I of the Habitats Directive.

European otter

Otter are most likely to be affected by disturbance at the coast and within estuaries. Sites with otter as a qualifying species were therefore included in screening if the sites fell within the distance of the major axis of one tidal excursion of a resource zone (see Section 3.6.2), on the basis that this distance would never be less than the distance over which disturbance (by noise or human activity) could affect this species.

Sites containing otters that also had a resource zone immediately outside the estuary were retained, as there was the potential for the otter to swim through the zones during foraging. Evidence suggests that otters in Northern Ireland and the north of the Republic of Ireland do have a tendency to swim further out than their English counterparts. The main area to which this applies is Lough Foyle. The seabed substratum in that area also supports mussel populations, further encouraging otters to forage there.

Bats

There are five bat species listed on Annex I of the Habitats Directive, of which four are present in the UK:

• lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros)

• greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum)

• barbastelle bat (Barbastella barbastellus); and

• Bechstein’s bat (Myotis bechsteini).

ASCOBANS (2009). Favourable conservation status of bottlenose dolphins. 16th ASCOBANS Advisory Committee Meeting, Brugge Belgium, Document AC16/Doc.34(O) 23 Sharples, R.J.et al. 2005. Distribution and movements of harbour seals around the UK. SCOS Briefing Paper 05/5.


Page 50


These four bat species are not found in Northern Ireland as it is too far north for them. They are found in the south west of ROI, however they will not fly as far north as Northern Ireland coastal waters. Similarly, these species do not occur in the north of England or Scotland, so there is no risk of these bat species entering the resource zones after crossing the Irish Sea. All UK SACs where these species of bat are an interest feature are in southern England or Wales. Therefore, at Step 4 of the pre-screening process, all such sites were excluded from the list to be taken forward for formal HRA screening.

Anadromous and catadromous migratory fish

The following anadromous fish species are interest features for some riverine or estuarine SACs and Ramsar sites in the UK and the Republic of Ireland

• twaite shad (Alosa fallax);

• allis shad (Alosa alosa);

• Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar);

• sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus);

• river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis); and

• smelt (or sparling) (Osmerus eperlanus).

The catadromous species European eel (Anguilla anguilla) is not listed on Annex I of the Habitats Directive, but it does form part of the qualifying Ramsar criteria. However, the European eel was not a qualifying interest feature at any NI and ROI Ramsar sites.

Anadromous and catadromous migratory fish are hereafter referred to together as diadromous fish in this report.

Most of these fish migrate to and from the open sea (in this case the Atlantic Ocean), although river lamprey and smelt tend to spend their adult lives mainly within estuarine areas.

The Annex II species freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) was also included in the species assessed, where it was present as a qualifying interest feature a freshwater river already under assessment for its Atlantic salmon interest feature. Whilst freshwater pearl mussel habitats cannot be affected directly by activities within the ORESAP, freshwater pearl mussels are dependent on salmonid populations for survival. Larval freshwater pearl mussels (glochidia) use their shells to clamp onto the gill filaments of juvenile salmon and sea trout, remaining attached for 6 – 8 months before detaching and growing to maturity in clean freshwater environments24. Consequently the viability of freshwater pearl mussel populations is directly related to the

24 Skinner, A.,Young, M. & Hastie, L. (2003) Ecology of the Freshwater Pearl Mussel. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 2 English Nature, Peterborough.


Page 51


viability of salmonid populations, and where ORESAP activities have the potential to affect the integrity of populations of Atlantic salmon within SACs which also contain freshwater pearl mussel, it has been assumed that there is also the potential for an adverse effect on the integrity of freshwater pearl mussel populations.

Criteria for inclusion of SACs and Ramsar sites in the screening process on the basis of diadromous fish were:

• all sites in Northern Ireland or on the east coast the Republic of Ireland with diadromous fish as interest features were included in the screening process;

• sites along the Irish Sea coast of England and Scotland with diadromous fish as interest features were included; and

• sites along the west or south coasts of the Republic of Ireland or in south Wales with diadromous fish as interest features were excluded, on the basis that fish migrating to the open sea have direct access to the Atlantic Ocean without passing through Northern Ireland coastal waters.

There are no rivers with diadromous fish as interest features on the eastern coast of Northern Ireland.

Sites identified on this basis are shown in Table 3.5 and Table 3.7 in Section 3.7.

3.6.4 Birds

All Natura 2000 data forms for SPAs in the UK were reviewed and all bird species listed under Article 4.1 or Article 4.2 (including internationally important assemblages) was considered during the pre-screening process. For SPAs in the Republic of Ireland, all species listed for those sites in the European database were considered. Modifications to existing interest features and any additional features that appear in the 2001 SPA review25 were also included. Bird species that are at no risk of impacts through the development included in the ORESAP were eliminated from the process. The species eliminated were those that are entirely resident within the UK and Republic of Ireland (i.e. do not migrate) and do not forage or rest at sea, including species associated with coastal areas, provided these areas are more than one tidal excursion from any of the cable routes (and thus outside the zone of potential direct disturbance or indirect effects on supporting habitat and prey species). For sites in England, Scotland, Wales, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, species have also been excluded that do not occur in Ireland or occur as very infrequent, transient visitors in low numbers (i.e. vagrants). In addition, species for ‘non-Ireland’ sites have been excluded if their migratory route from the site in question is very unlikely to involve crossing the ORESAP resource zones in Northern Ireland (for example, little tern at a site in eastern or southern England). Information on bird movements and migratory routes has been derived primarily from The Migration Atlas (Wernham et al., 2002)26.

25 Stroud, D.A., Chambers, D., Cook, S., Buxton, N., Fraser, B., Clement, P., Lewis, P., McLean, I., Baker, H. & Whitehead, S. (eds). 2001. The UK SPA network: its scope and content. JNCC, Peterborough. 26 Wernham. C., Toms, M., Marchant, J., Clark, J., Siriwardena, G & Baillie, S [Eds]. (2002). The Migration Atlas: movements of the birds of Britain and Ireland. T&AD Poyser, London.


Page 52


Non-Ireland sites (i.e. sites outside Northern Ireland and ROI) have also been included in the lists if there is the potential for species to undergo ‘cold weather movements’ into Ireland. Some species of wildfowl undergo ‘cold-weather movements’ frequently in a westerly direction to Ireland, where the winter climate is generally milder. This may involve species such as lapwing deserting sites in southern or eastern England and flying to Ireland during periods of very cold/frozen weather.

For Ramsar sites in the UK, Isle of Man and Channel Islands, those species that appear in the Ramsar selection Criteria 5 or 6 (i.e. the Ramsar site supports a waterbird assemblage or a population of international importance of a migratory species), including species’ populations identified subsequent to designation for possible future consideration under Criterion 6, have been used to identify Ramsar sites for inclusion in the screening process. The selection of Ramsar sites in the Republic of Ireland has been based on details contained within the Ramsar Information Sheet and Summary Description provided in the Wetlands International, Ramsar Sites Information Service27. Specific species are not listed for every Ramsar site in the Republic of Ireland; however, sites have been selected where important numbers of ‘waterbirds’ appear in the site description or summary.

Possible marine SPAs identified in Kober et al (2009)28 and extensions to existing SPAs have also been included where they are likely to support foraging seabirds regularly using flight paths between the SPA and likely breeding colonies which cross ORESAP resource zones.

The list of migratory and seabird species identified as being at risk from ORESAP activities is given in Table 3.4. The list of UK, Isle of Man, Channel Island and Republic of Ireland SPAs and Ramsar sites which have been identified as supporting populations of these birds (including all sites with internationally important assemblages of waterfowl and seabirds) is given in Table 3.6 and Table 3.7 in Section 3.7.

There are a very large number of more distant transnational sites that support breeding or migratory populations of species that could be affected by ORESAP activities.

Table 3.4 Migratory and seabird species potentially affected by ORESAP activities

Country Species Common name Designation

ROI only Acrocephalus schoenobaenus Sedge Warbler

ROI only Acrocephalus scirpaceus Reed Warbler

ROI only Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper

ROI only Alauda arvensis Skylark

27 Wetlands International. Database search tool. http://www.wetlands.org/rsis/ 28 Kober, K., Webb, A., Win, I., Lewis, M., O’Brien, S., Wilson, L.J. & Reid, J.B. (2009). An analysis of the numbers and distribution of seabirds within the British Fishery Limit aimed at identifying areas that qualify as possible marine SPAs. JNCC Report No. 431.

http://www.wetlands.org/rsis/


Page 53



UK Alca torda Razorbill SPA

UK Anas acuta Northern pintail SPA/Ramsar

UK Anas clypeata Northern shoveler SPA/Ramsar

UK Anas crecca Eurasian teal SPA/Ramsar

UK Anas penelope Eurasian wigeon SPA/Ramsar

UK Anas platyrhynchos Mallard SPA

UK Anas querquedula Garganey

UK Anas strepera Gadwall SPA/Ramsar

UK Anser albifrons flavirostris Greenland white-fronted goose SPA/Ramsar

UK Anser anser Greylag goose SPA/Ramsar

UK Anser brachyrhynchus Pink-footed goose SPA/Ramsar

ROI only Ardea cinerea Grey heron

UK Arenaria interpres Ruddy turnstone SPA/Ramsar

UK Asio flammeus Short-eared owl SPA

ROI only Asio otus Long-eared Owl

UK Aythya ferina Common pochard SPA/Ramsar

UK Aythya fuligula Tufted duck SPA/Ramsar

UK Aythya marila Greater scaup SPA/Ramsar

UK Branta bernicla hrota Light-bellied brent goose SPA/Ramsar

UK Branta leucopsis Barnacle goose SPA/Ramsar

UK Bucephala clangula Common goldeneye SPA/Ramsar

UK Calidris alba Sanderling SPA/Ramsar

UK Calidris alpina alpina Dunlin SPA/Ramsar

UK Calidris alpina schinzii Dunlin SPA/Ramsar

UK Calidris canutus Red knot SPA/Ramsar

ROI only Calidris ferruginea Curlew sandpiper

UK Calidris maritima Purple sandpiper SPA/Ramsar

ROI only Calidris minuta Little Stint

ROI only Calonectris diomedea Cory’s shearwater

UK Caprimulgus europaeus European nightjar

ROI only Carduelis cannabina Linnet

ROI only Carduelis flavirostris Twite

UK Catharacta skua Great skua SPA


Page 54



UK Cepphus grylle Black guillemot SPA

UK Charadrius hiaticula Ringed plover SPA/Ramsar

UK Circus aeruginosus Eurasian marsh harrier

UK Circus cyaneus Hen harrier SPA

UK Clangula hyemalis Long-tailed duck SPA/Ramsar

UK Coturnix coturnix Common quail

UK Crex crex Corn crake SPA

UK Cygnus columbianus bewickii Tundra swan SPA/Ramsar

UK Cygnus cygnus Whooper swan SPA/Ramsar

UK Cygnus olor Mute swan SPA/Ramsar

UK Egretta garzetta Little egret SPA

UK Falco columbarius Merlin SPA

UK Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon SPA/Ramsar

ROI only Ficedula hypoleuca Pied flycatcher

UK Fratercula arctica Atlantic puffin SPA

UK Fulica atra Common coot SPA

UK Fulmarus glacialis Northern fulmar SPA

UK Gallinago gallinago Common snipe SPA

UK Gavia arctica Black-throated diver

ROI only Gavia immer Great northern diver

UK Gavia stellata Red-throated diver SPA

UK Haematopus ostralegus Eurasian oystercatcher SPA/Ramsar

ROI only Hirundo rustica Swallow

UK Hydrobates pelagicus European storm-petrel SPA

UK Larus argentatus Herring gull SPA/Ramsar

UK Larus canus Mew gull SPA

UK Larus fuscus Lesser black-backed gull SPA/Ramsar

UK Larus marinus Great black-backed gull SPA

UK Larus melanocephalus Mediterranean gull SPA

ROI only Larus minutus Little Gull

UK Larus ridibundus Black-headed gull SPA

UK Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed godwit SPA/Ramsar

UK Limosa limosa islandica Black-tailed godwit SPA/Ramsar


Page 55



UK Limosa limosa limosa Black-tailed godwit SPA

ROI only Locustella naevia Grasshopper warbler

ROI only Lymnocryptes minimus Jack snipe

UK Melanitta fusca Velvet scoter SPA

UK Melanitta nigra Black (common) scoter SPA

UK Mergus merganser Goosander

UK Mergus serrator Red-breasted merganser SPA

UK Morus bassanus Northern gannet SPA/Ramsar

ROI only Motacilla cinerea Grey wagtail

UK Numenius arquata Eurasian curlew SPA/Ramsar

UK Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel SPA

UK Oceanodroma leucorhoa Leach’s storm-petrel SPA

ROI only Passer montanus Tree sparrow

UK Phalacrocorax aristotelis European shag SPA/Ramsar

UK Phalacrocorax carbo Great cormorant SPA/Ramsar

UK Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked phalarope

UK Philomachus pugnax Ruff SPA

ROI only Phoenicurus phoenicurus Redstart

UK Phylloscopus sibilatrix Wood warbler

UK Pluvialis apricaria European golden plover SPA/Ramsar

UK Pluvialis squatarola Grey plover SPA/Ramsar

UK Podiceps auritus Slavonian grebe SPA/Ramsar

UK Podiceps cristatus Great crested grebe SPA

ROI only Podiceps nigricollis Black-necked grebe

UK Puffinus puffinus Manx shearwater SPA/Ramsar

ROI only Rallus aquaticus Water rail

ROI only Riparia riparia Sand martin

UK Rissa tridactyla Black-legged kittiwake SPA

ROI only Saxicola rubetra Whinchat

ROI only Saxicola torquata Stonechat

UK Somateria mollissima Common eider SPA/Ramsar

UK Stercorarius parasiticus Arctic skua SPA

UK Sterna albifrons Little tern SPA/Ramsar


Page 56



UK Sterna dougallii Roseate tern SPA

UK Sterna hirundo Common tern SPA/Ramsar

UK Sterna paradisaea Arctic tern SPA

UK Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich tern SPA/Ramsar

ROI only Sylvia atricapilla Blackcap

ROI only Sylvia borin Garden warbler

ROI only Sylvia communis Whitethroat

UK Tachybaptus ruficollis Little grebe SPA

UK Tadorna tadorna Common shelduck SPA/Ramsar

ROI only Tringa erythropus Spotted redshank

UK Tringa glareola Wood sandpiper

UK Tringa nebularia Common greenshank SPA

ROI only Tringa ochropus Green sandpiper

UK Tringa totanus Common redshank SPA/Ramsar

ROI only Turdus torquatus Ring ouzel

UK Uria aalge Common guillemot SPA

UK Vanellus vanellus Northern lapwing SPA/Ramsar

3.7 Sites entering the screening process The tables below list the sites that were identified through the pre-screening process as having the potential to be significantly affected by the ORESAP. These sites were taken forward to the formal HRA screening stage, which is described in the next section of this report. Maps showing all these sites are given in Appendix B.

For clarity, sites have been separated by their designation, with SACs appearing in Table 3.5, SPAs in Table 3.6 and Ramsar sites in Table 3.7. Sites are listed alphabetically by site name and sites which are in the process of designation, classification or listing have been included within the appropriate tables. Each table lists the site name and code and the reasons for the inclusion of the site in the screening process.


Page 57


Table 3.5 SACs entering the screening process (including dSACs, pSACs, cSACs and SCIs)

Zone (Direct) indicates that the site is overlapped by a resource zone; Zone (Indirect) indicates that the site is within a distance equivalent to the major axis of one tidal excursion of a zone. Where a site has been taken forward for screening for one of these reasons, the relevant zone is indicated in the table. The final three columns indicate which sites have mobile interest features.

Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Mar

ine

Mam

mal

s

Ana

drom

ous

Fish

Otte

rs

UK0030084 Bann Estuary SAC Ti1Wi1

IE0002172 Blasket Island SAC

UK0012712 Cardigan Bay/ Bae Ceredigion SAC

IE0002306 Carlingford Shore SAC Wi2

IE0000147 Horn head and Rindevan SAC

IE0000204 Lambay Island SAC

IE0002165 Lower River Shannon SAC

UK0016613 Magilligan SAC Ti1/Wi1

UK0016612 Murlough SAC Wi2 Wi2

UK0030224 North Antrim Coast SAC Ti1/Wi1/Ti2

IE0002012 North Inishowen Coast SAC Ti1/Wi1

UK0030233 Owenkillew River SAC

UK0013117 Pen Llyn a`r Sarnau/ Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau

SAC

UK0030055 Rathlin Island SAC Ti2 Ti1/Wi1

UK0030365 Red Bay cSAC Ti2

UK0030249 River Bladnoch SAC Ti1/Ti2/Wi1/Wi2

UK0030032 River Derwent and Bassenthwaite Lake SAC Ti1/Ti2/Wi1/Wi2

UK0012643 River Eden SAC Ti1/Ti2/Wi1/Wi2

UK0030057 River Ehen SAC Ti1/Ti2/Wi1/Wi2

IE0002299 River Boyne and River Blackwater SAC

UK0030361 River Faughan and Tributaries cSAC

IE0002301 River Finn SAC

UK0030320 River Foyle and Tributaries SAC

UK0030360 River Roe and Tributaries SCI

IE0000101 Roaringwater Bay and Islands SAC


Page 58


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Mar

ine

Mam

mal

s

Ana

drom

ous

Fish

Otte

rs

Not yet assigned

Skerries and Causeway dSAC Wi2 Ti1/Ti2

UK0030067 South-East Islay Skerries SAC

UK0016618 Strangford Lough SAC Wi2

Not yet assigned

The Maidens dSAC


Page 59


Table 3.6 SPAs entering the screening process (including pSPAs and SPA extensions)

Zone (Direct) indicates that the site is overlapped by a resource zone; Zone (Indirect) indicates that the site is within a distance equivalent to the major axis of one tidal excursion of a zone. Where a site has been taken forward for screening for one of these reasons, the relevant zone is indicated in the table. The final two columns indicate which sites have mobile interest features (in the case of SPAs this applies only to birds) and which sites contain habitat supporting birds that may be affected directly or indirectly according to the criteria above.

Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Hab

itats

UK9009141 Abberton Reservoir SPA Yes

UK9003091 Ailsa Craig SPA No

UK9001751 Aird and Borve, Benbecula SPA No

IE0004079 Akeragh, Banna and Barrow Harbour SPA No

UK9009112 Alde-Ore Estuary SPA Yes

IE0004103 All Saints Bog SPA No

UK9020301 Antrim Hills SPA No

UK9003341 Arran Moors SPA No

UK9020281 Arun Valley SPA Yes

UK9001591 Assynt Lochs SPA No

UK9002381 Auskerry SPA No

UK9011091 Avon Valley SPA Yes

UK9014091 Bae Caerfyrddin / Carmarthen Bay SPA No

IE0004016 Baldoyle Bay SPA Yes

IE0004041 Ballyallia Lake Wildfowl Sanctuary SPA Yes

IE0004101 Ballykenny-Fisherstown Bog SPA No

IE0004023 Ballymacoda Bay SPA Yes

IE0004129 Ballysadare Bay SPA No

IE0004020 Ballyteigue Burrow SPA No

IE0004022 Balycotton Bay SPA No

IE0004033 Bannow Bay SPA Yes

UK9020101 Belfast Lough SPA Yes

UK9020290 Belfast Lough Open Water SPA No

UK9009291 Benacre to Easton Bavents SPA No


Page 60


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Hab

itats

UK9009171 Benfleet and Southend Marshes SPA Yes

UK9013111 Berwyn SPA No

UK9003221 Black Cart SPA No

IE0004037 Blacksod Bay/Broadhaven SPA Yes

IE0004094 Blackwater Callows SPA Yes

IE0004028 Blackwater Estuary SPA Yes

UK9009245 Blackwater Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 4)

SPA Yes

IE0004008 Blasket Islands SPA No

UK9005151 Bowland Fells SPA No

IE0004080 Boyne Estuary SPA No

UK9009181 Breydon Water SPA Yes

UK9003052 Bridgend Flats, Islay SPA Yes

IE0004128 Broad Lough SPA No

UK9009253 Broadland SPA Yes

IE0004025 Broadmeadow/Swords Estuary SPA Yes

UK9002491 Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA No

UK9015011 Burry Inlet SPA Yes

UK9002241 Cairngorms SPA No

UK9001151 Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands SPA Yes

UK9001171 Caithness Lochs SPA Yes

UK9002431 Calf of Eday SPA No

UK9004131 Cameron Reservoir SPA Yes

UK9001431 Canna and Sanday SPA No

UK9001231 Cape Wrath SPA No

IE0004078 Carlingford Lough SPA No Wi2

UK9020161 Carlingford Lough SPA Yes Wi2

IE0004052 Carrowmore Lake SPA No

IE0001021 Carrowmore Point tonish Point and Islands SPA No

UK9003191 Castle Loch, Lochmaben SPA Yes


Page 61


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Hab

itats

IE0004029 Castlemaine Harbour SPA Yes

UK9010091 Chesil Beach and The Fleet SPA Yes

UK9010041 Chew Valley Lake SPA No

UK9011011 Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA Yes

IE0004005 Cliffs of Moher SPA No

UK9003031 Coll SPA Yes

UK9003033 Coll (corncrake) SPA No

UK9009243 Colne Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 2) SPA Yes

IE0004107 Coole-Garryland SPA No

UK9020291 Copeland Islands SPA No Wi2

UK9002151 Copinsay SPA No

UK9006031 Coquet Island SPA No

IE0004030 Cork Harbour SPA Yes

UK9001623 Cromarty Firth SPA Yes

IE0004055 Cross Lough (Mullet) SPA No

UK9009244 Crouch and Roach Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 3)

SPA Yes

IE0004035 Cummeen Strand SPA Yes

UK9009261 Deben Estuary SPA Yes

UK9009242 Dengie (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 1) SPA Yes

UK9004291 Din Moss – Hoselaw Loch SPA Yes

UK9001622 Dornoch Firth and Loch Fleet SPA Yes

UK9010101 Dorset Heathlands SPA No

IE0004013 Drumcliff Bay SPA No

UK9002301 Drumochter Hills SPA No

UK9005031 Duddon Estuary SPA Yes

IE0004026 Dundalk Bay SPA Yes

IE0004059 Dunfanaghy/Rinclevan SPA No

IE0004032 Dungarvan Bay SPA Yes

UK9012091 Dungeness to Pett Level SPA Yes


Page 62


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Hab

itats

IE0004111 Duvillaun Islands SPA No

UK9020284 Dyfi Estuary / Aber Dyfi SPA No

UK9001182 East Caithness Cliffs SPA No

UK9002331 East Sanday Coast SPA Yes

UK9003054 Eilean na Muice Duibhe (Duich Moss), Islay

SPA Yes

UK9014111 Elenydd – Mallaen SPA No

UK9001761 Eoligarry, Barra SPA No

UK9010081 Exe Estuary SPA Yes

UK9002091 Fair Isle SPA No

UK9004241 Fala Flow SPA Yes

UK9006021 Farne Islands SPA No

UK9002031 Fetlar SPA No

UK9004411 Firth of Forth SPA Yes

UK9004121 Firth of Tay & Eden Estuary SPA Yes

UK9006101 Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA No

UK9001021 Flannan Isles SPA No

UK9004381 Forest of Clunie SPA No

UK9004171 Forth Islands SPA No

UK9002061 Foula SPA No

UK9009246 Foulness (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 5) SPA Yes

UK9002271 Fowlsheugh SPA No

IE0004102 Garriskil Bog SPA No

UK9008022 Gibraltar Point SPA Yes

UK9004231 Gladhouse Reservoir SPA Yes

UK9013121 Glannau Aberdaron and Ynys Enlli / Aberdaron Coast and Bardsey Island

SPA No

UK9003211 Glas Eileanan SPA No

UK9003351 Glen App and Galloway Moors SPA No

IE0004045 Glen Lough SPA No


Page 63


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Hab

itats

UK9002771 Glen Tanar SPA No

IE0004039 Glenveagh National Park SPA No

UK9014041 Grassholm SPA No

UK9004281 Greenlaw Moor SPA Yes

IE0004082 Greers Isle SPA No

UK9003051 Gruinart Flats, Islay SPA Yes

UK9009131 Hamford Water SPA Yes

UK9001241 Handa SPA No

IE0004112 Helvick Head Coast SPA No

UK9002011 Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA No

IE0004067 High Island (Galway) SPA No

UK9006041 Holburn Lake and Moss SPA Yes

IE0004012 Horn Head SPA No

UK9006171 Hornsea Mere SPA No

IE0004113 Howth Head Coast SPA No

UK9002141 Hoy SPA No

UK9006111 Humber Estuary SPA Yes

IE0004074 Illanmaster SPA No

IE0004114 Illaunonearaun SPA No

IE0004130 Inch Lough and Levels SPA No

IE0004010 Inish and Sgarbheen SPA No

IE0004083 Inishbofin, Inishdooey and Inishbeg SPA No

IE0004115 Inishduff SPA No

IE0004084 Inishglora and Inishkeeragh SPA No

IE0004004 Inishkea Islands SPA No

IE0004116 Inishkeel SPA No

IE0004068 Inishmurray SPA No

IE0004100 Inishtrahull SPA No

UK9003061 Inner Clyde Estuary SPA Yes


Page 64


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Hab

itats

IE0004031 Inner Galway Bay SPA Yes

UK9001624 Inner Moray Firth SPA Yes

UK9001511 Inverpolly, Loch Urigill and Nearby Lochs SPA No

IE0004117 Ireland's Eye SPA No

UK9020288 Isles of Scilly SPA Yes

IE0004118 Keeragh Islands SPA No

IE0004095 Kilcolman Bog SPA No

IE0004085 Kilcoole Marshes SPA No

IE0004036 Killala Bay / Moy Estuary SPA Yes

IE0004038 Killarney National Park SPA No

UK9020221 Killough Bay SPA Yes Wi2

UK9001083 Kilpheder to Smerclate, South Uist SPA No

UK9003301 Knapdale Lochs SPA No

UK9002951 Ladder Hills pSPA No

IE0004009 Lady's Island Lake SPA No

UK9003053 Laggan, Islay SPA No

UK9001611 Lairg and Strathbrora Lochs SPA No

IE0004069 Lambay Island SPA No

UK9003271 Langholm – Newcastleton Hills SPA No

UK9012111 Lee Valley SPA Yes

UK9001571 Lewis Peatlands SPA Yes

UK9006011 Lindisfarne SPA Yes

UK9020294 Liverpool Bay / Bae Lerpwl pSPA No

UK9001621 Loch Eye SPA Yes

UK9003111 Loch Ken and River Dee Marshes SPA Yes

UK9004111 Loch Leven SPA Yes

UK9003021 Loch Lomond SPA Yes

UK9001531 Loch Maree SPA No

UK9003121 Loch of Inch and Torrs Warren SPA Yes


Page 65


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Hab

itats

UK9004051 Loch of Kinnordy SPA Yes

UK9004061 Loch of Lintrathen SPA Yes

UK9002261 Loch of Skene SPA Yes

UK9002211 Loch of Strathbeg SPA Yes

UK9001721 Loch Shiel SPA No

UK9002201 Loch Spynie SPA Yes

UK9002751 Loch Vaa SPA No

UK9002651 Lochs of Spiggie and Brow SPA No

IE0004119 Loop Head SPA No

IE0004050 Lough Arrow SPA No

IE0004106 Lough Barra Bog SPA Yes

IE0004051 Lough Carra SPA No

IE0004053 Lough Conn SPA No

IE0004042 Lough Corrib SPA Yes

IE0004054 Lough Cullin (Mayo) SPA No

IE0004056 Lough Cutra SPA No

IE0004057 Lough Derg (Donegal) SPA No

IE0004058 Lough Derg (Shannon) SPA No

IE0004043 Lough Derravaragh SPA Yes

IE0004044 Lough Ennell SPA Yes

IE0004060 Lough Fern SPA No

IE0004087 Lough Foyle SPA No Ti1/Wi1

UK9020031 Lough Foyle SPA Yes Ti1/Wi1

IE0004048 Lough Gara SPA Yes

IE0004011 Lough Gill SPA No

IE0004046 Lough Iron SPA Yes

IE0004061 Lough Kinale and Derragh Lough SPA No

IE0004062 Lough Mask SPA No

UK9020091 Lough Neagh and Lough Beg SPA Yes


Page 66


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Hab

itats

IE0004110 Lough Nillan Bog (Carrickatlieve) SPA No

IE0004049 Lough Oughter SPA Yes

IE0004047 Lough Owel SPA Yes

IE0004064 Lough Ree SPA No

IE0004088 Lough Scannive SPA No

IE0004065 Lough Sheelin SPA No

IE0004075 Lough Swilly SPA No

UK9006092 Lower Derwent Valley SPA Yes

IE0004125 Magharee Islands SPA No

UK9005111 Martin Mere SPA Yes

UK9002121 Marwick Head SPA No

IE0004071 Mattle Island SPA No

UK9012031 Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA Yes

UK9005131 Mersey Estuary SPA Yes

UK9020287 Mersey Narrows & North Wirral Foreshore pSPA Yes

IE0004096 Middle Shannon Callows SPA No

UK9013131 Migneint – Arenig – Dduallt SPA No

UK9001121 Mingulay and Berneray SPA No

UK9009101 Minsmere-Walberswick SPA Yes

UK9001501 Mointeach Scadabhaigh SPA No

UK9001071 Monach Isles SPA No

IE0004017 Mongan Bog SPA Yes

UK9004031 Montrose Basin SPA Yes

UK9001625 Moray and Nairn Coast SPA Yes

UK9005081 Morecambe Bay SPA Yes

UK9002361 Mousa SPA No

UK9002791 Muir of Dinnet SPA Yes

UK9003261 Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands SPA No

IE0004070 Mutton Island (Clare) SPA No


Page 67


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Hab

itats

UK9008031 Nene Washes SPA Yes

UK9001741 Ness & Barvas, Lewis SPA No

UK9011031 New Forest SPA No

IE0004006 North Bull Island SPA Yes

UK9001181 North Caithness Cliffs SPA No

UK9003171 North Colonsay and Wester Cliffs SPA No

UK9009031 North Norfolk Coast SPA Yes

UK9006272 North Pennine Moors SPA No

UK9001011 North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA No

UK9001211 North Sutherland Coastal Islands SPA No

UK9001051 North Uist Machair and Islands SPA Yes

UK9006161 North York Moors SPA No

UK9006131 Northumbria Coast SPA Yes

UK9002081 Noss SPA No

IE0004021 Old Head of Kinsale SPA No

UK9002311 Orkney Mainland Moors SPA No

UK9020299 Oronsay and South Colonsay SPA No

UK9002941 Otterswick and Graveland SPA No

UK9008041 Ouse Washes SPA Yes

UK9020271 Outer Ards SPA Yes Wi2 Wi2

UK9020309 Outer Thames Estuary SPA No

IE0004098 Owenduff/Nephin Complex SPA Yes

UK9012041 Pagham Harbour SPA Yes

UK9002051 Papa Stour SPA No

UK9002111 Papa Westray (North Hill and Holm) SPA No

UK9007021 Peak District Moors (South Pennine Moors Phase 1)

SPA No

UK9001131 Pentland Firth Islands SPA No

IE0004099 Pettigo Plateau Nature Reserve SPA No

UK9020051 Pettigoe Plateau SPA Yes


Page 68


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Hab

itats

UK9010111 Poole Harbour SPA Yes

UK9011051 Portsmouth Harbour SPA Yes

IE0004063 Poulaphouca Reservoir SPA No

UK9001261 Priest Island (Summer Isles) SPA No

IE0004003 Puffin Island SPA No

IE0004089 Rahasane Turlough SPA No

UK9002021 Ramna Stacks and Gruney SPA No

UK9004021 Rannoch Lochs SPA No

UK9020011 Rathlin Island SPA No Ti2 Ti1/Wi1

IE0004120 Rathlin O'Birne Island SPA No

UK9020295 Renfrewshire Heights SPA No

UK9005103 Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA Yes

UK9003057 Rinns of Islay SPA Yes

IE0004086 River Little Brosna Callows SPA No

IE0004077 River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries SPA No

UK9002231 River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA Yes

IE0004097 River Suck Callows SPA No

IE0004121 Roaninish SPA No

IE0004014 Rockabill SPA No

IE0004015 Rogerstown Estuary SPA Yes

UK9002041 Ronas Hill – North Roe and Tingon SPA No

UK9002371 Rousay SPA No

UK9001341 Rum SPA No

UK9008051 Rutland Water SPA Yes

UK9011102 Salisbury Plain SPA No

IE0004002 Saltee Islands SPA No

IE0004024 Sandymount Strand/Tolka Estuary SPA Yes

UK9015022 Severn Estuary / Môr Hafren SPA Yes

UK9020021 Sheep Island SPA No


Page 69


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Hab

itats

IE0004090 Sheskinmore Lough SPA No

UK9001041 Shiant Isles SPA No

IE0004007 Skelligs SPA No

IE0004122 Skerries Islands SPA No

UK9014051 Skokholm and Skomer SPA No

UK9003032 Sléibhtean agus Cladach Thiriodh (Tiree Wetlands and Coast)

SPA Yes

UK9020302 Slieve Beagh – Mullaghfad – Lisnaskea SPA No

IE0004123 Slyne Head Islands SPA No

UK9011061 Solent and Southampton Water SPA Yes

UK9010031 Somerset Levels and Moors SPA Yes

UK9007022 South Pennine Moors Phase 2 SPA No

UK9004401 South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA Yes

UK9001082 South Uist Machair and Lochs SPA Yes

UK9012171 South West London Waterbodies SPA Yes

IE0004124 Sovereign Islands SPA No

UK9004271 St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA No

UK9001031 St Kilda SPA No

IE0004091 Stabannan-Braganstown SPA No

IE0004072 Stags of Broad Haven SPA No

UK9012121 Stodmarsh SPA Yes

UK9009121 Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA Yes

UK9020111 Strangford Lough SPA Yes Wi2

UK9020300 Strath Carnaig and Strath Fleet Moors SPA No

UK9002181 Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA No

UK9002511 Sumburgh Head SPA No

UK9002891 Switha SPA No

IE0004092 Tacumshin Lake SPA No

UK9006061 Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA Yes

IE0004093 Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair SPA No


Page 70


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Hab

itats

UK9012021 Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA Yes

UK9012071 Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA Yes

IE0004066 The Bull and The Cow Rocks SPA No

UK9013011 The Dee Estuary / Aber Afon Dyfrdwy SPA Yes

IE0004109 The Gearagh SPA Yes

IE0004019 The Raven SPA Yes

UK9012011 The Swale SPA Yes

UK9008021 The Wash SPA Yes

UK9002811 Tips of Corsemaul and Tom Mór SPA No

UK9003034 Tiree (corncrake) SPA No

IE0004126 Tormore Island SPA No

IE0004073 Tory Island SPA No

UK9013031 Traeth Lafan / Lavan Sands, Conway Bay SPA No

IE0004018 Tralee Bay SPA Yes

IE0004027 Tramore Back Strand SPA Yes

IE0004034 Trawbreaga Bay SPA Yes

UK9003041 Treshnish Isles SPA No

UK9002471 Troup, Pennan and Lion`s Heads SPA No

UK9020071 Upper Lough Erne SPA Yes

UK9020296 Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits pSPA Yes

UK9005012 Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SPA Yes

UK9007051 Walmore Common SPA Yes

UK9020298 West Inverness-shire Lochs SPA No

UK9002101 West Westray SPA No

UK9001711 Wester Ross Lochs SPA No

UK9004251 Westwater SPA Yes

IE0004076 Wexford Harbour SPA No

IE0004001 Wexford Nature Reserve SPA Yes

IE0004127 Wicklow Head SPA No


Page 71


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Hab

itats

IE0004040 Wicklow Mountains SPA No

UK9013061 Ynys Feurig, Cemlyn Bay and The Skerries

SPA No

UK9020285 Ynys Seiriol / Puffin Island SPA No

UK9002221 Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch

SPA Yes


Page 72


Table 3.7 Ramsar sites entering the screening process

Zone (Direct) indicates that the site is overlapped by a resource zone; Zone (Indirect) indicates that the site is within a distance equivalent to the major axis of one tidal excursion of a zone. Where a site has been taken forward for screening for one of these reasons, the relevant zone is indicated in the table. The final three columns indicate which sites have mobile interest features (birds or fish) and which sites contain habitat supporting birds or comprising site interest features that may be affected directly or indirectly according to the criteria above.

Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o SP

A?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Dia

drom

ous

fish

Hab

itats

UK11001 Abberton Reservoir Ramsar Yes

UK11002 Alde-Ore Estuary Ramsar Yes

UK22002 Alderney West Coast and the Burhou Islands

Ramsar No

UK11004 Arun Valley Ramsar Yes

UK11005 Avon Valley Ramsar Yes

3IE011 Baldoyle Bay Ramsar Yes

3IE037 Ballyallia Lough Ramsar Yes

3IE022 Ballycotton Bay Ramsar No

3IE023 Ballymacoda Ramsar Yes

3IE032 Bannow Bay Ramsar Yes

UK12002 Belfast Lough Ramsar Yes

UK11006 Benfleet and Southend Marshes Ramsar Yes

3IE036 Blacksod Bay and Broadhaven Ramsar Yes

3IE028 Blackwater Estuary Ramsar Yes


Ramsar Yes

UK11008 Breydon Water Ramsar Yes

UK13001 Bridgend Flats, Islay Ramsar Yes

UK11010 Broadland Ramsar Yes

UK14001 Burry Inlet Ramsar Yes

UK13003 Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands

Ramsar Yes

UK13004 Caithness Lochs Ramsar Yes

UK13005 Cameron Reservoir Ramsar Yes


Page 73


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o SP

A?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Dia

drom

ous

fish

Hab

itats

UK12004 Carlingford Lough Ramsar Yes Wi2

UK13006 Castle Loch, Lochmaben Ramsar Yes

3IE016 Castlemaine Harbour Ramsar Yes

UK11012 Chesil Beach and The Fleet Ramsar Yes

UK11013 Chichester and Langstone Harbours

Ramsar Yes

UK13008 Coll Ramsar Yes

UK11015 Colne Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 2)

Ramsar Yes

3IE029 Cork Harbour Ramsar Yes

UK14003 Cors Caron Ramsar No

UK13009 Cromarty Firth Ramsar Yes

UK11058 Crouch and Roach Estuaries (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 3)

Ramsar Yes

3IE034 Cummeen Strand Ramsar Yes

UK11018 Dengie (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 1)

Ramsar Yes

UK12006 Derryleckagh proposed Ramsar

No

UK13010 Din Moss – Hoselaw Loch Ramsar Yes

UK13011 Dornoch Firth and Loch Fleet Ramsar Yes

UK11022 Duddon Estuary Ramsar Yes

3IE026 Dundalk Bay Ramsar Yes

UK12007 Dundrum Bay proposed Ramsar

No

3IE031 Dungarvan Harbour Ramsar Yes

UK11023 Dungeness to Pett Level proposed Ramsar

Yes

3IE017 Easky Bog Ramsar No

UK13013 East Sanday Coast Ramsar Yes


Ramsar Yes

UK11025 Exe Estuary Ramsar Yes


Page 74


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o SP

A?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Dia

drom

ous

fish

Hab

itats

UK13015 Fala Flow Ramsar Yes

UK13017 Firth of Forth Ramsar Yes

UK13018 Firth of Tay & Eden Estuary Ramsar Yes

UK11026 Foulness (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 5)

Ramsar Yes

3IE018 Gearagh, The Ramsar Yes

UK11027 Gibraltar Point Ramsar Yes

UK13021 Gladhouse Reservoir Ramsar Yes

UK13022 Greenlaw Moor Ramsar Yes

UK13023 Gruinart Flats, Islay Ramsar Yes

UK11028 Hamford Water Ramsar Yes

UK11030 Holburn Lake and Moss Ramsar Yes

UK11031 Humber Estuary Ramsar Yes

UK13024 Inner Clyde Estuary Ramsar Yes

3IE030 Inner Galway Bay Ramsar Yes

UK13025 Inner Moray Firth Ramsar Yes

UK11033 Isles of Scilly Ramsar Yes

3IE035 Killala Bay/Moy Estuary Ramsar Yes

UK12012 Killough Bay Ramsar Yes Wi2

UK13027 Kintyre Goose Roosts Ramsar Yes

UK11034 Lee Valley Ramsar Yes

UK13028 Lewis Peatlands Ramsar Yes

UK11036 Lindisfarne Ramsar Yes

UK13029 Loch an Duin Ramsar No

UK13031 Loch Eye Ramsar Yes

UK13032 Loch Ken and River Dee Marshes Ramsar Yes

UK13033 Loch Leven Ramsar Yes

UK13034 Loch Lomond Ramsar Yes

UK13037 Loch of Inch and Torrs Warren Ramsar Yes

UK13038 Loch of Kinnordy Ramsar Yes


Page 75


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o SP

A?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Dia

drom

ous

fish

Hab

itats

UK13039 Loch of Lintrathen Ramsar Yes

UK13040 Loch of Skene Ramsar Yes

UK13041 Loch of Strathbeg Ramsar Yes

UK13043 Loch Spynie Ramsar Yes

3IE008 Lough Barra Bog Ramsar Yes

3IE038 Lough Corrib Ramsar Yes

3IE039 Lough Derravaragh Ramsar Yes

3IE040 Lough Ennell Ramsar Yes

UK12014 Lough Foyle Ramsar Yes Ti1/Wi1

3IE044 Lough Gara Ramsar Yes

3IE041 Lough Glen Ramsar No

3IE042 Lough Iron Ramsar Yes

UK12016 Lough Neagh and Lough Beg Ramsar Yes

3IE045 Lough Oughter Ramsar Yes

3IE043 Lough Owel Ramsar Yes

UK11037 Lower Derwent Valley Ramsar Yes

UK11039 Martin Mere Ramsar Yes

UK11040 Medway Estuary and Marshes Ramsar Yes

3IE021 Meenachullion Bog Ramsar No

UK11041 Mersey Estuary Ramsar Yes

UK11042 Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore

proposed Ramsar

Yes

UK11044 Minsmere-Walberswick Ramsar Yes

3IE013 Mongan Bog Ramsar Yes

UK13046 Montrose Basin Ramsar Yes

UK13048 Moray and Nairn Coast Ramsar Yes

UK11045 Morecambe Bay Ramsar Yes

UK13049 Muir of Dinnet Ramsar Yes

UK11046 Nene Washes Ramsar Yes

3IE009 North Bull Island Ramsar Yes


Page 76


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o SP

A?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Dia

drom

ous

fish

Hab

itats

UK11048 North Norfolk Coast Ramsar Yes

UK13050 North Uist Machair and Islands Ramsar Yes

UK11049 Northumbria Coast Ramsar Yes

UK11051 Ouse Washes Ramsar Yes

UK12018 Outer Ards Ramsar Yes Wi2 Wi2

3IE006 Owenboy Ramsar No

3IE005 Owenduff catchment Ramsar Yes

UK11052 Pagham Harbour Ramsar Yes

3IE003 Pettigo Plateau Ramsar Yes

UK11054 Poole Harbour Ramsar Yes

UK11055 Portsmouth Harbour Ramsar Yes

3IE002 Raven, The Ramsar Yes

UK11057 Ribble and Alt Estuaries Ramsar Yes

UK13052 Rinns of Islay Ramsar Yes

UK13053 River Spey - Insh Marshes Ramsar Yes

3IE010 Rogerstown Estuary Ramsar Yes

UK11062 Rutland Water Ramsar Yes

3IE024 Sandymount Strand/Tolka Estuary Ramsar Yes

UK11081 Severn Estuary Ramsar Yes


Ramsar Yes

UK11063 Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar Yes

UK11064 Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar Yes

UK13057 South Tayside Goose Roosts Ramsar Yes

UK13058 South Uist Machair and Lochs Ramsar Yes

UK11065 South West London Waterbodies Ramsar Yes

UK11066 Stodmarsh Ramsar Yes

UK11067 Stour and Orwell Estuaries Ramsar Yes

UK12021 Strangford Lough Ramsar Yes Wi2


Page 77


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o SP

A?

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Dia

drom

ous

fish

Hab

itats

UK12022 Teal Lough proposed Ramsar

No

UK11068 Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Ramsar Yes

UK11069 Thames Estuary and Marshes Ramsar Yes

UK11070 Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Ramsar Yes

3IE025 The Broadmeadow Estuary Ramsar Yes

UK11082 The Dee Estuary / Aber Afon Dyfrdwy

Ramsar Yes

UK11071 The Swale Ramsar Yes

UK11072 The Wash Ramsar Yes

3IE015 Tralee Bay Ramsar Yes

3IE027 Tramore Backstrand Ramsar Yes

3IE033 Trawbreaga Bay Ramsar Yes

UK12024 Upper Lough Erne Ramsar Yes

UK11083 Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits proposed Ramsar

Yes

UK11079 Upper Solway Flats and Marshes Ramsar Yes

UK11076 Walmore Common Ramsar Yes

UK13060 Westwater Ramsar Yes

3IE001 Wexford Wildfowl Reserve Ramsar Yes

UK13061 Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar Yes


Page 78



Page 79


4. Screening process

4.1 Purpose of screening The screening stage of the HRA of the ORESAP was undertaken to identify which (if any) aspects of the plan are likely to have significant effects on European/Ramsar sites and therefore require AA before DETI (as competent authority) can finalise and implement the plan. In accordance with case law, the test of likely significance is applied using a precautionary approach whereby, unless it can be shown that there will be no LSE, a LSE is assumed.

The assessment of LSEs is based on an assessment of ‘likelihood’ (whether the mechanism and opportunity exists for an effect to occur) and ‘significance’ (of the effect on the conservation objectives for a site’s features). This assessment takes into account the best scientific knowledge available in the field and the precautionary principle is applied. The plan must be assessed both in terms of its own effects and the effects in combination with other plans or projects. Application of the precautionary principle means that AA will be required if it cannot be demonstrated (on the basis of objective information) that the Plan will not have a likely significant effect (LSE) on a European site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects.

The remainder of this section sets out the overall approach to screening and the methodologies that have been applied in screening the effects of the plan on different categories of receptors.

4.2 Approach to screening The starting point for HRA screening of the ORESAP is that the pre-screening process has identified European/Ramsar sites to be considered and has identified activities that may have effects and biological receptors of such effects. This section describes the methods used for undertaking the screening of LSE, where these are refinements of the approach used at the pre-screening stage.

The approach employed in the screening process has been, in the first instance, to undertake determination of LSE separately for:

• each European or Ramsar site included in the screening process;

• different aspects of the plan (e.g. device construction, operation and decommissioning); and

• different categories of interest feature.


Page 80


SACs, SPAs and Ramsar sites have been considered separately in HRA screening, as they are designated, classified or listed on the basis of different types or combinations of interest features, thus the mechanisms through which a LSE may occur differ between categories of protected site, as follows:

• SAC – effects on habitats and species, including mobile and migratory species;

• SPA - effects on the interest features, which are solely birds, and on habitats insofar as they are important for supporting the bird interest features;

• Ramsar sites – effects on interest features, which include birds, species (including mobile species) and communities.

For each type of site, a standard format has been used to tabulate interest features, conservation objectives, sensitivities and LSE (see Appendices B, C and D).

Finally, the results have then been combined to provide an overall conclusion as to the LSE of the Plan in relation to each protected site.

The following subsections explain the methods employed for screening for LSE for each category of species or habitat, which may be interest features or may support interest features of the different categories of protected site. In some cases, the screening process has led to generic conclusions applicable across a large number of sites and across different categories of site.

For each site, the screening process for the ORESAP has been undertaken on the basis of the direct or indirect effects on habitat or effects on the interest features identified in Section 3.7:

• SACs, SPAs and Ramsar sites where habitat interest features (or habitats supporting bird interest features) could potentially be affected physically by the ORESAP;

• SACs containing otter (Lutra lutra) as an interest feature which could be affected by the ORESAP;

• SACs and Ramsar sites containing diadromous fish interest features (Salmo salar, Alosa alosa, Alosa fallax, Lampetra fluviatilis, Petromyzon marinus and Anguilla anguilla) which could be affected by the ORESAP;

• SACs and Ramsar sites with marine mammal interest features (Phoca vitulina, Halichoerus grypus, Phocoena phocoena and Tursiops truncatus) which could be affected by the ORESAP; and

• SPAs and Ramsar sites with migratory bird interest features which could be affected by the ORESAP.


Page 81


4.3 Methodology

4.3.1 Effects on habitats and non-mobile species

In examining the LSE on habitat or non-mobile species interest features or on habitats and prey species supporting mobile interest features, such as birds, the following approaches were adopted.

• For sites subject to direct effects from resource zone overlap, if it cannot be concluded that there is no LSE on habitat interest features overlapped by the resource zone or on non-mobile species interest features living in these habitats, these habitats and species have been taken forward for further assessment.

• Similarly, for habitats (and associated prey species) within SPAs and Ramsar sites supporting mobile species (e.g. birds) and subject to direct effects from resource zone overlap, if it cannot be concluded that there is no contribution to a LSE on birds through effects on supporting habitat overlapped by the zone, these sites have been taken forward for further assessment.

• For seal haul-out sites within the distance of a tidal ellipse situated anywhere along a zone boundary, if it cannot be concluded that there is no LSE on the physical nature of the site, these sites have been taken forward for further assessment.

• For sites subject to indirect effects, a more detailed examination has been made of tidal ellipses, using data from Admiralty charts, to refine the extremely precautionary approach used at the pre-screening stage. It has been assessed that there will be no LSE due to sediment transport (including any toxic effects or smothering) or due to noise disturbance of invertebrates, at any site more than one tidal ellipse distant from a zone boundary. For sites within the distance of a tidal ellipse situated anywhere along a zone boundary, if it cannot be concluded that there is no LSE on habitat interest features or on non-mobile species interest features living in these habitats then these habitats and species have been taken forward for further assessment.

• Similarly, for sites subject to indirect effects, it has been assessed that there will be no LSE arising from operation of wind farms due to changes in hydrodynamics causing erosion of habitat interest features at any site more than one tidal ellipse distant from a zone boundary. For zone boundaries within the distance of a tidal ellipse from a protected site, it cannot be concluded that there is no LSE from operation on habitat interest features (as a wind far may be located close to the zone boundary) and these habitats have been taken forward for further assessment.

• For tidal energy resource zones, the effect of energy removal from the system on the seabed and shoreline features has been considered. As a general rule the sites considered are those that fall within the one tidal ellipse from the tidal resource zone. However, a more precautionary approach has been undertaken compared to that for indirect effects relating to sediment erosion, transport or deposition. The distance of impact from these resource zones is dependent upon the type of tidal device and the amount of energy extracted from the system.


Page 82


Figure 4.1 Tidal ellipses at Admiralty monitoring points and commercial resource zones


Page 83


4.3.2 Effects on mobile or migratory mammals

European/Ramsar sites included in the assessment of LSE were defined at the pre-screening stage (see Section 3.6.3). In assessing LSE on marine mammals from these sites, two factors were taken into account for each species:

• the likelihood of presence of a significant number (in terms of populations associated with sites for which they are interest features) of each species in the vicinity of resource zones;

• the likelihood of effects on individuals of that species if they are present in the vicinity of resource zones (the main potential for effect on marine mammals is from underwater noise or entrainment in tidal energy turbines), taking account of the mitigation measures that have been written into the Plan.

These are linked:

• thus if no LSE is shown on individuals even if they are present in the vicinity of resource zones then there will be no LSE on the interest features at any relevant protected sites (unless erosion of seal haul out sites is predicted) (see Section 4.3.1);

• if LSE cannot be ruled out on individuals present, then LSE determination depends on the significance of the numbers present in development areas from the population contributing to the interest at relevant protected sites and more detailed consideration is then required of which sites may experience a LSE.

4.3.3 Effects on migratory fish

Diadromous fish have been identified as being sensitive to increased turbidity and noise as they pass through areas affected by offshore wind or tidal power development, which may take place within the framework of the ORESAP. Effects on Atlantic salmon are likely to have secondary effects on any associated populations of freshwater pearl mussel; this is the only mechanism for the ORESAP to have an effect on freshwater pearl mussel. Therefore, where the two species are both present as qualifying features within a European site where LSEs have been identified in relation to salmon, the same conclusion is also drawn for freshwater pearl mussel.

Effects of turbidity on European/Ramsar sites with diadromous fish as interest features have been assessed in the same way as described in Section 4.3.1, thus the following approach has been adopted.

• For river sites subject to indirect effects, a more detailed examination has been made of tidal ellipses, using data from Admiralty charts. It has been assessed that there will be no LSE on diadromous fish interest features due to turbidity at any site more than one tidal ellipse distant from a zone boundary, as it is unlikely in such case that turbidity will form a barrier to fish entering or leaving a river from the sea and no LSE can be concluded.

• For river sites within the distance of a tidal ellipse situated anywhere along a zone boundary, it cannot be concluded that there is no LSE on diadromous fish interest features due to turbidity causing a


Page 84


barrier in the entrance to a river and any such European/Ramsar sites are taken forward for further assessment.

Migratory fish interest features may potentially be subject to operational effects of tidal turbines, arising from collision risk and pressure differentials and to effects from all devices due to operational noise, if the devices are placed within the migratory paths of the fish. Two categories of site were identified and LSE was assessed as follows.

• For sites where the route to the Atlantic Ocean does not involve passage through a tidal energy resource zone (essentially those river draining through Lough Foyle) no LSE has been concluded;

• For sites (such as the River Boyne and sites in England and Scotland) where fish may pass through a tidal energy resource zone during migration, avoidance behaviour was considered. Salmon are regarded as having medium hearing sensitivity and would be expected to avoid a tidal turbine at 30m to 200m metres distance29 (depending on water depth), while shad are of high sensitivity and would be expected to exhibit an avoidance reaction at around 300m. These factors have been taken into account, as well as the fact that salmon swim close to the surface thus will generally avoid turbines.

Effects of the ORESAP on European/Ramsar sites with diadromous fish as interest features due to noise during construction have been have been eliminated on the basis that such effects will be avoided through implementation of mitigation measures set out in Table 2.5.

Effects of electromagnetic fields on salmon will not be likely in deeper water, as salmon swim near to the surface, but possible effects in shallow water have been identified11. Such effects could potentially arise from unburied or inadequately buried export cables but, since the mitigation measures included in the ORESAP will include burial of cables at an adequate depth to avoid such effects (see Table 2.5), it can be concluded that here will be no LSE on salmon from electromagnetic fields.

4.3.4 Effects on the bird interest of SPAs and Ramsar sites

A large number of sites were identified within the pre-screening process on the basis of their bird interest (see Tables 3.6 and 3.7) and these have been brought forward into the screening process. These include transnational SPAs that could be affected by the ORESAP.

The screening assessment of the potential effects of the ORESAP on birds requires a certain level of information to be available in order to allow a reasoned conclusion to be reached. This information base is formed from two elements:

• an understanding of the level of bird distribution and activity within the zones outlined within the ORESAP; and

29 APBmer, 2010. Collison risk of fish with wave and tidal devices. Commissioned by RPS Group plc on behalf of the Welsh Assembly Government. Report No. 1516.


Page 85


• an understanding of the potential effects of the ORESAP on individual species or groups of species.

Information about the sensitivities of birds to the ORESAP is set out in Table 3.3. Of the sensitivities listed, only those that relate to the direct and indirect effects on habitats and those related to disturbance during cable laying/removal within SPAs and Ramsar sites have been used to conclude whether there will be a LSE on the avian interest of the site at this stage. The methods used in the determination of a LSE are provided in Section 4.3.5. The following details how the consequences of effects on habitats within sites and the noise and visual disturbance of cable laying have been used to inform whether they will contribute to a LSE on sites’ avian interest features. A rationale as to why the remaining sensitivities of birds listed in Table 3.3 have been excluded from the HRA screening process in Section 4.3.5 is also provided below.

Effects related to change in habitat

The loss or change of habitat within an SPA or Ramsar site has the potential to contribute to an LSE on the avian interest of the site. These activities include the installation, operation and potential removal of energy devices. If undertaken within the European/Ramsar site or within one tidal excursion of it, these activities have been considered to have the potential to cause loss or change to habitats within the site through sediment mobilisation and transport or through changes in tidal regime leading to deposition or erosion of sediment. This in turn could reduce the availability of prey that designated species depend upon, impacts upon the habitat which the birds depend upon, which could therefore result in a population decline.

The following factors have been considered when determining whether there will be a LSE.

• The physical extent of the sensitive habitat likely to be affected by the activity has been compared to the overall size of the site. For example, there is unlikely to be a significant effect on a bird population if a very small proportion of the habitat it depends upon is changed or lost.

• The duration of time when the habitat will be affected will also determine the likelihood of an effect occurring. Effects on habitats due to offshore structures (for example, the presence of turbine bases) located within marine SPAs will occur over a much longer time span and therefore are more likely to result in changes to prey availability and a LSE on avian interest than effects of short-duration construction activities. Tidal devices are likely to have the largest impact upon habitats supporting bird species during the operation stage, due to removal of energy from the system affecting the tidal regime. This can have a knock-on affect on upper-shore coastal habitats, such as salt marshes, upon which birds rely.

Where it has been determined that the activities associated with the ORESAP, in combination with other plans or projects, are likely to have no or de minimis effects on habitats that are utilised by birds that are associated with European/Ramsar sites, it is concluded that there will be no LSE on these European/Ramsar sites in relation to these Plan activities. Where this conclusion cannot be reached, the relevant sites are taken forward for Appropriate Assessment in relation to the bird species or assemblages that could be affected.


Page 86


Effects relating to device operation

Several of the sensitivities in Table 3.3 relate to the operation of turbines, namely potential collision with wind farm and tidal stream turbine blades (by diving birds) and barrier effects to bird movements that may be caused by turbines and noise/visual disturbance relating to turbine operation. In order to undertake a robust assessment, the linkages between birds, potential zones of development and SPAs/Ramsar sites need to be understood. It is also important to understand the number of birds using the zones in respect both of SPA and biogeographic populations. In general there is a dearth of empirical data demonstrating the level of effect on individual birds and/or populations in offshore wind farms and very little data for tidal stream developments, although there are some notable exceptions to this rule. Furthermore, there is little information regarding the distribution of birds at sea, especially foraging seabirds. Even when information gathered at onshore wind farms is used to supplement the knowledge base, there are insufficient data on many species (particularly seabirds) to reach any reasoned conclusion using the screening approach employed here and hence an LSE must be assumed at the screening stage and a large number of sites were ‘screened in’ to be progressed to the Appropriate Assessment stage of the HRA.

For many of the offshore wind farm developments undertaken to date in the UK, the assessment of effects on birds has been highly dependent on targeted surveys carried out at project level in relation to specific development proposals. However, a significant amount of research is ongoing and results are emerging that will help to advise assessments at plan as well as project level. Although it is likely that uncertainties will remain that will require survey work and assessment at project level, to allow the mitigation measures included in the ORESAP to be applied effectively, it is anticipated that a review of the latest research and survey data at the AA stage may allow some types of effect and some interest features to be eliminated and will assist in refining mitigation measures included in the ORESAP to ensure that it can be implemented without adverse effects on site integrity.

4.3.5 Screening forms

For each site which entered the screening process (except those only entering on the basis of their bird interests), a screening form was completed. These are presented within this report within Appendix C (SAC site screening forms), Appendix D (SPA habitat screening forms) and Appendix E (Ramsar site screening forms). Information on UK sites was obtained from the JNCC and for ROI sites from the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS).

SACs

For SACs, all the site’s qualifying interest features were screened. Initially, interest features which were not considered sensitive were removed from consideration and the justifications for their removal stated, e.g. there is no mechanism for a LSE on these features. In general, these were terrestrial habitat or species features within a coastal SAC. Similarly, where an SAC had been included solely on the basis of a mobile species interest feature (i.e. marine mammals, bats or anadromous fish), all other interest features within that SAC were considered not sensitive to ORESAP activities, and were removed from consideration. For the remaining sensitive features in each site, Conservation Objectives were stated, where available. For a number of sites, it was not possible to identify the Conservation Objectives, mainly as these were not available at the time of undertaking the HRA screening. In


Page 87


these cases, ‘generic’ Conservation Objectives were used which reflected the Conservation Objectives for the same interest feature at different sites, and this was noted on the form. The sensitivities of the interest features were identified based on the information in Table 3.1 and Table 3.3. Possible in-combination effects for the site were identified based on the information given in Table 4.1. Possible mitigation measures were also identified (see Section 4.3.6). An assessment of the possibility of a LSE on each interest feature, based on the Conservation Objective for the feature was then made, and the explanation stated on the form. This assessment was based on the assumption that the identified mitigation methods in the ORESAP SEA Environmental Report would be employed by developers at projects level through the project level mitigation strategy. Finally, a statement of the next steps was made.

SPAs

For SPAs, bird interests off-site were not screened separately (for the reasons set out in Section 4.3.4); screening forms were only completed for those SPAs which could be directly or indirectly affected by ORESAP zones. The screening forms were approached in the same way as those for SACs, but dealt only with the effects on habitats which support the bird interest within the site – these were identified by the habitat codes from the Natura 2000 data forms for each site. For ROI SPAs some Natura 2000 data forms were not available at the time, therefore the site synopses were used. These synopses outline the habitats present at the site but give no percentage coverage information.

Non-sensitive habitats were screened out during the preliminary stage and these have been noted on the forms. The sensitivities of the remaining habitats were then identified. There are no Conservation Objectives for these habitats, as they do not form a qualifying interest feature of the site, so for the purposes of undertaking screening a ‘generic Conservation Objective’ was applied to all habitats – that activities should not lead to any deterioration in the ability of the habitat to support the bird interest of the SPA. With the number of sites needing to be screened, it was not possible to assess the bird habitat usage of each SPA, so the precautionary principle was applied and it was assumed that all the sensitive habitats were used by the bird interest of the SPA. Possible sources of cumulative and in-combination effects were taken into account, along with possible mitigation measures, and an assessment of the potential effect of the ORESAP on the site’s habitats was made. The conclusions of this habitat screening process clearly only form part of the evidence base for the Appropriate Assessment stage of the HRA of individual sites or for any work which may need to be carried out at project level.

Ramsar sites

For Ramsar sites, criteria 5 and 6 (bird interest features) were also not screened, as outlined for SPAs. The screening forms were approached in the same way as those for SPAs as far as the Ramsar criteria relating to habitats were concerned: non-sensitive habitats were removed at the first stage (with justification) and the remaining habitats were screened on the basis that the ORESAP activities should not lead to any deterioration in the ability of the habitat to support the bird interest of the Ramsar site, with the same application of the precautionary principle. For Ramsar criteria relating to species, a similar approach was taken. Non-sensitive species criteria (or sections of criteria) were removed (with justification). Remaining species-based criteria or parts


Page 88


of criteria were then assessed on the basis that ORESAP activities should not result in a deterioration of the species population at the site. Possible sources of cumulative and in-combination effects were taken into account, along with possible mitigation measures, and an assessment of the potential effect of the ORESAP on the site’s Ramsar criteria was made. As all Ramsar sites identified for screening had qualifying bird interests, it was not possible to screen out any of the Ramsar sites completely and the conclusions of the screening process only form part of the evidence base for the Appropriate Assessment stage of the HRA of individual sites or for any work which may need to be carried out at project level.

A summary of the outcomes for all the sites screened on the forms in Appendices C, D and E is presented in Section 5.

4.3.6 Mitigation measures

Within the screening forms for SACs, SPAs and Ramsar sites, a number of mitigation measures which were identified and set out in the ORESAP SEA Environmental Report1 were taken into account. These are detailed in Table 2.5 and generally correspond to best practice guidelines. Such mitigation measures are commonly requested/imposed by statutory consultees/consenting bodies for offshore renewable energy projects. In screening sites and assessing the potential for LSE as a result of the ORESAP, it was assumed that the Project Level Mitigation Strategy identified in the ORESAP SEA Environmental Report, with any necessary modifications identified during the AA stage of this HRA, will be included in the final ORESAP and that developers will be required to undertake these mitigations.

Section 4.3.7 below details any potential in-combination effects arising from other plans and project identified which, in conjunction with the ORESAP, could have a cumulative adverse effect on European and Ramsar sites. Where an in-combination effect is identified the following basic mitigation should be employed: an open dialogue should be maintained with the organisations responsible for the plan or project which is causing the in-combination effect. Through this open dialogue, discussions on issues such as timing of construction can be undertaken, thus minimising the in-combination impacts upon the protected site(s).

4.3.7 In-combination effects

A number of other plans and projects have been identified which, in conjunction with the ORESAP, have the potential to contribute towards in-combination effects on European sites. Information about the plans and projects which have been considered (and some which have not been considered) is provided in Table 4.1. If the spatial data were available for the in-combination effects in Table 4.1 below as Esri shapefiles, these have been shown in Figure B8 in Appendix B.


Page 89


Table 4.1 Sources of possible in-combination effects

Plan/project Data source Included Comments

Existing and potential offshore renewables in Republic of Ireland

Draft Offshore Renewable Energy Development Plan (OREDP) Version 1.3 November 2010

No

Depending on the location and scale of development there is potential for in-combination effects with offshore renewables developed in ROI waters. Potential effects identified in the ORESAP ER that are relevant to this HRA are collision risk for seabirds and barriers to movement. These effects are most likely to occur as a result of in-combination effects from developments that occur close to the territorial boundaries. Most of the potential negative effects identified relate to cumulative effects from offshore wind farm developments as there are limited areas of tidal resource in transboundary locations. Wind Resource Zones 1 and 2 both extend towards Republic of Ireland waters where there could be potential for further offshore wind developments. At the time of the publication of this report, the draft OREDP was released for public consultation. The OREDP does not identify specific resource zones, rather it has taken the whole of the ROI coastline into account and divided the coastline into assessment areas. As the location of development zones is currently unknown it is not possible to be able to identify any potential in-combination effects, It is our recommendation that the OREDP and any future developments from it are taken into account at a later stage, such as the project stage, when the ROI offshore renewable energy developments are confirmed. Location of ROI resource zones can be found following Figure B8 in Appendix B30.

Existing lease areas Yes, for existing renewables and known applications

The Oriel Wind Farm, located to the south east of Cooley Point and 19km south east of Dundalk, has the potential for in-combination effects with wind resource zone 2. Location of the Oriel Wind Farm can be found following Figure B8 in Appendix B23.

Existing and potential offshore renewables in Scotland

Scottish Marine Renewable Energy Strategy (April 2007)

No

The SEA notes that there are potential in-combination effects with the Sound of Islay Tidal Energy Project (Scottish Power) and five potential offshore wind sites located on the west coast of Scotland. This includes potential for negative effects on marine mammals and fish due to noise from piling activities creating barriers to movement between Scotland and Northern Ireland. The SEA states that these potential effects are most likely to occur where pile driving activities are undertaken at the same time. At time of publication there is no evidence or indication that the Sound of Islay project will go ahead. Therefore it has not been included as an in-combination effect for the purposes of this HRA.

The Saltire Prize associated Round

No The Saltire Prize has only recently closed its deadline for applicants, so it is still in its infancy, therefore it has not been included as an in-combination effect for the purposes of this HRA.

Draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan

Yes The Islay and Kintyre site options may cause potential in-combination effects with the ORESAP on migratory marine mammals.

30 Figure reproduced from the Offshore Renewable Energy Development Plan (OREDP) for Ireland: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Volume 1: Non-Technical Summary.


Page 90



Rounds 1, 2 and 3 offshore wind farms Round 3

Round 1, 2 and 3 boundaries, The Crown Estate

Yes

The Crown Estate offshore wind leasing rounds have identified the area off the north coast of Wales and to the west of Liverpool Bay – Zone 9 Irish Sea. This zone has been included for potential in-combination effects on migratory marine mammals.

Round 1 and 2 offshore wind farm extensions

Round 1 and 2 offshore wind farm extension boundaries, The Crown Estate

Yes

Burno Bank and Walney Extensions were awarded by the Crown Estate in May 2010. These zones have been included for potential in-combination effects on migratory marine mammals.

Potential offshore renewable energy developments in the Isle of Man territorial waters

n/a No

At present there are no firm plans for offshore renewable energy developments to be located in Isle of Man waters.

Marine aggregate dredging

Active and licensed dredge areas, The Crown Estate

No

There are currently no licensed dredging areas along the coast of Northern Ireland. The closest areas that are licensed for aggregate extraction are 392, 393, 331, and 457 – all located in Liverpool Bay and to the east of the Isle of Man. No mechanism for in-combination effects with these sites has been identified.

Carbon capture and storage

None yet available No

Whilst it may be assumed that CCS activities will be most prominent around areas of existing/old oil and gas extraction, prior to completion of the SEA there is no formal plan in place for their implementation.

Oil/gas extraction (UK) Licence blocks UKOOA DECC (Oil and Gas)

Yes

It has been assumed that if a licence has been applied for or granted, oil/gas related activity may be occurring within the area. The 26th Offshore Oil and Gas licensing round has identified areas around Rathlin for potential leasing, although no licences have been issued as yet. There are two licensed blocks north of the Isle of Man that may cause potential in-combination effects on marine mammals. This has been examined in further detail in Appendix C.

Oil/gas extraction (RoI) DCENR No It has been assumed that if a licence has been applied for or granted, oil/gas related activity may be occurring within the area. There are no licensed blocks under the current licensing round that may cause potential in-combination effects with the resource zones.

Underground gas storage (NI)

DETI Yes, if available

Proposed gas storage in East Antrim and Larne Lough but insufficient detail available yet to include in in-combination assessment.

Electricity grid strengthening

DETI Strategic Action Plan for On-shore Renewable Generation in Northern Ireland

No, Draft SAP and SEA not currently available (draft due for publication in 2011)

The SAP will set out high-level proposals for onshore renewables and for the strengthening of the electrical grid, which will be required to transmit energy generated by future renewable energy developments both onshore and offshore.

Terrestrial development in Northern Ireland

Regional Development Strategy HRA/SEA, not currently available

No

The RDS is the overarching regional strategy for Northern Ireland up to 2025. It sets strategic guidance which informs the strategies, objectives and proposals which emerge in development plans. The RDS is focused on terrestrial development, and as such has no bearing on the offshore resource zones. Any indirect terrestrial developments linked to the resource zones, such as port developments for example, are not clearly defined in the RDS as it is a very high level, strategic overview. Therefore no in-combination effects may be identified from this report.


Page 91



Aquaculture and Shellfisheries

Loughs Agency Aquaculture and Shellfisheries Management Strategy

No

The SEA of this strategy assessed that implementing new licensing and promoting the sustainable development of the wild shellfishery will have a significant positive impact on biodiversity, flora and fauna in Lough Foyle. Outside Lough Foyle the SEA assessed that management will continue similarly to the existing situation and impacts in these locations are considered to be neutral. It is noted that there may be increased dredging and intertidal access for wild shellfish and aquaculture which could have negative impacts on biodiversity but that details of increased activities or new areas are not known at this stage.

In addition to these other plans and projects which may contribute to cumulative and in-combination effects on European sites, it should be recognised that cumulative effects may occur due to interactions between ORESAP commercial resource zones, particularly where zones overlap, as in the case of Wi1 and Ti1, which overlap, and between Wi1/Ti1 and Ti2, whose boundaries are separated by a distance less than the length of the tidal ellipse.

Some plans/projects in Table 4.1 above have not been included in the screening process for in-combination effects due to in-detail lack of data of the plan/project. This does not mean that those plans or projects will never have an in-combination effect with the ORESAP in the future, only that, at the time of the publication of this report, there was not enough detail on the plans or projects to effectively assess any in-combination effects. However, there should be a general awareness of these plans and projects should the situation change in the future.

Within the screening forms for each site, cumulative and in-combination effects were identified based on the spatial location of the activity and a brief indication of the possible effect on the site was given. These effects were then taken into account in the screening conclusions (see Section 5).


Page 92



Page 93


5. Summary of screening outcomes

Table 5.1, Table 5.2 and Table 5.3 in this section repeat the lists of pre-screened sites presented in Section 3.7 and summarise the outcome of the screening process for each site. Further details of the screening process for each site are presented in the screening forms in Appendix C (SACs), Appendix D (SPAs) and Appendix E (Ramsar sites). SPAs and Ramsar sites which were only screened on the basis of their bird interest features do not have corresponding screening forms. The presence of a screening form within the relevant appendix is noted on the summary tables. In the tables, the term ‘screened out’ indicates that it has been determined that the ORESAP will have no LSE on the site for any of its interest features. The term ‘screened in’ indicates that, under the requirements of the Onshore and Offshore Habitats Regulations, there was a need to be an Appropriate Assessment of the implications of the ORESAP for that site. There may then be a subsequent requirement to carry out further assessment at project level to fulfil conditions on which the ORESAP assessment is based.


Page 94



Page 95


Table 5.1 Screening outcomes - SACs (including dSACs, pSACs, cSACs and SCIs)

Zone (Direct) indicates that the site is overlapped by a zone; Zone (Indirect) indicates that the site is within a distance equivalent to one tidal excursion of a zone. Where a site has entered the screening process for one of these reasons, the relevant zone is indicated in the table. The next three columns indicate which sites have mobile interest features.

All sites on this list have a corresponding screening form in Appendix C.

Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Mar

ine

Mam

mal

s

Ana

drom

ous

Fish

Otte

rs

Screening outcome

UK0030084 Bann Estuary SAC Ti1/Wi1 Site screened out.

IE0002172 Blasket Islands SAC Site screened out.

UK0012712 Cardigan Bay/ Bae Ceredigion SAC Site screened out.

IE0002306 Carlingford Shore SAC Wi2 Site screened out.

IE0000147 Horn Head and Rindevan SAC Site screened out.

IE0000204 Lambay Island SAC Site screened out.

IE0002165 Lower River Shannon SAC Site screened out.

UK0016613 Magilligan SAC Ti1/Wi1 Site screened out.

UK0016612 Murlough SAC Wi2 Wi2 Site screened out.

UK0030224 North Antrim Coast SAC Ti1/Wi1/Ti2 Site screened out.

IE0002012 North Inishowen Coast SAC Wi1/Ti1 Site screened in for mudflats and sandflats.


Page 96


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Mar

ine

Mam

mal

s

Ana

drom

ous

Fish

Otte

rs

Screening outcome

UK0030233 Owenkillew River SAC Site screened out.

UK0013117 Pen Llyn a`r Sarnau/ Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau

SAC Site screened out.

UK0030055 Rathlin Island SAC Ti2 Ti1/Wi1 Site screened in for submerged or partially submerged sea caves only.

UK0030365 Red Bay cSAC Ti2 Ti2 Site screened out.

UK0030249 River Bladnoch SAC Site screened out.

UK0030032 River Derwent and Bassenthwaite Lake

SAC Site screened out.

UK0012643 River Eden SAC Site screened out.

UK0030057 River Ehen SAC Site screened out.

IE0002299 River Boyne and River Blackwater SAC Site screened out.

UK0030361 River Faughan and Tributaries cSAC Site screened out.

IE0002301 River Finn SAC Site screened out.

UK0030320 River Foyle and Tributaries SAC Site screened out.

UK0030360 River Roe and Tributaries SCI Site screened out.

IE0000101 Roaringwater Bay and Islands SAC Site screened out.


Page 97


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Mar

ine

Mam

mal

s

Ana

drom

ous

Fish

Otte

rs

Screening outcome

Not yet assigned

Skerries and Causeway dSAC Wi1 Ti1/Ti2 Site screened in for submerged or partially submerged sea caves only.

UK0030067 South-East Islay Skerries SAC Site screened out.

UK0016618 Strangford Lough SAC Wi2 Site screened out.

Not yet assigned

The Maidens dSAC Site screened out.


Page 98


Table 5.2 Screening outcomes - SPAs (including pSPAs and SPA extensions)

Zone (Direct) indicates that the site is overlapped by a zone; Zone (Indirect) indicates that the site is within a distance equivalent to one tidal excursion of a zone. Where a site has entered the screening process for one of these reasons, the relevant zone is indicated in the table. The next three columns indicate which sites have mobile interest features (in the case of SPAs this applies only to birds), which sites contain habitat supporting birds that may be affected directly or indirectly according to the criteria above and wherther a screening form is included at Appendix D.

Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

UK9009141 Abberton Reservoir SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003091 Ailsa Craig SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001751 Aird and Borve, Benbecula SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004079 Akeragh, Banna and Barrow Harbour SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9009112 Alde-Ore Estuary SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004103 All Saints Bog SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020301 Antrim Hills SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003341 Arran Moors SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020281 Arun Valley SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001591 Assynt Lochs SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002381 Auskerry SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9011091 Avon Valley SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.


Page 99


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

UK9014091 Bae Caerfyrddin / Carmarthen Bay SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004016 Baldoyle Bay SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004041 Ballyallia Lake Wildfowl Sanctuary SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004101 Ballykenny-Fisherstown Bog SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004023 Ballymacoda Bay SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004129 Ballysadare Bay SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004020 Ballyteigue Burrow SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004022 Balycotton Bay SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004033 Bannow Bay SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020101 Belfast Lough SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020290 Belfast Lough Open Water SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9009291 Benacre to Easton Bavents SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9009171 Benfleet and Southend Marshes SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9013111 Berwyn SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003221 Black Cart SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004037 Blacksod Bay/Broadhaven SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.


Page 100


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

IE0004094 Blackwater Callows SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004028 Blackwater Estuary SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.


SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004008 Blasket Islands SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9005151 Bowland Fells SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004080 Boyne Estuary SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9009181 Breydon Water SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003052 Bridgend Flats, Islay SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004128 Broad Lough SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9009253 Broadland SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004025 Broadmeadow/Swords Estuary SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002491 Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9015011 Burry Inlet SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002241 Cairngorms SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001151 Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001171 Caithness Lochs SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.


Page 101


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

UK9002431 Calf of Eday SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9004131 Cameron Reservoir SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001431 Canna and Sanday SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001231 Cape Wrath SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004078 Carlingford Lough SPA No Wi2 Site screened in for birds; LSE on bird habitats also possible.

UK9020161 Carlingford Lough SPA Yes Wi2 Site screened in for birds; LSE on bird habitats also possible.

IE0004052 Carrowmore Lake SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0001021 Carrowmore Point tonish Point and Islands

SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003191 Castle Loch, Lochmaben SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004029 Castlemaine Harbour SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9010091 Chesil Beach and The Fleet SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9010041 Chew Valley Lake SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9011011 Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004005 Cliffs of Moher SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003031 Coll SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003033 Coll (corncrake) SPA No Site screened in only for birds.


Page 102


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

UK9009243 Colne Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 2)


IE0004107 Coole-Garryland SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020291 Copeland Islands SPA No Wi2 Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002151 Copinsay SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9006031 Coquet Island SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004030 Cork Harbour SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001623 Cromarty Firth SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004055 Cross Lough (Mullet) SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9009244 Crouch and Roach Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 3)


IE0004035 Cummeen Strand SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9009261 Deben Estuary SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9009242 Dengie (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 1) SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9004291 Din Moss – Hoselaw Loch SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001622 Dornoch Firth and Loch Fleet SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9010101 Dorset Heathlands SPA No Site screened in only for birds.


Page 103


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

IE0004013 Drumcliff Bay SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002301 Drumochter Hills SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9005031 Duddon Estuary SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004026 Dundalk Bay SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004059 Dunfanaghy/Rinclevan SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004032 Dungarvan Bay SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9012091 Dungeness to Pett Level SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004111 Duvillaun Islands SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020284 Dyfi Estuary / Aber Dyfi SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001182 East Caithness Cliffs SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002331 East Sanday Coast SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.



UK9014111 Elenydd – Mallaen SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001761 Eoligarry, Barra SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9010081 Exe Estuary SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002091 Fair Isle SPA No Site screened in only for birds.


Page 104


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

UK9004241 Fala Flow SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9006021 Farne Islands SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002031 Fetlar SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9004411 Firth of Forth SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9004121 Firth of Tay & Eden Estuary SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9006101 Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001021 Flannan Isles SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9004381 Forest of Clunie SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9004171 Forth Islands SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002061 Foula SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9009246 Foulness (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 5) SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002271 Fowlsheugh SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004102 Garriskil Bog SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9008022 Gibraltar Point SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9004231 Gladhouse Reservoir SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9013121 Glannau Aberdaron and Ynys Enlli / Aberdaron Coast and Bardsey Island



Page 105


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

UK9003211 Glas Eileanan SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003351 Glen App and Galloway Moors SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004045 Glen Lough SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002771 Glen Tanar SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004039 Glenveagh National Park SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9014041 Grassholm SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9004281 Greenlaw Moor SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004082 Greers Isle SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003051 Gruinart Flats, Islay SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9009131 Hamford Water SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001241 Handa SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004112 Helvick Head Coast SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002011 Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004067 High Island (Galway) SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9006041 Holburn Lake and Moss SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004012 Horn Head SPA No Site screened in only for birds.


Page 106


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

UK9006171 Hornsea Mere SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004113 Howth Head Coast SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002141 Hoy SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9006111 Humber Estuary SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004074 Illanmaster SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004114 Illaunonearaun SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004130 Inch Lough and Levels SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004010 Inish and Sgarbheen SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004083 Inishbofin, Inishdooey and Inishbeg SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004115 Inishduff SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004084 Inishglora and Inishkeeragh SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004004 Inishkea Islands SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004116 Inishkeel SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004068 Inishmurray SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004100 Inishtrahull SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003061 Inner Clyde Estuary SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.


Page 107


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

IE0004031 Inner Galway Bay SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001624 Inner Moray Firth SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001511 Inverpolly, Loch Urigill and nearby lochs SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004117 Ireland's Eye SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020288 Isles of Scilly SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004118 Keeragh Islands SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004095 Kilcolman Bog SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004085 Kilcoole Marshes SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004036 Killala Bay / Moy Estuary SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004038 Killarney National Park SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020221 Killough Bay SPA Yes Wi2 Site screened in for birds; LSE on bird habitats also possible.

UK9001083 Kilpheder to Smerclate, South Uist SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003301 Knapdale Lochs SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002951 Ladder Hills pSPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004009 Lady's Island Lake SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003053 Laggan, Islay SPA No Site screened in only for birds.


Page 108


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

UK9001611 Lairg and Strathbrora Lochs SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004069 Lambay Island SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003271 Langholm – Newcastleton Hills SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9012111 Lee Valley SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001571 Lewis Peatlands SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9006011 Lindisfarne SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020294 Liverpool Bay / Bae Lerpwl pSPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001621 Loch Eye SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003111 Loch Ken and River Dee Marshes SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9004111 Loch Leven SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003021 Loch Lomond SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001531 Loch Maree SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003121 Loch of Inch and Torrs Warren SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9004051 Loch of Kinnordy SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9004061 Loch of Lintrathen SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002261 Loch of Skene SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.


Page 109


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

UK9002211 Loch of Strathbeg SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001721 Loch Shiel SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002201 Loch Spynie SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002751 Loch Vaa SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002651 Lochs of Spiggie and Brow SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004119 Loop Head SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004050 Lough Arrow SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004106 Lough Barra Bog SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004051 Lough Carra SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004053 Lough Conn SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004042 Lough Corrib SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004054 Lough Cullin (Mayo) SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004056 Lough Cutra SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004057 Lough Derg (Donegal) SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004058 Lough Derg (Shannon) SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004043 Lough Derravaragh SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.


Page 110


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

IE0004044 Lough Ennell SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004060 Lough Fern SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004087 Lough Foyle SPA No Ti1/Wi1 Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020031 Lough Foyle SPA Yes Ti1/Wi1 Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004048 Lough Gara SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004011 Lough Gill SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004046 Lough Iron SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004061 Lough Kinale and Derragh Lough SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004062 Lough Mask SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020091 Lough Neagh and Lough Beg SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004110 Lough Nillan Bog (Carrickatlieve) SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004049 Lough Oughter SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004047 Lough Owel SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004064 Lough Ree SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004088 Lough Scannive SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004065 Lough Sheelin SPA No Site screened in only for birds.


Page 111


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

IE0004075 Lough Swilly SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9006092 Lower Derwent Valley SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004125 Magharee Islands SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9005111 Martin Mere SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002121 Marwick Head SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004071 Mattle Island SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9012031 Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9005131 Mersey Estuary SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020287 Mersey Narrows & N. Wirral Foreshore pSPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004096 Middle Shannon Callows SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9013131 Migneint – Arenig – Dduallt SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001121 Mingulay and Berneray SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9009101 Minsmere-Walberswick SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001501 Mointeach Scadabhaigh SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001071 Monach Isles SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004017 Mongan Bog SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.


Page 112


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

UK9004031 Montrose Basin SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001625 Moray and Nairn Coast SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9005081 Morecambe Bay SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002361 Mousa SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002791 Muir of Dinnet SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003261 Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004070 Mutton Island (Clare) SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9008031 Nene Washes SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001741 Ness & Barvas, Lewis SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9011031 New Forest SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004006 North Bull Island SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001181 North Caithness Cliffs SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003171 North Colonsay and Wester Cliffs SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9009031 North Norfolk Coast SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9006272 North Pennine Moors SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001011 North Rona and Sula Sgeir SPA No Site screened in only for birds.


Page 113


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

UK9001211 North Sutherland Coastal Islands SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001051 North Uist Machair and Islands SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9006161 North York Moors SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9006131 Northumbria Coast SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002081 Noss SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004021 Old Head of Kinsale SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002311 Orkney Mainland Moors SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020299 Oronsay and South Colonsay SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002941 Otterswick and Graveland SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9008041 Ouse Washes SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020271 Outer Ards SPA Yes Wi2 Wi2 Site screened in for birds; LSE on bird habitats also possible.

UK9020309 Outer Thames Estuary SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004098 Owenduff/Nephin Complex SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9012041 Pagham Harbour SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002051 Papa Stour SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002111 Papa Westray (North Hill and Holm) SPA No Site screened in only for birds.


Page 114


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

UK9007021 Peak District Moors (South Pennine Moors Phase 1)


UK9001131 Pentland Firth Islands SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004099 Pettigo Plateau Nature Reserve SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020051 Pettigoe Plateau SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9010111 Poole Harbour SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9011051 Portsmouth Harbour SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004063 Poulaphouca Reservoir SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001261 Priest Island (Summer Isles) SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004003 Puffin Island SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004089 Rahasane Turlough SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002021 Ramna Stacks and Gruney SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9004021 Rannoch Lochs SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020011 Rathlin Island SPA No Ti2 Ti1/Wi1 Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004120 Rathlin O'Birne Island SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020295 Renfrewshire Heights SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9005103 Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.


Page 115


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

UK9003057 Rinns of Islay SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004086 River Little Brosna Callows SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004077 River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries


UK9002231 River Spey – Insh Marshes SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004097 River Suck Callows SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004121 Roaninish SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004014 Rockabill SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004015 Rogerstown Estuary SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002041 Ronas Hill – North Roe and Tingon SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002371 Rousay SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001341 Rum SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9008051 Rutland Water SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9011102 Salisbury Plain SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004002 Saltee Islands SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004024 Sandymount Strand/Tolka Estuary SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9015022 Severn Estuary / Môr Hafren SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.


Page 116


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

UK9020021 Sheep Island SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004090 Sheskinmore Lough SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001041 Shiant Isles SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004007 Skelligs SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004122 Skerries Islands SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9014051 Skokholm and Skomer SPA No Site screened in only for birds.



UK9020302 Slieve Beagh–Mullaghfad–Lisnaskea SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004123 Slyne Head Islands SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9011061 Solent and Southampton Water SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9010031 Somerset Levels and Moors SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9007022 South Pennine Moors Phase 2 SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9004401 South Tayside Goose Roosts SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001082 South Uist Machair and Lochs SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9012171 South West London Waterbodies SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004124 Sovereign Islands SPA No Site screened in only for birds.


Page 117


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

UK9004271 St Abb's Head to Fast Castle SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001031 St Kilda SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004091 Stabannan-Braganstown SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004072 Stags of Broad Haven SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9012121 Stodmarsh SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9009121 Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020111 Strangford Lough SPA Yes Wi2 Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020300 Strath Carnaig and Strath Fleet Moors SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002181 Sule Skerry and Sule Stack SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002511 Sumburgh Head SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002891 Switha SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004092 Tacumshin Lake SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9006061 Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004093 Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair


UK9012021 Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9012071 Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.


Page 118


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

IE0004066 The Bull and The Cow Rocks SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9013011 The Dee Estuary / Aber Afon Dyfrdwy SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004109 The Gearagh SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004019 The Raven SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9012011 The Swale SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9008021 The Wash SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002811 Tips of Corsemaul and Tom Mór SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003034 Tiree (corncrake) SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004126 Tormore Island SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004073 Tory Island SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9013031 Traeth Lafan/Lavan Sands, Conway Bay


IE0004018 Tralee Bay SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004027 Tramore Back Strand SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004034 Trawbreaga Bay SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9003041 Treshnish Isles SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002471 Troup, Pennan and Lion`s Heads SPA No Site screened in only for birds.


Page 119


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o R

amsa

r?

Zone

(D)

Zone

(I)

Bird

s

Hab

itat

Form

in

App

endi

x D

Screening outcome

UK9020071 Upper Lough Erne SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020296 Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits pSPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9005012 Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9007051 Walmore Common SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

UK9020298 West Inverness-shire Lochs SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002101 West Westray SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9001711 Wester Ross Lochs SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9004251 Westwater SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004076 Wexford Harbour SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004001 Wexford Nature Reserve SPA Yes Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004127 Wicklow Head SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

IE0004040 Wicklow Mountains SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9013061 Ynys Feurig, Cemlyn Bay and The Skerries


UK9020285 Ynys Seiriol / Puffin Island SPA No Site screened in only for birds.

UK9002221 Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch



Page 120


Table 5.3 Screening outcomes - Ramsar sites

Zone (Direct) indicates that the site is overlapped by a zone; Zone (Indirect) indicates that the site is within a distance equivalent to one tidal excursion of a zone. Where a site has entered the screening process for one of these reasons, the relevant zone is indicated in the table. The next four columns indicate which sites have mobile interest features (birds or fish), which sites contain habitat supporting birds or comprising site interest features that may be affected directly or indirectly according to the criteria above and whether a screening form is included at Appendix E.

Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o SP

A

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Dia

drom

ous

Fish

Hab

itats

Form

in

App

endi

x E

Screening outcome

UK11001 Abberton Reservoir Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11002 Alde-Ore Estuary Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK22002 Alderney West Coast and the Burhou Islands Ramsar No Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11004 Arun Valley Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11005 Avon Valley Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE011 Baldoyle Bay Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE037 Ballyallia Lough Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE022 Ballycotton Bay Ramsar No Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE023 Ballymacoda Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE032 Bannow Bay Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK12002 Belfast Lough Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.


Page 121


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o SP

A

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Dia

drom

ous

Fish

Hab

itats

Form

in

App

endi

x E

Screening outcome

UK11006 Benfleet and Southend Marshes Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE036 Blacksod Bay and Broadhaven Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE028 Blackwater Estuary Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11007 Blackwater Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 4) Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11008 Breydon Water Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13001 Bridgend Flats, Islay Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11010 Broadland Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK14001 Burry Inlet Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13003 Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13004 Caithness Lochs Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13005 Cameron Reservoir Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK12004 Carlingford Lough Ramsar Yes Wi2 Screened in for birds; LSE on bird habitats also possible.

UK13006 Castle Loch, Lochmaben Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE016 Castlemaine Harbour Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11012 Chesil Beach and The Fleet Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.


Page 122


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o SP

A

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Dia

drom

ous

Fish

Hab

itats

Form

in

App

endi

x E

Screening outcome

UK11013 Chichester and Langstone Harbours Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13008 Coll Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11015 Colne Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 2) Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE029 Cork Harbour Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK14003 Cors Caron Ramsar No Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13009 Cromarty Firth Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11058 Crouch and Roach Estuaries (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 3) Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE034 Cummeen Strand Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11018 Dengie (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 1) Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK12006 Derryleckagh proposed Ramsar No Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13010 Din Moss – Hoselaw Loch Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13011 Dornoch Firth and Loch Fleet Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11022 Duddon Estuary Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.


Page 123


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o SP

A

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Dia

drom

ous

Fish

Hab

itats

Form

in

App

endi

x E

Screening outcome

3IE026 Dundalk Bay Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK12007 Dundrum Bay proposed Ramsar No Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE031 Dungarvan Harbour Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11023 Dungeness to Pett Level proposed Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE017 Easky Bog Ramsar No Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13013 East Sanday Coast Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13014 Eilean na Muice Duibhe (Duich Moss), Islay Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11025 Exe Estuary Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13015 Fala Flow Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13017 Firth of Forth Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13018 Firth of Tay & Eden Estuary Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11026 Foulness (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 5) Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE018 Gearagh, The Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11027 Gibraltar Point Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.


Page 124


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o SP

A

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Dia

drom

ous

Fish

Hab

itats

Form

in

App

endi

x E

Screening outcome

UK13021 Gladhouse Reservoir Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13022 Greenlaw Moor Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13023 Gruinart Flats, Islay Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11028 Hamford Water Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11030 Holburn Lake and Moss Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11031 Humber Estuary Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13024 Inner Clyde Estuary Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE030 Inner Galway Bay Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13025 Inner Moray Firth Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11033 Isles of Scilly Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE035 Killala Bay/Moy Estuary Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK12012 Killough Bay Ramsar Yes Wi2 Screened in for birds; LSE on bird habitats also possible.

UK13027 Kintyre Goose Roosts Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11034 Lee Valley Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13028 Lewis Peatlands Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11036 Lindisfarne Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.


Page 125


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o SP

A

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Dia

drom

ous

Fish

Hab

itats

Form

in

App

endi

x E

Screening outcome

UK13029 Loch an Duin Ramsar No Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13031 Loch Eye Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13032 Loch Ken and River Dee Marshes Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13033 Loch Leven Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13034 Loch Lomond Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13037 Loch of Inch and Torrs Warren Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13038 Loch of Kinnordy Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13039 Loch of Lintrathen Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13040 Loch of Skene Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13041 Loch of Strathbeg Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13043 Loch Spynie Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE008 Lough Barra Bog Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE038 Lough Corrib Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE039 Lough Derravaragh Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE040 Lough Ennell Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK12014 Lough Foyle Ramsar Yes Ti1/Wi1 Screened in for bird interest features only.


Page 126


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o SP

A

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Dia

drom

ous

Fish

Hab

itats

Form

in

App

endi

x E

Screening outcome

3IE044 Lough Gara Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE041 Lough Glen Ramsar No Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE042 Lough Iron Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK12016 Lough Neagh and Lough Beg Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE045 Lough Oughter Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE043 Lough Owel Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11037 Lower Derwent Valley Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11039 Martin Mere Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11040 Medway Estuary and Marshes Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE021 Meenachullion Bog Ramsar No Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11041 Mersey Estuary Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11042 Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore

proposed Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11044 Minsmere-Walberswick Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE013 Mongan Bog Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13046 Montrose Basin Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13048 Moray and Nairn Coast Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.


Page 127


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o SP

A

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Dia

drom

ous

Fish

Hab

itats

Form

in

App

endi

x E

Screening outcome

UK11045 Morecambe Bay Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13049 Muir of Dinnet Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11046 Nene Washes Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE009 North Bull Island Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11048 North Norfolk Coast Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13050 North Uist Machair and Islands Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11049 Northumbria Coast Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11051 Ouse Washes Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK12018 Outer Ards Ramsar Yes Wi2 Wi2 Screened in for birds; LSE on bird habitats also possible.

3IE006 Owenboy Ramsar No Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE005 Owenduff catchment Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11052 Pagham Harbour Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE003 Pettigo Plateau Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11054 Poole Harbour Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11055 Portsmouth Harbour Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE002 Raven, The Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.


Page 128


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o SP

A

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Dia

drom

ous

Fish

Hab

itats

Form

in

App

endi

x E

Screening outcome

UK11057 Ribble and Alt Estuaries Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13052 Rinns of Islay Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13053 River Spey - Insh Marshes Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE010 Rogerstown Estuary Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11062 Rutland Water Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE024 Sandymount Strand/Tolka Estuary Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11081 Severn Estuary Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.


Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11063 Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11064 Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13057 South Tayside Goose Roosts Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13058 South Uist Machair and Lochs Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11065 South West London Waterbodies Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.


Page 129


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o SP

A

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Dia

drom

ous

Fish

Hab

itats

Form

in

App

endi

x E

Screening outcome

UK11066 Stodmarsh Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11067 Stour and Orwell Estuaries Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK12021 Strangford Lough Ramsar Yes Wi2 Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK12022 Teal Lough proposed Ramsar No Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11068 Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11069 Thames Estuary and Marshes Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11070 Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE025 The Broadmeadow Estuary Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11082 The Dee Estuary / Aber Afon Dyfrdwy Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11071 The Swale Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11072 The Wash Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE015 Tralee Bay Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE027 Tramore Backstrand Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE033 Trawbreaga Bay Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.


Page 130


Site Code Site Name

Des

igna

tion

Als

o SP

A

Zone

(Dire

ct)

Zone

(Ind

irect

)

Bird

s

Dia

drom

ous

Fish

Hab

itats

Form

in

App

endi

x E

Screening outcome

UK12024 Upper Lough Erne Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11083 Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits proposed Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11079 Upper Solway Flats and Marshes Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK11076 Walmore Common Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13060 Westwater Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

3IE001 Wexford Wildfowl Reserve Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.

UK13061 Ythan Estuary and Meikle Loch Ramsar Yes Screened in for bird interest features only.


6. Appropriate Assessment

6.1 Introduction The sites for which the possibility of LSE on one or more interest features could not be excluded at the screening stage have been brought through to the AA stage of the HRA and these are summarised in Table 6.1. For these aspects of the ORESAP and interest features of European /Ramsar sites for which it has not been concluded at the screening stage that there is no LSE, under the requirements of the Onshore and Offshore Habitats Regulations, an AA is required of the implications of the ORESAP for that site.

Table 6.1 Sites to be taken forward to Appropriate Assessment

Site Code Site Name Designation Reason site is to be included in AA

IE0002012 North Inishowen Coast SAC

Zone (I) - Wi1/Ti1 Site screened in for mudflats and sandflats. There is the potential for the two resource zones to affect the mudflats and sandflats as the SAC lies within one tidal cycle of zones Wi1 and Wa1. Impacts may occur from a change in hydrodynamic regime affecting the mobility of suspended sediments. Therefore it is not possible to exclude any LSE on mudflats and sandflats and further assessment needs to be undertaken.

UK0030055 Rathlin Island SAC

Zone (D) - Ti2 Zone (I) - Ti1/Wi1 Site screened in for submerged or partially submerged sea caves only. Devices placed in Ti1 and Ti2 can potentially alter the tidal regime of the area. This may in turn affect the zonation of communities in submerged or partially submerged sea caves. Therefore it is not possible to conclude that there will be no LSE on caves and further assessment is required.

Not yet assigned

Skerries and Causeway dSAC

Zone (D) – Wi1 Zone (I) - Ti1/Ti2 Site screened in for submerged or partially submerged sea caves only. Devices placed in Ti1 and Ti2 can potentially alter the tidal regime of the area. This may in turn affect the zonation of communities in submerged or partially submerged sea caves. Therefore it is not possible to conclude that there will be no LSE on caves and further assessment is required.

All SPAs (including pSPAs and SPA extensions) in RoI and UK

SPA All sites screened in for bird interest features.

IE0004078 Carlingford Lough SPA

Zone (I) - Wi2 Site also screened in for bird habitat: Intertidal sand and mud flats Effect on habitats may contribute to LSE on bird interest of the site, and should be taken into account in screening the SPA. Zone Wi2 may indirectly impact the site due to potential hydrodynamic changes



UK9020161 Carlingford Lough SPA

Zone (I) - Wi2 Site also screened in for bird habitat: N02 Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mudflats. Sandflats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins) Effect on habitats may contribute to LSE on bird interest of the site, and should be taken into account in screening the SPA. Zone Wi2 may indirectly impact the site due to potential hydrodynamic changes

UK9020221 Killough Bay SPA


UK9020271 Outer Ards SPA


All Ramsar sites Ramsar All sites screened in for bird interest features.

UK12004 Carlingford Lough Ramsar

Zone (I) - Wi2 Site also screened in for bird habitat: Possible effects on bird interests at this Ramsar site cannot be excluded at this stage. This will require further assessment. The relevant Ramsar criteria are: 2 - supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened eco. communities 6 - regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species/subspecies of waterbirds Any effect on habitats supporting birds have been screened within the form for the SPA associated with this Ramsar site. From this assessment it is not possible to conclude that there will be no significant effect on habitats important for bird species within this Ramsar site and further assessment will need to be undertaken.

UK12012 Killough Bay Ramsar

Zone (I) - Wi2 Site also screened in for bird habitat: Possible effects on bird interests at this Ramsar site cannot be excluded at this stage. This will require further assessment. The relevant Ramsar criteria are: 6 - regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species/subspecies of waterbirds Any effect on habitats supporting birds have been screened within the form for the SPA associated with this Ramsar site. From this assessment it is not possible to conclude that there will be no significant effect on habitats important for bird species within this Ramsar site and further assessment will need to be undertaken.



UK12018 Outer Ards Ramsar

Zone (I) - Wi2 Site also screened in for bird habitat: Possible effects on bird interests at this Ramsar site cannot be excluded at this stage. This will require further assessment. The relevant Ramsar criteria are: 6 - regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species/subspecies of waterbirds Any effect on habitats supporting birds have been screened within the form for the SPA associated with this Ramsar site. From this assessment it is not possible to conclude that there will be no significant effect on habitats important for bird species within this Ramsar site and further assessment will need to be undertaken.

6.2 Methodology and Chapter Structure This chapter sets out the information that DETI will use, together with the rest of this report, to undertake its AA of the ORESAP. The AA process needs to be followed when assessing the effects on the conservation status of the interest features of each European/Ramsar site for which LSEs cannot be excluded, with the conclusions relating to all of these features being combined to determine whether it can be concluded that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the relevant site.

In-combination effects are also considered as part of the AA assessment. It is conceivable that there may be no adverse effect of the ORESAP alone but this might not be the case with other plans or projects. In these cases HRA would then be required at the project level as certain information may not be available during the Plan stage. For example, information on the timing of the ORESAP projects and other projects and thus the likelihood of in-combination construction effects is generally not available at the Plan level. Similarly, there may be insufficient detail on the design of the ORESAP projects and other projects to determine how the operation of the projects in-combination with operation of other plans/projects may affect interest features. Potential sources of in-combination effects have been detailed in Table 4.1.

For each site/interest feature that has been assessed in the chapter, a summary table has been set out outlining the conclusions drawn during the AA process. The following colour-coding has been used for clarity of conclusions:

AA of the effects of the ORESAP at Plan level demonstrates that the ORESAP (as defined in Section 2), without the need for additional mitigation, will not result in an adverse effect on the conservation status of this interest feature at this site.

AA of the effects of the ORESAP at Plan level demonstrates that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the site supporting this interest feature, provided that avoidance and mitigation measures incorporated into the Plan as a result of this HRA are met.

AA of the effects of the ORESAP at Plan level shows that ensuring avoidance of adverse effects on integrity of the site supporting this interest feature will depend, at least in part, upon project-level HRA to identify the measures required to be certain that this is the case and that the project therefore complies with the ORESAP in this respect. Such measures may include refusal of permission for some or all of a proposed development.


This rest of this chapter is split into two main sections: AA on habitat interest features, which will be undertaken site by site, and AA of effects on the bird interests across all sites identified in Table 5.2 and Table 5.3.

6.3 Potential for Adverse Effects on Habitat Interest Features

6.3.1 Introduction

Following the screening process a number of SACs were identified where, for some of the qualifying habitat features, it was not possible to conclude that there would be no LSE of the ORESAP. Also a number of SPAs and Ramsar sites were identified where, for the habitats supporting the birds designated at the site, it was not possible to conclude that there would be no LSE of the ORESAP. These sites were brought through to the AA stage on the basis of the following habitats:

• mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide;

• submerged or partially submerged sea caves; and

• tidal rivers, estuaries, mudflats, sandflats and lagoons (including saltwork basins).

This section of the chapter sets out generic information regarding each of these habitats and their sensitivities and potential mitigation measures, followed by AA of effects on the habitat qualifying features for the sites for which it was not possible to conclude at the screening stage there would be no LSE from the ORESAP.

Details of the conservation objectives and general sensitivities for each of these habitat types are set out in Section 6.3.2. A description of each of the qualifying feature habitat types found in the sites is set out in Section 6.3.3. Section 6.3.5 sets out specific information regarding the sites and the sensitivities and activities associated with the ORESAP which may have an adverse effect on the conservation objectives of the interest features. This section also includes a summary of the potential for adverse effects on a site by site basis. Plan-level mitigations are set out, for clarification, in Section 6.3.4 and are included in the assessment.

Definitions of common terminology used in this chapter of the report are listed in Table 6.2.


Table 6.2 Definitions of terminology used to describe habitats

Term Definition

Natural processes Features may be subject to both natural processes and human influence. Human influence on the interest features is acceptable provided that it is proved to be / can be established to be compatible with the achievement of the conditions set out under the definition of favourable condition for each interest feature. Natural dynamic physical process within estuaries can stem, for example, from variable weather conditions including one off storm events and result in changes in wave exposure, riverine floods or tidal surges. These events can move large quantities of sediments and alter channel morphology, which affect current patterns and sediment transport within the estuary. Because estuaries are dynamic systems it is expected that the amount and gross distribution of habitats will change in the future due to natural processes.

Maintain or Restore Maintain implies that the feature is in favourable condition and will, subject to natural change, remain at its condition at designation. Any existing activities are deemed to be sustainable and will not adversely affect the condition of the feature if current practices are continued at current levels. Restore implies that the feature is degraded to some degree. Restoration in the marine environment generally refers to natural recovery through the removal of unsustainable physical, chemical and biological pressures

Extent The area covered by the habitat and communities. Note that maintenance of spatial distribution or extent of estuarine communities refers to the macro spatial pattern in which communities are distributed around the estuary and does not require micro-distribution of communities, e.g. the exact mapped positions of specific communities, to be maintained.

Diversity The number and balance of different biological communities

Community structure

The structure of a community can include age classes, sex ratios, distribution of species, abundance, biomass, reproductive capacity, recruitment, range and mobility

Source: Natural England various Regulation 33 advice for European marine sites

6.3.2 Interest Features and Sensitivities

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tides

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide are defined31 as sands and muds of the coasts of the oceans, their connected seas and associated lagoons, not covered by sea water at low tide, devoid of vascular plants, usually coated by blue algae and diatoms. They are of particular importance as feeding grounds for wildfowl and waders.

Table 3.3 shows the sensitivities resulting from ORESAP activities which may affect Annex I mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide.

31 European Commission DG Environment Nature and Biodiversity (2007) Interpretation manual of European Union habitats (EUR27)


Submerged or partially submerged sea caves;

Submerged or partially submerged sea caves are defined31 as caves situated under the sea or opened to it, at least at high tide, including partially submerged sea caves. Their bottom and sides harbour communities of marine invertebrates and algae.

Table 3.3 shows the sensitivities resulting from ORESAP activities which may affect Annex I submerged or partially submerged sea caves.

N02 tidal rivers, estuaries, mudflats, sandflats and lagoons (including saltwork basins)

N02 Tidal rivers, estuaries, mudflats, sandflats and lagoons (including saltwork basins) is a habitat class which describes a general habitat included in the SPA classification. It is not an interest feature, however, it does support the birds for which the SPAs have been classified. Therefore, in this instance, it is being considered alongside Annex I habitat interest features, as impacting this habitat class may impact the bird populations dependent on it.

Table 3.3 shows the sensitivities resulting from ORESAP activities which may affect habitat class N02 Tidal rivers, estuaries, mudflats, sandflats and lagoons (including saltwork basins).

6.3.3 Potential effects of the ORESAP

Sites have been assessed in the tables in the remainder of this section on the basis of the sensitivities of their qualifying features set out in Section 6.3.2.

North Inishowen Coast (IE0002012)

The North Inishowen Coast covers the most northerly part of Ireland, stretching form Crummies Bay in the west to Malin Head and on to Inishowen Head to the east. It encompasses an excellent variety of coastal habitats, including high rocky cliffs, offshore islands, sand dunes, salt marsh, a large intertidal bay, and rocky, shingle and sandy beaches. There are raised beaches along the east coast including the oldest and best preserved late-glacial fossil coast in Ireland (between Ineuran Bay and Esky Bay). Also of geomorphological interest is the small area of stone polygons near Malin Tower.

Sea cliffs are a feature of the site, with the best examples found in the west of the site (Dunree to Leenan Head and Dunaff Head) and in the area to the north-west of Glengad Head. Shingle beaches are well represented in the site, with the best examples at Rockstown harbour/Tullagh Point, and along the north-western shoreline of Malin Head promontory. These areas contain good examples of raised beaches, characterised by large mounds of shingle, which may be interspersed by low cliffs. Sand dune systems occur within the site at several locations, with good examples of fixed dunes and machair.


Trawbreaga Bay is a very sheltered sea bay with a narrow strait to the open sea at the north end. It is fed by a number of small rivers or streams. An estimated 80% of the bay area is exposed at each low tide to expose a mixture of mudflats, sandbanks and stony/rocky substrates. Mats of green algae occur on the open flats and Fucus spp. on the stones. Some areas of saltmarsh fringe the bay. Otters are also regularly seen along the shoreline and may breed within the site.

North Inishowen Coast SAC was screened in for the potential of LSE from the ORESAP, in respect of the mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide. The conservation objectives of the interest feature are as follows: To maintain the Annex I habitats for which the SAC has been selected at favourable conservation status. To maintain the extent, species richness and biodiversity of the entire site. To establish effective liaison and co-operation with landowners, legal users and relevant authorities.

Potential impacts on the interest feature are indirect impacts from Wi1 and Ti1 resource zones, as the site lies within one tidal ellipse of these zones. However, the mudflats interest feature is only found at Trawbreaga Bay, which is beyond one tidal ellipse from the resource zones. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the ORESAP will have an impact upon the mudflats interest feature and it is possible to conclude that there will be no adverse effect on integrity.

Rathlin Island SAC (UK0030055)

Rathlin Island is a large inhabited marine island situated some 4km from the north Antrim coast of Northern Ireland. There are basalt and chalk cliffs, some as high as 100 metres, as well as several sea stacks on the north and west shores of the island. The south and east shores are more gently sloping with areas of maritime grassland and rocky shore. The length of the coastline is approximately 30km.

The island is surrounded by a wide range of coarse sediment and rocky habitats. Strong tidal streams prevail around most of the island, especially in the channel between the island and the mainland. A very wide range of species has been recorded around the island, including a high proportion of species of particular interest. There is also very little silt anywhere around the island, most likely due to the strong tidal streams present. Turbidity is generally low, with the infralittoral extending below 20m, and water temperatures are stable, not rising much above 13ºC in the summer.

Rathlin Island SAC was screened in for the potential of LSE from the ORESAP, on the basis of potential effects on submerged or partially submerged sea caves. The conservation objectives of the interest feature are as follows: Maintain and enhance, as appropriate the extent of the submerged or partially submerged sea caves. Allow the natural processes which determine the development, structure, function and extent of the submerged or partially submerged sea caves, to operate appropriately. Maintain and enhance, as appropriate, the species diversity within this habitat.

Rathlin Island has well-developed examples of both partially submerged and submerged caves and overhangs in limestone and basalt in a strong tidal stream. Submerged caves occur mainly at depths ranging from 20 to over


100m. The NNW coast of Rathlin Island consists of a shallow shelf 10-100m wide at the base of the cliffs followed by a vertical underwater cliff which starts at 20-30m and descends to over 100m. The cliff is populated by a rich assemblage of sponges and hydroids. Parts of the cliff are exposed limestone, other parts are basalt. In places there are caves and arches in the limestone, and these caves may sometimes shelter unexpected species, such as the sea pen Virgularia mirabilis in a cave at 30m off Derginan Point. The cliff is dominated by different species in different areas, including Pachymatisma johnstonia, Alcyonium digitatum, Dendrodoa grossularia and Turbularia indivisa. A number of species were recorded only from this area during the survey e.g. Parazoanthus axinellae, Stryphnus ponderosus. The site is also used by cave-breeding grey seals (Halichoerus grypus).

Tidal devices placed in Ti1 and, in particular, Ti2 resource zones can potentially alter the tidal regime of the area. The most obvious consequence of a change in sea level, resulting from the altered tidal regime, would be a shift in species distribution32. This would mainly impact semi-submerged caves, as it is these caves that would be affected the most from a change in sea level.

It is expected that the shift in species distribution would happen vertically on the cave wall, and that this would not be a major impact upon the distribution. However, this is dependent on how much energy is extracted from the environment by the tidal devices, and on the geomorphology of the cave wall. The extent of the tidal change will be dependent on the type of device installed, the location of device placement, and the amount of energy extracted from the system. This factor will only be determined at project level, as at plan level the type of device being installed and location is not known. The extent of the change in sea level will also determine the distance the species distribution will have to shift. It could be that the new physical habitat may not be able to support the species present. For example, the species distribution may shift from a vertical wall in the cave to an overhanging section, which could pose problems for species that require higher light levels than those found in overhangs. Again, unless the extent of tidal regime change is quantified, as well as the location of the tidal devices determined, the distance of shift in species distribution will be unable to be determined.

Whether development under ORESAP could potentially lead to adverse effects upon the integrity of the sea caves at Rathlin Island SAC would be dependent on the type of devices placed as well as the location of device placement. Careful placement of the tidal devices, depending on the type of device deployed, could reduce and potentially avoid the potential adverse effects upon the sea caves. It is recommended that further research and investigations are conducted at project level once the proposed scheme of works is known, so that development can be limited or measures can be incorporated to ensure there will be no adverse effects upon the integrity of Rathlin Island SAC from tidal devices placed in Ti1 and Ti2, thus only allowing projects that are in keeping with the ORESAP to proceed. Therefore, at plan level, it can be stated that there will be no adverse effects upon the integrity of Rathlin Island SAC from tidal devices placed in Ti1 and Ti2, as this will be a requirement of the ORESAP.

32 Harley, C.D, Randall, Hughes, A.R., Hultgren, K.M., Miner, B.G., Sorte, J.B., Thronber, C.S., Rodriguez, L.F., Tomanek, L., & Williams, S.L. 2006. The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecology Letters, 9, 228-241


Skerries and Causeway dSAC (site code not yet assigned)

Skerries and Causeway dSAC is sited on the north coast of Northern Ireland. It is situated on the eastern part of a 30km wide embayment that has the Inishowen peninsular to its west, and Benbane Head to its east. The site is influenced by the warming Gulf Stream and by the strong tidal currents that flow through the North Channel to and from the Irish Sea. It is also subject to considerable wave action being open to the Atlantic to the north west, but it is also relatively sheltered from other prevailing swells and includes areas of relative shelter, such as behind the Skerries Islands. The site is predominantly marine, although there are significant influxes of freshwater from the River Bann to the west and the River Bush to the east.

A key interest feature of the site is reefs. Much of the reef in the site is sand scoured reef, which produces a close relationship between the reef and the adjacent sediments. As well as the sand scoured areas of reef and stony reef there are also large areas of bedrock reef that have a thick veneer of sediment, but still support bedrock epifauna. The reefs are also noted for southern species, rare and priority species, and a number of species first described from the Skerries and Causeway area.

Other aspects of interest of the site are areas of subtidal eel grass Zostera marina (sheltered behind the Skerries), and varied and dramatic sand waves, some over 30m high. There are also many sea caves that can be found in a range of rock type, including the basalts of the Giant’s Causeway and the chalk of the Ulster White Limestone series.

The Skerries and Causeway dSAC was screened in for the potential of LSE from the ORESAP on the submerged or partially submerged sea caves. The conservation objectives of the interest feature are as follows: To avoid deterioration of the qualifying habitats and species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for the qualifying interest. To ensure for the qualifying habitats that the following are maintained in the long term, subject to natural change: Extent of the habitats on site; Distribution of the habitats within the site; Structure and function of the habitats; Processes supporting the habitats; Distribution of typical species of the habitats; Viability of typical species as components of the habitat; and No disturbance of typical species of the habitat.

Much of the Skerries and Causeway coastline is characterised by rocky cliffs, which have approximately 30 sea caves. Additional to those caves there are also an unknown number of fully submerged sea caves, including one swim through tunnel through the Great Skerries Island. From the limited data currently available it is apparent that the sea caves exhibit a wide variety of sizes, shapes, depth, rock type (including basalt), Ulster White Limestone and Waterloo mudstone. Three Species of Conservation Concern have so far been identified – Stelletta grubii, Stryphnus ponderosus and Parazoanthus anguicomus. Sea caves are a naturally dynamic environment which is


difficult to access. However, if damage was to occur to either the physical structure or the biological communities, then restoration would be ‘difficult or impossible’33.

Tidal devices placed in Ti1 and, in particular, Ti2 resource zones can potentially alter the tidal regime of the area. The most obvious consequence of a change in sea level, resulting from the altered tidal regime, would be a shift in species distribution32. This would mainly impact semi-submerged caves, as it is these caves that would be affected the most from a change in sea level.

The potential impact from the tidal devices placed in Ti1 and Ti2 is the same as that for Rathlin Island sea caves. Unless the amount of energy extracted from the system, and thus the extent of alteration to the tidal regime, is known, it is difficult to determine the extent of impact upon the sea caves. This can only be determined if the type of device and placement location is known.

Whether development under ORESAP could potentially lead to adverse effects upon the integrity of sea caves at Skerries and Causeway dSAC would be dependent on the type of devices placed as well as the location of device placement. Careful placement of the tidal devices, depending on the type of device deployed, could reduce and potentially avoid the potential adverse effects upon the sea caves. It is recommended that further research and investigations are conducted at project level once the proposed scheme of works is known, so that development can be limited or measures can be incorporated to ensure there will be no adverse effects upon the integrity of Skerries and Causeway dSAC from tidal devices placed in Ti1 and Ti2 and thus only allowing projects that are in keeping with the plan to proceed. Therefore, at plan level, it can be stated that there will be no adverse effects upon the integrity of Skerries and Causeway dSAC from tidal devices placed in Ti1 and Ti2, as this will be a requirement of the ORESAP.

Carlingford Lough SPA and Ramsar site (IE0004078, UK9020161 and UK12004)

Carlingford Lough SPA straddles the international border between Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). For both sides of the border, however, the SPAs have the same habitat class supporting the designated birds. Carlingford Lough Ramsar site also occupies the same extent as the NI SPA. Therefore all three sites have been assessed together.

Carlingford Lough is a narrow sea lough surrounded by mountains. On the ROI side the site comprises part of the southern sector of Carlingford Lough, Co. Louth, extending from the harbour at Carlingford to Greenore Point. It includes all of the intertidal sand and mud flats to the low tide mark. Much of the shoreline is artificially embanked.

The northern shore lies in Northern Ireland and includes the most significant mud-flats in the lough and an area of saltmarsh. These provide important feeding areas for wintering light-bellied Brent goose Branta bernicla hrota of 33 NIEA. 2011. Inshore Special Area of Conservation: Skerries and Causeway. Conservation Objectives and Advice on Operations. Advice under Regulation 28(2) of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended)


the Canada/Ireland population. At the mouth of the lough are several small rock and shingle islands which are of importance to breeding terns, which then feed in the shallow waters of the Lough.

Carlingford Lough was screened in for the potential of LSE to occur from the ORESAP, on the habitat N02 Tidal rivers, Estuaries, Mudflats, Sandflats, and Lagoons (including saltwork basins). There is no specific conservation objective as the habitat described above is not an interest feature. However, general objectives may be described as follows: To avoid deterioration of the habitats supporting the qualifying birds, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained. To ensure for the habitats supporting the qualifying birds that the following are maintained in the long term, subject to natural change: Extent of the habitats on site; Distribution of the habitats within the site; Structure and function of the habitats; Processes supporting the habitats; Distribution of typical species of the habitats; Viability of typical species as components of the habitat; and No disturbance of typical species of the habitat.

The edge of Wi2 resource zone lies within one tidal ellipse boundary of Carlingford Lough. Therefore there is the potential for LSE on the intertidal mudflats and sandflats due to a potential change in hydrodynamics. Subject to careful siting of the turbines it is possible to conclude that there will be no adverse effect on integrity of Carlingford Lough SPA and Ramsar site. Only developments where this is the case will be compliant with the ORESAP.

Killough Bay SPA and Ramsar site (UK9020221 and UK12012)

Killough Bay SPA and Ramsar both occupy the same site extent; therefore they will be assessed as a single site. The bay encompasses the inter-tidal areas, and additional adjoining areas of notable habitat. These include mudflats, sand dominated beaches, grave and cobble units and rocky shore. The principal interest is the wintering population of Light-bellied Brent Goose. The boundary of the site includes Killough Harbour and Coney Island Bay. The harbour is a small harbour with tidal mud-flats and shingle banks.

Killough Bay was screened in for the potential of LSE from the ORESAP on N02 Tidal rivers, estuaries, mudflats, sandflats and lagoons (including saltwork basins). There is no specific conservation objective as the habitats described above are not an interest feature. However, general objectives may be described as follows: To avoid deterioration of the habitats supporting the qualifying birds, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained. To ensure for the habitats supporting the qualifying birds that the following are maintained in the long term, subject to natural change: Extent of the habitats on site; Distribution of the habitats within the site; Structure and function of the habitats; Processes supporting the habitats; Distribution of typical species of the habitats; Viability of typical species as components of the habitat; and No disturbance of typical species of the habitat.

Killough Bay was screened in because there was the potential for LSE to occur from Wi2 resource zone, due to its proximity to the site. Looking more closely at the tidal regime of the area, however, shows that the tidal ellipse (Figure 4.1) runs parallel to the shoreline. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the intertidal mudflats will be altered by any possible hydrodynamic changes caused by development of offshore wind energy in the zone, so it is possible to conclude that there will be no adverse effect on integrity.


Outer Ards SPA and Ramsar (UK9020271 and UK12018)

Outer Ards SPA and Ramsar both occupy the same site extent; therefore they will be assessed as a single site. The Outer Ards Peninsula is the most sheltered stretch of open rocky coast in NI, extending from Grey Point on the north Down coast, to Ballyquintin Point in the south. The width of this rocky intertidal zone is determined by the orientation of outcrop, but generally comprises low platforms, up to 200m across, separated by wide areas of mobile sediment. The site mainly encompasses the inter-tidal areas, but with some additional adjoining areas of notable habitat. It includes sand and mud dominated shores, cobble and boulder beaches together with rocky shores. Adjoining habitat includes areas of maritime grassland and heath, as well as saltmarsh, tidal and non-tidal fens, and wet flushes. The site contains about 8% of the NI coastline and has a very high proportion of offshore reefs and islands. The principal interests are the breeding colony of arctic tern, together with the wintering populations of light-bellied Brent goose, golden plover, turnstone and ringed plover.

Outer Ards was screened in for the potential of LSE to occur from the ORESAP on N02 Tidal rivers, estuaries, mudflats, sandflats and lagoons (including saltwork basins). There is no specific conservation objective as the habitat described above is not an interest feature. However, general objectives may be described as follows: To avoid deterioration of the habitats supporting the qualifying birds, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained. To ensure for the habitats supporting the qualifying birds that the following are maintained in the long term, subject to natural change: Extent of the habitats on site; Distribution of the habitats within the site; Structure and function of the habitats; Processes supporting the habitats; Distribution of typical species of the habitats; Viability of typical species as components of the habitat; and No disturbance of typical species of the habitat.

The Wi2 resource zone lies close to the Outer Ards, and even overlaps some of the islands. Therefore there is the potential for indirect effects upon intertidal habitats due to changes in hydrodynamics which may potentially affect the intertidal mudflats and sandflats. Provided the turbines are carefully sited there should be minimal impact upon the site and it will be possible to conclude that there will be no adverse effect on integrity. Only developments where this is the case will be compliant with the ORESAP.

6.3.4 Mitigations at Plan Level

Mitigation measures at plan level have been outlined in Table 2.5. It is possible to implement these plan-level avoidance and mitigation measures at project level, although the methods chosen for their implementation may vary considerably between projects as a result of the nature of those projects. Examples of possible project level mitigations over and above those already included within the plan are given below; this is not intended to be an exhaustive list, and the effectiveness of the measures will vary considerably between projects:

• surveys for the presence of contaminated sediments and avoidance of these areas where possible when micrositing turbines/cable routes;

• modelling the potential sediment/hydrodynamic effects arising from the location of a project within a zone, based on the specific characteristics of that project;


• undertaking a risk assessment for the possibility of the introduction of non-native species from ship movements associated with specific projects; or

• ensuring that ships associated with the project installation and/or maintenance comply with IMO Ballast Water Convention and Guidelines to reduce the opportunity for non-native species introduction from European vessels or international vessels.

In order to comply with the ORESAP, the developers will be obliged to undertake plan-level avoidance and mitigation measures where it is necessary to ensure that there are no adverse effects on the integrity of European/Ramsar sites. The requirement for the application of these plan-level avoidance and mitigation measures at project level will need to be assessed during any project level HRA, in light of the specific locations and design of individual projects and consequently their potential adversely to affect European/Ramsar sites. Determination of the most appropriate way(s) of implementing plan-level avoidance and mitigation measures at project level will be determined in consultation with regulators and statutory nature conservation agencies. The developers should also take into account the emerging environmental guidance relating to the ORESAP when planning appropriate project-level mitigation measures. It may also be appropriate for the developers to consider zone-wide mitigation strategies in addition to project-specific measures.

6.3.5 Effects on Sites

A summary of the site conclusions by habitat qualifying feature is shown in Table 6.3 below. The possible sources of in-combination effects have been taken from the site screening forms in Appendix C, D, and E.


Table 6.3 Summary of Site Appropriate Assessment for habitats

Site Code Site Name Qualifying features assessed in this chapter

Adverse effect on integrity with current Plan?

Adverse effect on integrity with additional mitigation at Plan level?

Possible sources of in-combination effects

Site Conclusion

IE0002012 North Inishowen Coast SAC

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tides

No n/a No in-combination effects identified

No adverse effect on conservation status of the interest feature or on site integrity from ORESAP activity owing to distance.

UK0030055 Rathlin Island SAC Submerged or partially submerged sea caves

Yes No* No in-combination effects identified

Effects on sea caves at this site could occur. Mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure that there is no adverse effect of the ORESAP but these cannot be defined until project details are known and HRA will be required at project level.

Not yet assigned

Skerries and Causeway dSAC

Submerged or partially submerged sea caves

Yes No* No in-combination effects identified

Effects on sea caves at this site could occur. Mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure that there is no adverse effect of the ORESAP but these cannot be defined until project details are known and.HRA will be required at project level.

IE0004078 Carlingford Lough SPA Intertidal sand and mud flats

Yes No No in-combination effects identified

With plan-level mitigation there will be no adverse effect on conservation status of the interest feature or on site integrity.

UK902016 Carlingford Lough SPA N02 Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mudflats. Sandflats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins)




Site Code Site Name Qualifying features assessed in this chapter

Adverse effect on integrity with current Plan?

Adverse effect on integrity with additional mitigation at Plan level?

Possible sources of in-combination effects

Site Conclusion

UK9020221 Killough Bay SPA N02 Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mudflats. Sandflats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins)


No adverse effect on conservation status of the interest feature or on site integrity from ORESAP activity owing to the orirentation of the tidal ellipse.

UK9020271 Outer Ards SPA N02 Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mudflats. Sandflats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins)



UK12004 Carlingford Lough Ramsar

Habitats supporting birds of Criterions 2 & 6



UK12012 Killough Bay Ramsar Habitats supporting birds of Criterions 6


No adverse effect on conservation status of the interest feature or on site integrity from ORESAP activity owing to the orientation of the tidal ellipse.

UK12018 Outer Ards Ramsar Habitats supporting birds of Criterions 6



* Avoidance and mitigation measures to prevent adverse effects have been incorporated at plan level. However, further HRA will be required at project level when project details are known, to enable development of detailed avoidance or mitigationmeasures as necessary to ensure that the project has no significant adverse effect on site integrity. It is a requirement of the ORESAP that project design and associated environmental measures must ensure that adverse effects on integrity of the site are avoided and that if this cannot be achieved for a particular project, then implementation of that project will not be permitted.


Page 146


6.4 Birds

6.4.1 Introduction

Following the screening process a number of SPAs and Ramsar sites were identified where the interest features present were judged to be at risk of LSE due to the construction, operation or decommissioning of some or all of the potential developments described within the ORESAP.

The SPA and Ramsar sites listed in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 are designated for a large variety of birds all of which have the potential to over-fly or forage within areas that may be impacted by the ORESAP – these species are listed in Table 3.4. At the screening stage it was not possible to conclude that there would be no LSE on a large number of sites due to a lack of local information; therefore, these sites were brought through to the AA stage.

This section of the chapter sets out information regarding a number of the species listed in Table 3.4 and assesses the potential risk to them associated with the OREASP using published information regarding distribution, occurrence and behaviour.

6.4.2 Interest Features and Sensitivities

The species listed in Table 3.4 represent many different types of birds including passerines, raptors, waders and wildfowl. These species are all at differential risk due to the OREASP, as the type and annual duration of usage of the Resource Zones will vary considerably. For example many seabirds may regularly commute through the areas and/or feed within them, whilst others may fly through only occasionally (e.g. once or twice per year) en route between land masses (i.e. waders making westerly cold weather movements).

6.4.3 Potential effects of the ORESAP

Table 3.1 lists potential effects on SPA/Ramsar site features due to the OREASP. These potential effects can be summarised, with respect to ornithological resources, as follows;

1. disturbance caused during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of individual projects;

2. potential reduction in prey abundance due to habitat changes within the resource zones;

3. collision with operational wind turbines by birds flying through the resource zones and/or collisions with sub-sea infrastructure by diving birds; and

4. potential for the cable land fall to impact upon the terrestrial habitats used by the ornithological features of the SPA and Ramsar sites listed in Tables 5.2 and 5.3.


Page 147


By focusing on the types of species associated with each of the designated sites screened in it is possible to undertake a limited AA of the OREASP with respect to birds. This is because a number of the species listed on the designations are at low risk of being significantly adversely effected by the OREASP. However for many groups of birds this is not possible.

1. Wading birds (with some exceptions) cannot be discounted as wintering/passage populations often make large-scale cold weather movements (in large numbers) that could bring them through the resource zones several times per year. In addition the linkages between different SPA/Ramsar populations are not well understood and therefore it is possible that losses within the resource zones could affect one or more designated sites;

2. Wildfowl (with some exceptions) cannot be discounted due both to the known migration pathways followed and the large-scale cold weather movements often made in winter. In addition it is generally accepted that many of the species in question (i.e. geese and swans) are at higher risk of collision due to their high wing loadings and associated lack of manoeuvrability;

3. Seabirds, gulls and terns cannot be discounted as their movements are often unpredictable, many have the potential to forage within the resource zones and population linkages are poorly understood.

Although it could be argued that populations from designated areas some distance from Northern Ireland could be omitted due to geographical distribution this is unlikely to prove robust. This is because the connectivity of populations, especially those which are highly mobile, is unknown and cumulative impacts across the UK and ROI could lead to a degradation of the SPA/Ramsar network for these species across the UK and ROI. The approach taken here is consistent with that championed by Natural England with respect to pink-footed goose (i.e. consideration of impacts of wind farms on a local goose population must take in to account the wide movements of this species including the interchange between staging and roosting areas).

6.4.4 Species Assessment

Some species are unlikely to be affected by development in the Resource Zones as they are either land-based species that are likely to have a very low potential for a ‘high bird occupancy per unit area’ (and therefore are at negligible risk of collision with wind turbines) or are unlikely to move through the Resource Zones. The species considered to be at very limited risk of being effected by development, and can therefore be discounted, in the Resource Zones are described in Table 6.4.


Page 148


Table 6.4 Species for which no adverse significant effects are predicted

Species Reasons for determination of no adverse effect on conservation status

i) Bittern • The UK breeding population of this species is small with approximately 46 booming males present in 2005 (Eaton et al. 2006); up to 150 individuals winter in the UK (Baker et al. 2006). Bittern are on the BoCC red list due to large historical declines and are therefore sensitive to any development that may result in the loss of individuals from the population or reduce the quality or extent of suitable habitats. However as bittern is a rare winter visitor to Ireland it is unlikely that this species will over-fly the proposed resource zones. Therefore the bird occupancy per unit area in any offshore wind farm within the Resource Zones will be negligible; therefore the threat of fatality through collision with an operational wind turbine (the only likely impact) can be discounted.

ii) Velvet Scoter • Velvet scoter do not breed in the UK or ROI; approximately 3,000 birds do however winter along the UK coast. These birds are mainly located on the eastern coast of the UK, especially off Scotland. Records of velvet scoter are also relatively common on the west coast of Wales; however no records off Northern Ireland were noted in Stone et al. (1995).

• As this species has not been recorded regularly within the resource zones and is geographically restricted in extent they can be discounted as a significant adverse effect is very unlikely.

iii) Honey Buzzard • In 2000 there was an estimated population of 33 to 69 pairs (Battern 2001) in the UK; there are no records of this species breeding in Ireland (Parkin & Knox 2010).

• Although this species is amber listed on the BoCC for its small breeding population the very low numbers of sightings in Ireland (a rare visitor only) and the likely migration route (across the English Channel) suggest that this species is highly unlikely to cross the resource zones and therefore be at risk of collision.

iv) Marsh harrier • 360 female marsh harrier were present in the UK in 2005 (Eaton et al. 2006). Assuming parity, 720 adults would be present in the UK during the breeding season, with the majority (and their offspring and any non-breeding individuals) leaving the UK during winter (moving in a southerly direction). This species is rare in Ireland with only occasional sightings suggesting that movement across the proposed resource zones is unlikely.

• As this species is uncommon in Ireland and is known to avoid moving through wind farms (Hötker et al. 2006), evidenced by the operation of barrier effects and the low number of casualties reported (1 individual) in Europe, it is reasonable to conclude that the likely level of bird occupancy per unit area (and therefore the risk of collision) within any of the resource zones is highly likely to be negligible.

v) Hen harrier • 749 pairs of hen harrier, including 63 in Northern Ireland, were considered to be breeding in the UK in 2004 (Sim et al. 2007); up to 152 pairs were recorded breeding in the Republic of Ireland (Barton et al. 2006). Many of these individuals and non-breeding birds winter within the UK and Ireland. Further birds also arrive from the continent in winter. Movements of individuals to and from the UK occur on a broad front crossing the North Sea and English Channel with movements to/from Scandinavia, the Low countries, France, Spain and Portugal (Wernham et al. 2002).

• This species is likely to be most at risk from collision with operational wind turbines; however the risk is low as the number of migrating individuals is relatively small (especially across the Irish Sea), the pattern of movement is irregular and this species has been shown to maintain a stand-off distance whilst foraging/commuting close to onshore turbines (Whitfield & Madders 2006); in addition very few hen harrier have been recorded as colliding with operational wind turbines (albeit onshore) despite considerable survey effort.

vi) Osprey • It is estimated that there are 148 breeding pairs of osprey in the UK (Baker et al. 2006); there are no breeding pairs in Ireland with only occasional birds noted during the summer period.

• Although ospreys migrate to/from Africa on a broad front it is unlikely that many birds will cross Ireland given its geographical location. Any birds that do cross the Irish Sea, and are therefore at risk of collision with any wind turbines in the resource zones are likely to be non-breeding individuals. These birds are likely to be solitary and in very small numbers suggesting that the bird occupancy per unit area will be very low and significant impacts on the population are unlikely.


Page 149



vii) Merlin • There are approximately 1,500 pairs breeding within Britain (Rebecca & Bainbridge 1997); across Ireland there are an estimated 100 – 200 pairs (Golden Eagle Trust 2010). The majority of these birds move from the uplands to lower altitudes, often around the coast, in the winter. Some individuals move to the continent over winter but the majority remain within the UK; some movement across the Irish sea has been recorded (Wernham et al. 2002). The winter population is bolstered by migrants from Iceland; these birds mainly migrate individually.

• Any migrants moving across the sea (and therefore at risk of collision) are usually solitary and therefore the risk of collision is very low (i.e. bird occupancy per unit area is low). Merlin is also not thought to be at particular risk of collision with wind turbines (albeit from evidence from onshore wind farms, e.g. Hötker et al. 2006, Percival 2001). The risk to merlin is therefore considered to be very low and significant impacts are unlikely.

viii) Peregrine • There are approximately 1,400 pairs of peregrine in the UK; with 93 of these in Northern Ireland (Banks et al. 2004); there are approximately 350 pairs in the Republic of Ireland (Moore et al. 1997). These birds are largely resident although there are often movements away from upland areas over-winter. Many peregrines are resident in coastal areas or move towards the coast in winter. A small number of individuals are thought to migrate from Scandinavia to spend the winter in the UK and birds have been recorded moving between the British mainland and Ireland (Wernham et al. 2002).

• The risk of collision to peregrine is likely to be small as the level of activity within operational offshore wind farms will be low. Although two deaths of peregrine have been reported from onshore wind farms in Europe (Hötker et al. 2006) they are generally thought to be highly manoeuvrable and at relatively low risk of collision.

• Most individuals are unlikely to come into contact with any wind turbines proposed in the resource zones and the risk of an impact on this species due to offshore wind farm development is likely to be very low and not significant.

ix) Capercaillie • Approximately 2000 individuals were present within the UK in 2003/04 (Eaton et al. 2007) however they are entirely confined to Scotland. As this species is sedentary and is considered to have gone extinct in Ireland by the 17th century there are no potential effect pathways from the development of the resource zones for this species.

x) Quail • The numbers of breeding quail in the UK and ROI fluctuate between years. Baker et al. (2006) estimated that a maximum of 315 males were present in the UK between 1998 and 2002; there was no known breeding in Northern Ireland during this period. In the Republic of Ireland quail is a scarce breeding species. Quail migrate singly or in small flocks (Snow & Perrins 1998) often at low altitudes; although this may be greater during darkness (Kane 1993 from Wernham et al. 2002).

• Due to the relatively wide, yet sporadic, distribution of this species within Britain and Ireland it is likely that they migrate on a broad front. Given this broad front migration and the small numbers involved it is likely that the bird occupancy per unit area in any of the resource zones will be very low, as will be the risk of collision.

xi) Corncrake • 1,067 males were recorded in the UK in 2004 (O’Brien et al. 2006), the majority being confined to North-west Scotland and Orkney. In Ireland in 1998 there were approximately 150 singing males (McDevitt & Casey 1999). If parity is assumed the breeding population in Britain and Ireland is therefore approximately 2,400 individuals. This species is generally solitary and migrates mainly singly or in pairs (Snow & Perrins 1998). There is some evidence that this species flies at low altitudes when on migration, although this is recorded at land fall (at trammel nets) and therefore is not necessarily indicative of flight behaviour across open water. As birds migrate singly and are sighted across large areas (Gibbons et al. 1993) it is likely that migration pathways of individuals cover a broad front. This will result in the bird occupancy per unit area being low and therefore modelled collision risk being very low. Therefore no significant adverse effects associated with the development of the ORESAP resource zones are predicted.

xii) Avocet • This wader re-colonised Britain in the 20th century and is now a resident breeding species in certain areas in England. The breeding population is estimated to be around 877 pairs (Evans 2005); wintering numbers are around 3,400 (Baker et al. 2006). This species is amber listed on the BoCC as the breeding population is restricted geographically.

• As this species is a rare visitor to Ireland it is unlikely that developments within the ORESAP resource zones could impact upon this species and therefore no significant impact is predicted.


Page 150



xiii) Stone Curlew • 307 pairs of stone curlew bred in the UK in 2005 (Eaton et al. 2006) however they are entirely confined to England. There have been rare sightings of this species in Ireland but these amount to 23 records since 1829 (Parkin & Knox 2010).

• The rarity of this species in Ireland, both as a breeding species or on passage, suggests strongly that development within the resource zones will have no effect on this species.

xiv) Dotterel • There are approximately 630 breeding pairs of dotterel in the UK (Whitfield 2002) with only a single pair recorded in Ireland (Parkin & Knox 2010). This species does not winter in the UK and the migration pathways are thought to be relatively regular with strong fidelity to staging areas (Parkin & Knox 2010).

• The rarity of this species in Ireland, both as a breeding species or on passage, suggests strongly that development within the resource zones will have no effect on this species.

xv) Long-eared owl • Long-eared owls are resident and sedentary in the UK; this population is bolstered in winter by migrants from Fennoscandia. In the UK and Ireland there are approximately 2,400 to 7,300 pairs of long-eared owl.

• Movements of this species away from breeding grounds are usually undertaken by fledglings and winter migrants. The movements of fledglings away from breeding territories are usually relatively short (median distance 42km) suggesting that the majority of these individuals will not be at risk (i.e. the movements are usually not great enough to encourage movements between Britain and Ireland). Those birds arriving from Fennoscandia will at most cross the resource zones twice per year – however the majority of birds are likely to remain within the UK rather than moving to Ireland. Therefore the bird occupancy per unit area is likely to be very low for this species within the resource zones and therefore no significant effect is predicted.

xvi) Short-eared owl • The population of short-eared owl in the UK and Ireland fluctuates markedly between years. In winter, many birds move to the continent with others arriving from Scandinavia. Individuals wintering in Britain and Ireland mostly frequent coastal areas and downland (Wernham et al. 2002). Short-eared owl tend to migrate singly.

• Migrating individuals will be at risk of collision from offshore wind turbines twice per year but given the broad front of movement and relatively small numbers of movements the collision risk is likely to low (i.e. bird occupancy per unit area is low). Therefore a significant impact of development of wind turbines within the ORESAP resource zones is unlikely.

xvii) Nightjar • The UK population is estimated to be between 3,700 and 5,500 calling males; there are no suspected breeding pairs in Northern Ireland (Conway et al. 2007). In the Republic of Ireland the breeding population is small (around 30 pairs) and geographically restricted (RSPB 2009). Assuming parity the population is therefore likely to be around 10,000. The majority of ringing recoveries (Wernham et al 2002) suggest that most migratory movement is across the English Channel with occasional movements eastwards to the low countries; there are no recorded movements through the proposed development areas. It is therefore likely that the risk of collision with an operational wind turbine off the coast of Northern Ireland is negligible.

xviii) Woodlark The UK population of woodlark is estimated at approximately 1,500 pairs (Wotton & Gillings 2000); breeding was last recorded in Ireland in 1954 although regular breeding ceased here in the 19th century (Wernham et al. 2002). The majority of these birds are thought to winter in southern England with small numbers in East Anglia; others are known to move to the Low Countries and France (Wernham et al. 2002). This species is less gregarious than other larks and only forms small flocks (Snow & Perrins 1993). There are only occasional sightings of this species in Ireland suggesting that they are at very limited risk of collision with wind turbines proposed in the resource zones and can therefore be discounted.

xix) Skylark • The skylark is a common and widespread bird in Britain and Ireland with a total population in excess of 2 million breeding pairs. Movements of large numbers of skylark occur between the UK mainland and Ireland outside of the breeding season. These birds are therefore at risk of collision with wind turbines. However given the large numbers of birds involved, the low rates of collision recorded for this species (Hotker et al. 2006) and the generally held assumption that most passerines are not at significant risk due to the presence of wind farms (e.g. Devereux et al. 2008, Farfan et al 2009, De Lucas et al. 2005) no significant effect is considered likely.


Page 151



xx) Scottish crossbill • Baker et al. (2006) estimated that the population of this species numbered between 300 and 1,250 breeding pairs in 1988; all of these birds being located in Scotland. Given the distribution and the complete lack of records from Ireland of this species it can be assumed that there is highly unlikely to negative effects on this species due to the development of the ORESAP resource zones.

xxi) Passerines and gamebirds listed on designations in the Republic of Ireland only

xxii) Red grouse, black cap, common redstart, garden warbler, grasshopper warbler, grey wagtail, linnet, pied flycatcher, reed warbler, ring ouzel, sand martin, sedge warbler, stonechat, tree sparrow, twite, whitethroat, winchat, wood warbler

These species either; • occur in large numbers in the Republic of Ireland and Britain (i.e. the threat is highly unlikely to threaten

local or national populations); • show no pattern of dispersal north through Ireland to the UK mainland (i.e. SPA birds in ROI will not pass

over the resource zones) or are sedentary; • are largely sedentary (i.e. the majority of the population will not pass over the resource zones); and • will pass through a resource zone at most twice per year.

When this information is allied with the published evidence of a lack of detectable effects on passerines of onshore wind farms (e.g. Devereux et al. 2008, Farfan et al 2009, De Lucas et al. 2005) it is considered unlikely that there will be any detectable effects on local, regional or national populations of these species.

Table 6.5 lists the remaining species and highlights the potential risks the ORESAP poses to them. These species are all known to move through the Irish Sea regularly and therefore have the potential to be present within the proposed resource zones (demonstrated in JNCC Seabirds at Sea data34).

Table 6.5 Migratory and seabird species potentially affected by ORESAP activities

Country Species Common name Potential Risk

ROI only Actitis hypoleucos Common sandpiper Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Alca torda Razorbill Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Anas acuta Northern pintail Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Anas clypeata Northern shoveler Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Anas crecca Eurasian teal Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

34 Stone, C.J. et al, (1995), An atlas of seabird distribution in north-west European waters, 326, A4 softback, ISBN 1 873701 94 2


Page 152



UK Anas penelope Eurasian wigeon Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Anas querquedula Garganey Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Anas strepera Gadwall Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Anser albifrons flavirostris Greenland white-fronted goose

Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration.

UK Anser anser Greylag goose Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration

UK Anser brachyrhynchus Pink-footed goose Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration

ROI only Ardea cinerea Grey heron Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Arenaria interpres Ruddy turnstone Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Aythya ferina Common pochard Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Aythya fuligula Tufted duck Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Aythya marila Greater scaup Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Branta bernicla hrota Light-bellied brent goose Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration.

UK Branta leucopsis Barnacle goose Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration.

UK Bucephala clangula Common goldeneye Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Calidris alba Sanderling Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Calidris alpina alpina Dunlin Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Calidris alpina schinzii Dunlin Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Calidris canutus Red knot Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

ROI only Calidris ferruginea Curlew sandpiper Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Calidris maritima Purple sandpiper Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

ROI only Calidris minuta Little stint Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.


Page 153



ROI only Calonectris diomedea Cory’s shearwater Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Catharacta skua Great skua Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas (due to displacement of other seabirds) due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Cepphus grylle Black guillemot Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Charadrius hiaticula Ringed plover Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Clangula hyemalis Long-tailed duck Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Cygnus columbianus bewickii Tundra swan Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration.

UK Cygnus cygnus Whooper swan Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration.

UK Cygnus olor Mute swan Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Egretta garzetta Little egret Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Fratercula arctica Atlantic puffin Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Fulica atra Common coot Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration.

UK Fulmarus glacialis Northern fulmar Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Gallinago gallinago Common snipe Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Gavia arctica Black-throated diver Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.


Page 154



ROI only Gavia immer Great northern diver Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Gavia stellata Red-throated diver Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Haematopus ostralegus Eurasian oystercatcher Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Hydrobates pelagicus European storm-petrel Risk of collision with above water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Larus argentatus Herring gull Risk of collision with above water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Larus canus Mew gull Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration.

UK Larus fuscus Lesser black-backed gull Risk of collision with above water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Larus marinus Great black-backed gull Risk of collision with above water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Larus melanocephalus Mediterranean gull Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration and over-winter movements.

ROI only Larus minutus Little Gull Risk of collision with above water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging/mouling areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Larus ridibundus Black-headed gull Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration and over-winter movements.

UK Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed godwit Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Limosa limosa islandica Black-tailed godwit Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Limosa limosa limosa Black-tailed godwit Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

ROI only Lymnocryptes minimus Jack snipe Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.


Page 155



UK Melanitta nigra Black (common) scoter Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Mergus merganser Goosander Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration.

UK Mergus serrator Red-breasted merganser Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Morus bassanus Northern gannet Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Numenius arquata Eurasian curlew Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Oceanodroma leucorhoa Leach’s storm-petrel Risk of collision with above water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Phalacrocorax aristotelis European shag Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Phalacrocorax carbo Great cormorant Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked phalarope Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Philomachus pugnax Ruff Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Pluvialis apricaria European golden plover Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Pluvialis squatarola Grey plover Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Podiceps auritus Slavonian grebe Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration.

UK Podiceps cristatus Great crested grebe Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

ROI only Podiceps nigricollis Black-necked grebe Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration.


Page 156



UK Puffinus puffinus Manx shearwater Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Rissa tridactyla Black-legged kittiwake Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Somateria mollissima Common eider Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Stercorarius parasiticus Arctic skua Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas (due to displacement of other seabirds) due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Sterna albifrons Little tern Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Sterna dougallii Roseate tern Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Sterna hirundo Common tern Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Sterna paradisaea Arctic tern Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich tern Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Tachybaptus ruficollis Little grebe Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Tadorna tadorna Common shelduck Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

ROI only Tringa erythropus Spotted redshank Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.


Page 157



UK Tringa glareola Wood sandpiper Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Tringa nebularia Common greenshank Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

ROI only Tringa ochropus Green sandpiper Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Tringa totanus Common redshank Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

UK Uria aalge Common guillemot Risk of collision with above and/or below water infrastructure. Displacement from foraging areas due to disturbance. Reduction in prey base through habitat loss/change.

UK Vanellus vanellus Northern lapwing Risk of collision with wind turbines during migration or cold weather movements.

6.4.5 Effects on Sites

By concluding that the species listed in Table 6.4 above are unlikely to suffer significant adverse impacts due to the ORESAP it is possible to re-examine the list of SPA and Ramsar sites screened in to the AA (Tables 5.2 and 5.3). In instances where one or more of these species occur as interest features of a designation (and others that have not been discounted do not occur) it can be concluded that the identified site will not suffer a adverse effects on site integrity due to implementation of the ORESAP, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. The sites where this is the case are listed in Table 6.6.

6.4.6 Conclusions

The sites listed in Table 6.6 are unlikely to be at significant risk of adverse effects on integrity due to the implementation of the ORESAP. Based on the information currently available it can therefore be concluded that these sites will not be impacted upon by the ORESAP and therefore can be removed from the ‘screened in’ status in Tables 5.2 and 5.3.


Page 158


The remaining sites from Tables 5.2 and 5.3 (listed in Table 7.1) do, however, list species within their designations (listed in Table 6.5) where further consideration will be required at the project level. Whether the development under the ORESAP could potentially lead to adverse effects upon the integrity of the sites, through effects on bird species listed in Table 6.5, would be dependent on the location of the devices placed (for wind farms) as well as the type of devices placed (for tidal farms). Once the proposed development details are known at project level, further investigation and research will need to be conducted to determine bird species present and behaviour. These project level assessments are highly likely to have to rely on systematically collected survey data that provides information on both the level of bird activity and types of behaviour exhibited at the specific location where development is proposed. In the light of this information, modifications to the design of the project in terms of the nature, number and locations of devices or mitigation measures to be incorporated may need to be made to ensure that it is in keeping with the ORESAP, otherwise it will not be allowed to proceed. Therefore, at plan level, it can be stated that there will be no adverse effects upon the integrity of bird species and associated sites as this will be a requirement of the ORESAP.

Table 6.6 Sites discounted during the AA process

SPA site code

Site Name Screening outcome

UK9001751 Aird and Borve, Benbecula Site discounted as is designated for corncrake

UK9020301 Antrim Hills Site discounted as is designated for hen harrier and merlin

UK9003341 Arran Moors Site discounted as is designated for hen harrier

UK9013111 Berwyn Site discounted as is designated for hen harrier, peregrine and merlin

UK9003033 Coll (corncrake) Site discounted as it is designated for corncrake

UK9009261 Deben Estuary Site discounted as it is designated for avocet.

UK9010101 Dorset Heathlands Site discounted as it is designated for Dartford warbler, woodlark, nightjar, hen harrier and merlin

UK9002301 Drumochter Hills Site discounted as it is designated for dotterel and merlin.

UK9014111 Elenydd – Mallaen Site discounted as it is designated for merlin and red kite.

UK9001761 Eoligarry, Barra Site discounted as it is designated for corncrake.

UK9004381 Forest of Clunie Site discounted as it is designated for hen harrier, merlin, osprey and short-eared owl.

UK9003351 Glen App and Galloway Moors Site discounted as is designated for hen harrier

UK9002771 Glen Tanar Site discounted as is designated for capercaillie, osprey and Scottish crossbill

UK9001083 Kilpheder to Smerclate, South Uist Site discounted as it is designated for corncrake.

UK9002951 Ladder Hills Site discounted as is designated for hen harrier

UK9003271 Langholm – Newcastleton Hills Site discounted as is designated for hen harrier


Page 159


SPA site code

Site Name Screening outcome

UK9013131 Migneint – Arenig – Dduallt Site discounted as is designated for hen harrier and merlin

UK9001741 Ness & Barvas, Lewis Site discounted as it is designated for corncrake.

UK9011031 New Forest Site discounted as it is designated for Dartford warbler, honey buzzard, nightjar, woodlark and hen harrier.

UK9020295 Renfrewshire Heights Site discounted as is designated for hen harrier

UK9011102 Salisbury Plain Site discounted as is designated for hen harrier and stone curlew

UK9020302 Slieve Beagh – Mullaghfad – Lisnaskea Site discounted as is designated for hen harrier

UK9012121 Stodmarsh Site discounted as is designated for hen harrier and bittern (this is also Ramsar site UK11066)

UK9020300 Strath Carnaig and Strath Fleet Moors Site discounted as is designated for hen harrier

UK9003034 Tiree (corncrake) Site discounted as it is designated for corncrake.

IE0004040 Wicklow Mountains Site discounted as it is designated for merlin, peregrine, ring ouzel and red grouse


Page 160



Page 161


7. Summary of Appropriate Assessment outcome

7.1 Conclusions regarding habitats The overall conclusion of the HRA is that the ORESAP will have no adverse effect on integrity of any sites through effects on habitat interest features or habitats that support birds, subject to:

• inclusion in the ORESAP and enforcement of all mitigation measures in Table 2.5;

• inclusion in the ORESAP and enforcement of case specific mitigation to protect the biological communities of sea caves at Rathlin Island SAC and Skerries and Causeway dSAC;

• inclusion in the ORESAP and enforcement of case specific mitigation to protect intertidal mudflats and sandflats which are supporting habitat for bird interest features of Carlingford Lough SPAs and Ramsar site and Outer Ards SPA and Ramsar site.

In the case of tidal power development in Resource Zone Ti2, Rathlin Island and Torr Head, the following mitigation measure will be added to the ORESAP.

• To be in accordance with this action plan and for permission to be granted, detailed proposals, including applications for marine consents in principle, for the development of tidal power generation in Resource Zone Ti2, Rathlin Island and Torr Head, must demonstrate that the location, type and energy ratings of tidal power devices proposed to be installed will not lead to changes in tidal water levels that would adversely affect invertebrate and algal communities on the side walls of sea caves that are interest features of the Rathlin Island SAC or the Skerries and Causeway dSAC, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

In the case of wind power development in Resource Zone Wi2, East Coast, the following mitigation measure will be added to the ORESAP.

• To be in accordance with this action plan and for permission to be granted, detailed proposals, including applications for marine consents in principle, for the development of wind power generation in Resource Zone Wi2, East Coast, must demonstrate that the turbines are located so as not to cause changes in tidal currents that will cause adverse effects on intertidal mud and sand flats that are supporting habitat for the bird interest features of Carlingford Lough SPAs and Ramsar site or Outer Ards SPA and Ramsar site.

With inclusion of these mitigation measures, delivery of the ORESAP will result in no adverse effect, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, on the integrity of any European or Ramsar site.


Page 162


7.2 Conclusions regarding species The overall conclusion of the HRA is that, subject to inclusion in the ORESAP and enforcement of all mitigation measures in Table 2.5, the ORESAP will have no adverse effect on integrity of any sites through effects on species interest features other than birds.

In the case of bird species listed in Table 6.5 that are interest features of SPAs or Ramsar sites, further work will be required at project level to establish the behaviour of birds at the proposed development location, in order that the wind power development can be designed in such a way as to ensure that there is no adverse effect on integrity of any of the SPAs or Ramsar sites listed in Table 7.1. Thus further HRA work will be required at project level and if this shows that such a design cannot be achieved at any particular location within a wind resource zone, then the proposed development will not be permitted at that location. To ensure that the ORESAP can be delivered without adverse effects on integrity, the following mitigation measure will be included in the ORESAP.

• To be in accordance with this action plan and for permission to be granted, detailed proposals, including applications for marine consents in principle, for the development of wind power generation in Resource Zone Wi1, North Coast, or Wi2, East Coast, must demonstrate that the adequate site-specific studies have been undertaken (including bird survey work where appropriate), so that it can be shown that the design and location of the development project is such that there will be no effects on birds sufficient to cause adverse effects on integrity of the bird interest features of any European or Ramsar site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

With inclusion of this mitigation measure, delivery of the ORESAP will result in no adverse effects on the integrity of any European or Ramsar site.

7.3 Overall conclusion The overall conclusion of the HRA is that the ORESAP will have no adverse effect on integrity of any European or Ramsar site, subject to inclusion and implementation of the mitigation measures specified above. Any proposed developments that would have an adverse effect on integrity would, by definition, not be compliant with the ORESAP. Thus no developments will be put forward that would require a justification based on imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI).


Page 163


Table 7.1 SPA and Ramsar sites where further investigation of potential effects on birds is required at project level to ensure that development complies with the ORESAP

Site Name SPA? SPA Site Code Ramsar? Ramsar Site Code Site Name SPA? SPA Site Code Ramsar? Ramsar Site

Code

Abberton Reservoir Yes UK9009141 Yes UK11001 Lochs of Spiggie and Brow Yes UK9002651 No

Ailsa Craig Yes UK9003091 No Loop Head Yes IE0004119 No

Akeragh, Banna and Barrow Harbour

Yes IE0004079 No Lough Arrow Yes IE0004050 No

Alde-Ore Estuary Yes UK9009112 Yes UK11002 Lough Barra Bog Yes IE0004106 Yes 3IE008

Alderney West Coast and the Burhou Islands

No Yes UK22002 Lough Carra Yes IE0004051 No

All Saints Bog Yes IE0004103 No Lough Conn Yes IE0004053 No

Arun Valley Yes UK9020281 Yes UK11004 Lough Corrib Yes IE0004042 Yes 3IE039

Assynt Lochs Yes UK9001591 No Lough Cullin (Mayo) Yes IE0004054 No

Auskerry Yes UK9002381 No Lough Cutra Yes IE0004056 No

Avon Valley Yes UK9011091 Yes UK11005 Lough Derg (Donegal) Yes IE0004057 No

Bae Caerfyrddin / Carmarthen Bay

Yes UK9014091 No Lough Derg (Shannon) Yes IE0004058 No

Baldoyle Bay Yes IE0004016 Yes 3IE011 Lough Derravaragh Yes IE0004043 Yes 3IE039

Ballyallia Lake Wildfowl Sanctuary/Ballyallia Lough

Yes IE0004041 Yes 3IE037 Lough Ennell Yes IE0004044 Yes 3IE040


Page 164



Code

Ballycotton Bay No Yes 3IE022 Lough Fern Yes IE0004060 No

Ballykenny-Fisherstown Bog Yes IE0004101 No Lough Foyle Yes IE0004087 No

Ballymacoda Bay Yes IE0004023 Yes 3IE023 Lough Foyle Yes UK9020031 Yes UK12014

Ballysadare Bay Yes IE0004129 No Lough Gara Yes IE0004048 Yes 3IE044

Ballyteigue Burrow Yes IE0004020 No Lough Gill Yes IE0004011 No

Balycotton Bay Yes IE0004022 No Lough Glen No Yes 3IE041

Bannow Bay Yes IE0004033 Yes 3IE032 Lough Iron Yes IE0004046 Yes 3IE042

Belfast Lough Yes UK9020101 Yes UK12002 Lough Kinale and Derragh Lough

Yes IE0004061 No

Belfast Lough Open Water Yes UK9020290 No Lough Mask Yes IE0004062 No

Benacre to Easton Bavents Yes UK9009291 No Lough Neagh and Lough Beg Yes UK9020091 Yes UK12016

Benfleet and Southend Marshes

Yes UK9009171 Yes UK11006 Lough Nillan Bog (Carrickatlieve)

Yes IE0004110 No

Black Cart Yes UK9003221 No Lough Oughter Yes IE0004049 Yes 3IE045

Blacksod Bay/Broadhaven Yes IE0004037 Yes 3IE036 Lough Owel Yes IE0004047 Yes 3IE043

Blackwater Callows Yes IE0004094 No Lough Ree Yes IE0004064 No

Blackwater Estuary Yes IE0004028 Yes 3IE028 Lough Scannive Yes IE0004088 No


Page 165



Code

Blackwater Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 4)

Yes UK9009245 Yes UK11007 Lough Sheelin Yes IE0004065 No

Blasket Islands Yes IE0004008 No Lough Swilly Yes IE0004075 No

Bowland Fells Yes UK9005151 No Lower Derwent Valley Yes UK9006092 Yes UK11037

Boyne Estuary Yes IE0004080 No Magharee Islands Yes IE0004125 No

Breydon Water Yes UK9009181 Yes UK11008 Martin Mere Yes UK9005111 Yes UK11039

Bridgend Flats, Islay Yes UK9003052 Yes UK13001 Marwick Head Yes UK9002121 No

Broad Lough Yes IE0004128 No Mattle Island Yes IE0004071 No

Broadland Yes UK9009253 Yes UK11010 Medway Estuary and Marshes

Yes UK9012031 Yes UK11040

Broadmeadow/Swords Estuary

Yes IE0004025 Yes 3IE025 Meenachullion Bog No Yes 3IE021

Buchan Ness to Collieston Coast

Yes UK9002491 No Mersey Estuary Yes UK9005131 Yes UK11041

Burry Inlet Yes UK9015011 Yes UK14001 Mersey Narrows & N. Wirral Foreshore

pSPA UK9020287 Proposed Ramsar

UK11040

Cairngorms Yes UK9002241 No Middle Shannon Callows Yes IE0004096 No

Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands

Yes UK9001151 Yes UK13003 Mingulay and Berneray Yes UK9001121 No


Page 166



Code

Caithness Lochs Yes UK9001171 Yes UK13004 Minsmere-Walberswick Yes UK9009101 Yes UK11044

Calf of Eday Yes UK9002431 No Mointeach Scadabhaigh Yes UK9001501 No

Cameron Reservoir Yes UK9004131 Yes UK13005 Monach Isles Yes UK9001071 No

Canna and Sanday Yes UK9001431 No Mongan Bog Yes IE0004017 Yes 3IE013

Cape Wrath Yes UK9001231 No Montrose Basin Yes UK9004031 Yes UK13046

Carlingford Lough Yes IE0004078 No Moray and Nairn Coast Yes UK9001625 Yes UK13048

Carlingford Lough Yes UK9020161 Yes UK12004 Morecambe Bay Yes UK9005081 Yes UK11045

Carrowmore Lake Yes IE0004052 No Mousa Yes UK9002361 No

Carrowmore Point tonish Point and Islands

Yes IE0001021 No Muir of Dinnet Yes UK9002791 Yes UK11039

Castle Loch, Lochmaben Yes UK9003191 Yes UK13006 Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands

Yes UK9003261 No

Castlemaine Harbour Yes IE0004029 Yes 3IE016 Mutton Island (Clare) Yes IE0004070 No

Chesil Beach and The Fleet Yes UK9010091 Yes UK11012 Nene Washes Yes UK9008031 Yes UK11046

Chew Valley Lake Yes UK9010041 No North Bull Island Yes IE0004006 Yes 3IE009

Chichester and Langstone Harbours

Yes UK9011011 Yes UK11013 North Caithness Cliffs Yes UK9001181 No


Page 167



Code

Cliffs of Moher Yes IE0004005 No North Colonsay and Wester Cliffs

Yes UK9003171 No

Coll Yes UK9003031 Yes UK13008 North Norfolk Coast Yes UK9009031 Yes UK11048

Colne Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 2)

Yes UK9009243 Yes UK11015 North Pennine Moors Yes UK9006272 No

Coole-Garryland Yes IE0004107 No North Rona and Sula Sgeir Yes UK9001011 No

Copeland Islands Yes UK9020291 No North Sutherland Coastal Islands

Yes UK9001211 No

Copinsay Yes UK9002151 No North Uist Machair and Islands


Cors Caron No Yes UK14003 North York Moors Yes UK9006161 No

Coquet Island Yes UK9006031 No Northumbria Coast Yes UK9006131 Yes UK11049

Cork Harbour Yes IE0004030 Yes 3IE029 Noss Yes UK9002081 No

Cromarty Firth Yes UK9001623 Yes UK13009 Old Head of Kinsale Yes IE0004021 No

Cross Lough (Mullet) Yes IE0004055 No Orkney Mainland Moors Yes UK9002311 No

Crouch and Roach Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 3)

Yes UK9009244 Yes UK11058 Oronsay and South Colonsay Yes UK9020299 No

Cummeen Strand Yes IE0004035 Yes 3IE034 Otterswick and Graveland Yes UK9002941 No


Page 168



Code

Dengie (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 1)

Yes UK9009242 Yes UK11018 Ouse Washes Yes UK9008041 Yes UK11051

Derryleckagh No Proposed UK12006 Outer Ards Yes UK9020271 Yes UK12018

Din Moss – Hoselaw Loch Yes UK9004291 Yes UK13010 Outer Thames Estuary Yes UK9020309 No

Dornoch Firth and Loch Fleet Yes UK9001622 Yes UK13011 Owenboy No Yes 3IE006

Drumcliff Bay Yes IE0004013 No Owenduff/Nephin Complex Yes IE0004098 Yes 3IE005

Duddon Estuary Yes UK9005031 Yes UK11022 Pagham Harbour Yes UK9012041 Yes UK11052

Dundalk Bay Yes IE0004026 Yes 3IE026 Papa Stour Yes UK9002051 No

Dundrum Bay No Proposed UK12007 Papa Westray (North Hill and Holm)

Yes UK9002111 No

Dunfanaghy/Rinclevan Yes IE0004059 No Peak District Moors (South Pennine Moors Phase 1)

Yes UK9007021 No

Dungarvan Bay Yes IE0004032 Yes 3IE031 Pentland Firth Islands Yes UK9001131 No

Dungeness to Pett Level Yes UK9012091 Yes UK11023 Pettigo Plateau Nature Reserve

Yes IE0004099 No

Duvillaun Islands Yes IE0004111 No Pettigoe Plateau Yes UK9020051 Yes 3IE003

Dyfi Estuary / Aber Dyfi Yes UK9020284 No Poole Harbour Yes UK9010111 Yes UK11054

Easky Bog No Yes 3IE017 Portsmouth Harbour Yes UK9011051 Yes UK11055


Page 169



Code

East Caithness Cliffs Yes UK9001182 No Poulaphouca Reservoir Yes IE0004063 No

East Sanday Coast Yes UK9002331 Yes UK13013 Priest Island (Summer Isles) Yes UK9001261 No

Eilean na Muice Duibhe (Duich Moss), Islay

Yes UK9003054 Yes UK13014 Puffin Island Yes IE0004003 No

Exe Estuary Yes UK9010081 Yes UK11025 Rahasane Turlough Yes IE0004089 No

Fair Isle Yes UK9002091 No Ramna Stacks and Gruney Yes UK9002021 No

Fala Flow Yes UK9004241 Yes UK13015 Rannoch Lochs Yes UK9004021 No

Farne Islands Yes UK9006021 No Rathlin Island Yes UK9020011 No

Fetlar Yes UK9002031 No Rathlin O'Birne Island Yes IE0004120 No

Firth of Forth Yes UK9004411 Yes UK13017 Ribble and Alt Estuaries Yes UK9005103 Yes UK11057

Firth of Tay & Eden Estuary Yes UK9004121 Yes UK13018 Rinns of Islay Yes UK9003057 Yes UK13052

Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs

Yes UK9006101 No River Little Brosna Callows Yes IE0004086 No

Flannan Isles Yes UK9001021 No River Shannon and River Fergus Estuaries

Yes IE0004077 No

Forth Islands Yes UK9004171 No River Spey – Insh Marshes Yes UK9002231 Yes UK13053

Foula Yes UK9002061 No River Suck Callows Yes IE0004097 No


Page 170



Code

Foulness (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 5)

Yes UK9009246 Yes UK11026 Roaninish Yes IE0004121 No

Fowlsheugh Yes UK9002271 No Rockabill Yes IE0004014 No

Garriskil Bog Yes IE0004102 No Rogerstown Estuary Yes IE0004015 Yes 3IE010

Gibraltar Point Yes UK9008022 Yes UK11027 Ronas Hill – North Roe and Tingon

Yes UK9002041 No

Gladhouse Reservoir Yes UK9004231 Yes UK13021 Rousay Yes UK9002371 No

Glannau Aberdaron and Ynys Enlli / Aberdaron Coast and Bardsey Island

Yes UK9013121 No Rum Yes UK9001341 No

Glas Eileanan Yes UK9003211 No Rutland Water Yes UK9008051 Yes UK11062

Glen Lough Yes IE0004045 No Saltee Islands Yes IE0004002 No

Glenveagh National Park Yes IE0004039 No Sandymount Strand/Tolka Estuary

Yes IE0004024 Yes 3IE024

Grassholm Yes UK9014041 No Severn Estuary / Môr Hafren Yes UK9015022 Yes UK11081

Greenlaw Moor Yes UK9004281 Yes UK13022 Sheep Island Yes UK9020021 No

Greers Isle Yes IE0004082 No Sheskinmore Lough Yes IE0004090 No

Gruinart Flats, Islay Yes UK9003051 Yes UK13023 Shiant Isles Yes UK9001041 No


Page 171



Code

Hamford Water Yes UK9009131 Yes UK11028 Skelligs Yes IE0004007 No

Handa Yes UK9001241 No Skerries Islands Yes IE0004122 No

Helvick Head Coast Yes IE0004112 No Skokholm and Skomer Yes UK9014051 No

Hermaness, Saxa Vord and Valla Field

Yes UK9002011 No Sléibhtean agus Cladach Thiriodh (Tiree Wetlands and Coast)


High Island (Galway) Yes IE0004067 No Slyne Head Islands Yes IE0004123 No

Holburn Lake and Moss Yes UK9006041 Yes UK11030 Solent and Southampton Water


Horn Head Yes IE0004012 No Somerset Levels and Moors Yes UK9010031 Yes UK11064

Hornsea Mere Yes UK9006171 No South Pennine Moors Phase 2

Yes UK9007022 No

Howth Head Coast Yes IE0004113 No South Tayside Goose Roosts Yes UK9004401 Yes UK13057

Hoy Yes UK9002141 No South Uist Machair and Lochs Yes UK9001082 Yes UK13058

Humber Estuary Yes UK9006111 Yes UK11031 South West London Waterbodies


Illanmaster Yes IE0004074 No Sovereign Islands Yes IE0004124 No

Illaunonearaun Yes IE0004114 No St Abb's Head to Fast Castle Yes UK9004271 No


Page 172



Code

Inch Lough and Levels Yes IE0004130 No St Kilda Yes UK9001031 No

Inish and Sgarbheen Yes IE0004010 No Stabannan-Braganstown Yes IE0004091 No

Inishbofin, Inishdooey and Inishbeg

Yes IE0004083 No Stags of Broad Haven Yes IE0004072 No

Inishduff Yes IE0004115 No Stour and Orwell Estuaries Yes UK9009121 Yes UK11067

Inishglora and Inishkeeragh Yes IE0004084 No Strangford Lough Yes UK9020111 Yes UK12021

Inishkea Islands Yes IE0004004 No Sule Skerry and Sule Stack Yes UK9002181 No

Inishkeel Yes IE0004116 No Sumburgh Head Yes UK9002511 No

Inishmurray Yes IE0004068 No Switha Yes UK9002891 No

Inishtrahull Yes IE0004100 No Tacumshin Lake Yes IE0004092 No

Inner Clyde Estuary Yes UK9003061 Yes UK13024 Teal Lough No Proposed UK12022

Inner Galway Bay Yes IE0004031 Yes 3IE030 Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast


Inner Moray Firth Yes UK9001624 Yes UK13025 Termoncarragh Lake and Annagh Machair

Yes IE0004093 No

Inverpolly, Loch Urigill and nearby lochs

Yes UK9001511 No Thames Estuary and Marshes Yes UK9012021 Yes UK11069


Page 173



Code

Ireland's Eye Yes IE0004117 No Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay


Isles of Scilly Yes UK9020288 Yes UK11033 The Bull and The Cow Rocks Yes IE0004066 No

Keeragh Islands Yes IE0004118 No The Dee Estuary / Aber Afon Dyfrdwy


Kilcolman Bog Yes IE0004095 No The Gearagh Yes IE0004109 Yes 3IE018

Kilcoole Marshes Yes IE0004085 No The Raven Yes IE0004019 Yes 3IE002

Killala Bay / Moy Estuary Yes IE0004036 Yes 3IE035 The Swale Yes UK9012011 Yes UK11071

Killarney National Park Yes IE0004038 No The Wash Yes UK9008021 Yes UK11072

Killough Bay Yes UK9020221 Yes UK12012 Tips of Corsemaul and Tom Mór

Yes UK9002811 No

Knapdale Lochs Yes UK9003301 No Tormore Island Yes IE0004126 No

Lady's Island Lake Yes IE0004009 No Tory Island Yes IE0004073 No

Laggan, Islay Yes UK9003053 No Traeth Lafan/Lavan Sands, Conway Bay

Yes UK9013031 No

Lairg and Strathbrora Lochs Yes UK9001611 No Tralee Bay Yes IE0004018 Yes 3IE015

Lambay Island Yes IE0004069 No Tramore Back Strand Yes IE0004027 Yes 3IE027

Lee Valley Yes UK9012111 Yes UK11034 Trawbreaga Bay Yes IE0004034 Yes 3IE033


Page 174



Code

Lewis Peatlands Yes UK9001571 Yes UK13028 Treshnish Isles Yes UK9003041 No

Lindisfarne Yes UK9006011 Yes UK11036 Troup, Pennan and Lion`s Heads

Yes UK9002471 No

Liverpool Bay / Bae Lerpwl pSPA UK9020294 No Upper Lough Erne Yes UK9020071 Yes UK12024

Loch an Duin No Yes UK13029 Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits

pSPA UK9020296 Proposed Ramsar

UK11083

Loch Eye Yes UK9001621 Yes UK13031 Upper Solway Flats and Marshes


Loch Ken and River Dee Marshes

Yes UK9003111 Yes UK 13032 Walmore Common Yes UK9007051 Yes UK11076

Loch Leven Yes UK9004111 Yes UK130033 West Inverness-shire Lochs Yes UK9020298 No

Loch Lomond Yes UK9003021 Yes UK13034 West Westray Yes UK9002101 No

Loch Maree Yes UK9001531 No Wester Ross Lochs Yes UK9001711 No

Loch of Inch and Torrs Warren

Yes UK9003121 Yes UK13037 Westwater Yes UK9004251 Yes UK13060

Loch of Kinnordy Yes UK9004051 Yes UK13038 Wexford Harbour Yes IE0004076 No

Loch of Lintrathen Yes UK9004061 Yes UK13039 Wexford Nature Reserve Yes IE0004001 Yes 3IE001

Loch of Skene Yes UK9002261 Yes UK13040 Wicklow Head Yes IE0004127 No


Page 175



Code

Loch of Strathbeg Yes UK9002211 Yes UK13041 Ynys Feurig, Cemlyn Bay and The Skerries

Yes UK9013061 No

Loch Shiel Yes UK9001721 No Ynys Seiriol / Puffin Island Yes UK9020285 No

Loch Spynie Yes UK9002201 Yes UK13043 Ythan Estuary, Sands of Forvie and Meikle Loch


Loch Vaa Yes UK9002751 No


Page 176



Page 177 © Entec UK Limited


8. Future actions

8.1 Project-level HRA work As set out earlier, in relation to some types of effect and some interest features (particularly birds) the ORESAP will need to include conditions about the way development is undertaken, in order to ensure that there will be no adverse effect on integrity of European/Ramsar sites. These conditions will mainly involve a requirement to implement mitigation measures identified in this report and in some cases will lead to a requirement to carry out survey work and/or further assessment at project level, when proposals for development locations and device types have been brought forward.

It is anticipated that much of the information needed for project level assessment will be provided by the developers of individual projects. Clearly they will bring forward proposals for the devices they wish to install. They may also need to carry out site-specific survey work or research to show that they can comply with the requirements of the ORESAP. However, other information gaps are relevant to all or at least several of the developers and reflect uncertainties that may be better addressed strategically. Examples of such uncertainties might relate to the distribution of certain sensitive bird species that have foraging ranges or migratory patterns that could relate to a number of resource zones or knowledge of the sensitivities of certain bird species to collision risk or displacement related to turbine operation. These may usefully be the subject of generic research that could assist in development of more than one resource zone.

8.2 ORESAP review process A review of energy targets is incorporated into the ORESAP for 2014-2015 and subject to an overall evaluation post 2020. It is also recommended that the HRA is reviewed at the same time as the overall evaluation, in the light of new information and understanding that may be available.


Page 178 © Entec UK Limited



Appendix A Responses to consultation


Table A1 Consultee responses to the HRA screening

Company/organisation (contact / date received)

No. Response from company/organisation Response to comments

Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside (CNCC) (Peter Archdale, 10-Feb-11)

1. (p.2) How will decision be made when overlap of Competent Authorities occurs?

This is a decision for the competent Authorities involved to make. The regulations allow for one competent authority to take the lead in the HRA. Alternatively each may carry out an HRA individually. DETI has established an Offshore Renewable Energy Forum on which all the NI Departments with an environmental and marine interest as represented as well as other key marine user groups. DETI also liaises with counterparts in UK and ROI on offshore renewable matters.

2. (p.12) Venturi devices; clarity needed on whether air or fluid is being used

Text clarified.

3. (p.30 - Table 3.1) Does not mention marine lighting. There is potential for impact on a variety of species, particularly near the coast, so it should be included.

Marine lighting now included in the table as an indirect effect during the construction, operation, and decommissioning stage.

4. Mention was made of cumulative effects of noise, but only under operation. What about installation?

Text amended.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (Holly Niner, 08-Feb-11)

1. (p.6) JNCC recognise and welcome the flexibility introduced by the revised wording of the ORESAP’s energy targets to include the ongoing review

Noted

2. (p.8 – Category B) The need for conditions to be realistic and achievable both at the plan and project level are highlighted.

Noted

3. (p.19 – Table 2.5) JNCC note that the mitigation proposed may not be appropriate for all projects and their effectiveness and use will be, as stated, project specific. SNCAs will be able to provide advice on the appropriateness and applicability of mitigation measures. In addition the specific purpose of each mitigation measure outlined within this table is not clearly expressed

Text amended.




Device Installation/decommissioning – Noise. PAM incorrectly referred to as Passive Acoustic Deterrent. PAM used in addition to MMOs in order to ascertain presence of marine mammals, thereby helping plan the mitigation of disturbance and injuries to marine mammals. ADDs are used to deter marine mammals from a location. All methods of piling should be considered noisy. Refer to JNCCs piling and seismic guidelines: www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4274 and www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1534.

Appropriate changes made to the noise sections in the table. Note that all methods of piling are considered to be noisy and should be taken as so. References to the guidelines have also been included in Table 2.5.

Device Installation/decommissioning – Minimising collision risks for animals and birds. JNCC would be interested to read the references supporting the statement that at the stage of device installation/decommissioning ‘birds are more vulnerable to collisions at night’.

Reference added.

Device operation – Scour. Scour mitigation by careful siting with reference to sediment substrate is preferable to application of scour protection material.

Table amended to reflect this.

Device operation – Operational noise. JNCC consider the disturbance of marine mammals and birds as a result of operational noise to be described as an impact as a result of development. Such an impact may result in a reduction in the extent of habitat that is available to species. This should not be considered as appropriate mitigation.

Mitigation has been removed from the table.

4. (p.26 – Table 3.1) Care should be taken when distinguishing between indirect effects and biological disturbance, for example JNCC would consider the effects of seismic survey on marine mammals as direct.

Table has been amended to reflect this.

5. (p.31 – Table 3.2) JNCC note that all SPAs on the east coast of Britain have been excluded due to the distance factor. Further detail on the magnitude and evidence basis of this factor would be useful. In addition, some terrestrial sites may require consideration.

All SPAs on the east coast of Britain have been excluded for distance reasons – i.e. it is expected that the ORESAP will not have an impact upon the mudflats supporting birds in the Humber Estuary.

6. (p.82-84 – Table 4.1) A draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan was submitted for consultation in June 2010, accompanied by SEA Environmental Report, and work has been undertaken to complete the HRA. A number of short term and medium term sites have been identified which may have inc-combination effects with the ORESAP and have to potential to have likely significant effects on Natura/Ramsar sites.

The draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan has now been included in Table 4.1 and any potential in-combination effects have also been undertaken in the screening forms.

7. Summary of screening outcomes – JNCC refers to comments of NE, SNH, and CCW. Noted

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4274

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1534




Marine Scotland (Phil Alcock, 08-Feb-11)

1. Would like to add support to comments made by SNH and to re-iterate that Guidance for undertaking HRA has been prepared for SNH and has been used to undertake an HRA of the draft Plan for Offshore wind in Scottish territorial waters. Also a copy of the HRA will be available on the Scottish Government website shortly.

Noted

2. (p.31 – Table 3.2) The table needs clarification on whether offshore SACs/SCIs were included or excluded from the screening. Suggestion that Stanton Banks SCI needs to be included in the Screening and Scoping for possible sedimentation considerations.

Table 3.2 amended for offshore SACs/SCIs clarification. Stanton Banks SCI lies outside the one tidal ellipse from the ORESAP wind and tidal zones. Therefore it has not been included in the screening process as per the methodology outlined in Section 3.6.2.

3. (p.82 – Table 4.1) Needs to include reference to the draft Plan for Offshore Wind Development in Scottish territorial waters. Also the Saltire Prize areas (Regional Locational Guidance areas and Scoping Study areas) have been excluded. Suggest they be included in the assessment, additionally Sound of Islay, although not consented, should be included. All this on the basis of application of the Precautionary Principle.

The draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan has now been included in Table 4.1 and any potential in-combination effects have also been undertaken in the screening forms. The Saltire Prize and Sound of Islay plan have been acknowledged in the in-combinations table (Table 4.1) however they have not been included in the screening process as it has only recently closed its deadline for applicants, so it is still in its infancy, therefore it has not been included as an in-combination effect for the purposes of this HRA. Text to this effect has been added at the end of the table.

4. No references were made to SACs in the Solway Firth – should be considered within the Screening and Scoping for possible impacts from sedimentation.

Modelling done on the Solway Firth shows that sedimentary input into the Firth is through longshore drift from Irish Sea sediments coming in from the south west35,36. The ORESAP zones are, firstly, more than one tidal excursion distance from the Solway Firth, and secondly, the ORESAP zones lie to the north west of the Solway Firth and therefore do not interfere with the longshore drift into the Firth.

35 Bridges, & P.H. Leeder, M.R. 1976. Sedimentary model for the intertidal mudflats models with examples from the Solway Firth Scotland. Sedimentology, 23, 533-552. 36 Garbutt, P.A. 1993. Ituna; A model of the Solway Firth. Fisheries Research technical report, No. 93, Maff, Directorate of Fisheries Research, Lowestoft.




Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) (John Hamer, 14-Feb-11)

1. CCW comments are made in the context under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and as advisers to the Welsh Assembly Government on the natural heritage of Wales and its coastal waters. The comments will therefore be limited to those transnational issues likely to affect natural heritage interests in Wales.

Noted.

2. CCW notes that it was not consulted on the SEA, and that 3 tidal resource zones of the east coast, and most relevant to natural heritage interests of Wales, were discounted for commercial use by reason of their ‘significant adverse effects on the environment and other users.’ Clarification would be welcomed as to what is understood by ‘commercial’ use in this context and whether the zones may still be developed for smaller-scale demonstration projects.

CCW was on the mailing list for consultation on the draft ORESAP and was invited to comment on the SEA in December 2009. A member of CCW also attended the consultation seminar in February 2010 in Belfast. No response was received from CCW or WAG to the public consultation at the time. The three small tidal zones on the eastern coast of NI have not been considered suitable for commercial scale development given the environmental and other users issues identified. The SEA ER notes that for tidal developments 50MW has been considered to be at commercial scale. These much smaller zones may be considered for small scale demonstrations and/or pre-commercial projects. Any projects coming forward of this nature would be subject to an EIA and project level HRA but would not form part of the ORESAP. Further information is available on the SEA website: www.offshorenergyni.co.uk

3. It is noted that a number of sites in Wales will be taken forward to the next stage of the HRA process (Appropriate Assessment).

A number of Welsh sites were identified in the pre-screening process and taken forward into the HRA screening process. Following the screening process it was determined that the Welsh sites would encounter no LSE provided mitigation was adhered to, and the sites were screened out of the Appropriate Assessment.

4. It is the view that due to potential for transboundary effects on the mobile features of coastal SACs, some sites may have been prematurely screened out of the HRA process. More details below.

Noted.

5. CCW offers its support and advice during the HRA process and more detailed consideration of effects on sites and looks forward to working with DOENI on this matter.

Noted.

http://www.offshoreenergyni.co.uk/




6. Guidance on the HRA process for plans has been developed by David Tyldesley Associates on behalf of CCW and can be provided on request. It is also noted, and supports, the acknowledgment of uncertainty and the likely need for further HRA at the project level.

Noted.

7. It is suggested that in order to conform to the wording of the Habitats Directive and Regulations, the word ‘effect’ should be used rather than ‘impacts’. In the context of the HRA process, it is understood that the word ‘effect’ refers to ‘adverse effects’. Suggest wording for Category B would benefit from clarification.

Wording has been changed from impacts to effects as suggest to maintain consistency. As is normal practice the word ‘effect’ can mean either adverse or beneficial effect and where adverse effects are referred to this is stated explicitly.

8. Location of zone WI2 is noted in particular, given its relation to the north coast of Wales. Maximum capacity of 600MW for this zone is also noted.

Noted.

9. (Table 2.5) The consideration of mitigation measures in respect of the ORESAP activities is welcomed, but would suggest that ‘mitigation’ should be considered on a sequential basis with avoidance measures and reduction measures being considered in advance of mitigation.

Text to this effect has been included in Section 2.4.3.

10. (Table 2.5 – Survey) Clarification on what is understood by ‘excessive habitat/species disturbance’. Consideration should also be given to potential effects of light and vibration in terms of sensitive receptors. In respect of vessel activity, consideration should be given to potential effects from propellers, notably on seals and cetaceans, particularly in the light of recent studies into the risks to marine mammals posed by ducted ship propellers.

Determination of ‘excessive habitat/species disturbance’ will be on a case-by-case basis. Biological surveys do not normally involve significant issues of light or vibration. Ducted propellers have now been taken into account. This is reflected in Table 2.5.

11. (Table 2.5 – Device Installation/decommissioning) – Consideration of potential effects should be given to all types of foundations used.

All types of foundations have been considered.

Any creation of marine mammal exclusion zones should be mindful of breeding and migration cycles for mammals and should also consider potential effects on prey species and other sensitive receptors.

Text to this effect has been added to Table 2.5.

Coastal and sediment regime changes should also be considered, in particular with respect to gravity bases.

Coast and sediment regimes have already been considered with respect to device foundations.




In respect of vessel activity, consideration should be given to potential effects from propellers, notably on seals and cetaceans.

The effect of propellers, notably ducted propellers, has now been taken into consideration. This is reflected in Table 2.5.

The avoidance of building activities at night, to mitigate against bird collision, is insufficient and that additional consideration would need to be given to lighting levels used. Additional consideration may also need to be given to time dependent effects of lighting associated with species of birds particularly sensitive to or influenced by light pollution.

By avoiding building at night it is anticipated that no excessive lighting will be needed

12. CCW notes and welcomes the reference to potential munitions issues. Noted.

13. (Table 2.5 – Device Operation) Operational noise may have the potential to significantly affect marine mammals and other sensitive receptors, especially if acting in-combination with other activities/noise sources. The mitigation measures, as presented, do not offer a demonstrable means of mitigating adverse effects from noise and require further consideration and strengthening.

There is expected to be no noise from the generators and gearbox due to insulation. The only potential noise that is anticipated to be generated from tidal devices is from the rotation of the turbine blades. This is anticipated to be similar to the ambient underwater noise and therefore not considered to have an adverse effect. According to the study by Cowrie37 on the operation noise generated by wind farms, the noise from the turbines, even in the immediate vicinity, only dominated over the background noise in a few limited bands of frequency. Even within this range the noise was only a few dB above background noise.

Additional mitigation measures need to be devised with respect to vessel activity, notably the avoidance of collision with marine mammals, such as timing of vessel activity and choice of route.

Marine mammals frequently swim alongside vessels without any adverse effects so we are not aware of any adverse impacts due to vessel operation in general. Issues to do with particular types of propellers have been addressed.

14. CCW notes that diving birds may mistake tidal turbine blades for fish. Clarification would be welcomed as to whether predatory fish and mammals perceive shiny turbine blades similarly.

We have already included in the mitigation measures not to have shiney blades so that diving birds may not mistake the blades for fish. This mitigation, therefore, also holds true to predatory fish and mammals in case they also mistake the turbine blades for fish.

37 Nedwell, J.R., Parvin, S.J., Edwards, B., Workman, R., Brooker, A.G., & Kynoch, J.E. 2007. Measurement and interpretation of underwater noise during construction and operation of offshore windfarms in UK waters. Subacoustech Report No. 544R0738 to COWRIE Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-9554279-5-4.




15. (Table 3.2) With respect to highly mobile species, clarification would be welcomed as to whether an arbitrary ‘zone of influence’ has been set and, if so, the justification for establishing these distances. Clarification as to whether the foraging/migration distances of coastal populations was taken into consideration when establishing any zones of influence would be welcome.

For mobile species, any arbitrary ‘zone of influence’ has been discussed in the text below the table. Foraging and migration distances have been taken into consideration and this has been outlined in the text below the table and in Section 4.

16 (Tables 3.5 and 5.1) It has been noted that Cardigan Bay SAC and Pen Llyn a’r Sarnau SAC have been screened out due to no likely significant effect on their marine mammal features. CCW does not believe that these SACs should have been screened out of the HRA process at this stage.

With regards to seals, the ORESAP zones are outside the 60km foraging area from the haul-out sites. Therefore it is concluded that there is no LSE on the seal interest of the sites. With regards to the bottlenose dolphins, provided mitigation is used, it is anticipated that there will be no LSE on the bottlenose dolphin population of Cardigan Bay.

17. It should be noted that the Liverpool Bay SPA is now classified and should be referred to as the Liverpool Bay SPA.

Text amended where appropriate.

18. CCW notes that, leading up to 2020, offshore development in the Irish Sea is likely to be significant and lead to in-combination effects. CCW refers to recent seal tagging studies such as those used in UK’s SEA 6 Environmental Report, the Atlas of the Marine Mammals of Wales, and ongoing telemetry work conducted by SMRU. CCW also believes that conventional mitigation techniques of construction noise as set out by the JNCC guidance may prove inadequate when acting in-combination. Therefore CCW would like to see greater consideration of cumulative and in-combination effects and effective mitigation measures in the development of the ORESAP.

We have identified that there is the potential for in-combination effects during construction and thus mitigation has been proposed through timing of construction to avoid such effects.

19. CCW recommends that suitable mitigation for noise effects on seals and other marine mammals may require a more strategic approach to managing construction noise, taking into consideration the combined effects of noise from offshore wind development in Northern Ireland and through the UK Round 3 and Round 2 Extension leasing rounds, and from other marine sectors such as seismic surveys in the oil and gas industry. In the absence of a more strategic mitigation regime it is believed that the effects on the seal features of the Cardigan Bay and Pen Llyn a’r Sarnau SACs can not be discounted, and consider that these SACs should not have been screened out of the HRA process at this stage.

See above.




Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Department of Environment (NIEA, DOE) (Mark Hammond 08-Feb-11)

1. The review was based on the guidance contained within the following document: European Commission (2002). Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. They also note that the review is conducted in relation to N2K and Ramsar sites in NI.

Noted

2. NIEA, DOE acknowledge the reasoning behind only considering plans and projects that have firm commitments or approvals. They are of the opinion that potential cumulative/in-combination impacts with subsequent projects arising from previously identified strategically located zones will be an important issue to consider in the future, especially in Scotland and Ireland that are in close proximity to NI. HRAs of projects arising from the ORESAO will have to take account of projects that are committed to be approved after the adoption of the ORESAP. This should be borne in mind when developing mitigation measures.

Noted

3. Details of organisations that provided source data are not contained in the screening report, although their web-sites have been referred to.

Website properly referenced. Source of site information now also referenced.

4. It is anticipated that several issues relating to the baseline conditions of N2K sites will continue to be considered in more detail for the sites were LSE could not be ruled out and which are being taken forward to the appropriate assessment stage.

For those sites taken forward to the appropriate assessment stage, the baseline conditions of each site will be considered in further detail.

5. No reference made to Skerries and Causeway d/pSAC and The Maidens d/p SAC. They need to be included.

Skerries and Causeway d/pSAC now included in the HRA process.

6. (p.123 - Table 5.4) Red Bay is identified as a site to be taken forward for AA however Appendix C concludes there is no LSE – clarification needed.

This was included in error and should have been screened out on the same basis as Rathlin Island in relation to subtidal sandbanks. Screening outcomes table has been amended.

7. The wording ‘impacts are unlikely to completely impact or remove the interest feature from the site’ (North Antrim Coast SAC and Rathlin Island SPA) needs clarification.

Wording has been changed.

8 Further clarification needed within the assessment of SPA habitats. Carlingford Lough and Killough Bay has been assessed that potential hydrological changes may contribute to LSE on habitats that are utilised by birds such as tidal rivers, estuaries, mudflats, sandflats, and lagoons. However similar features are found within Outer Ards SPA but the assessment considers no LSE there.

Agreed. Outer Ards has now been included in the AA and this has been amended in the screening outcomes table.




9. NIEA, DOE welcome the identification of additional mitigation measures during the screening stage of the HRA of the ORESAP and consider that they should be compiled and combined with those previously identified during the SEA process for inclusion in the final ORESAP. This included the following additional mitigation measures (including slight wording changes): Device installation/ Decommissioning – Noise Seal specific mitigation: More stringent mitigation is required in the foraging areas of seals that are designated features of Natura 2000 sites. Noise mitigation should be stringently adhered to, and if possible, the application of multiple noise mitigation measures should be implemented. To reduce disturbance of prey the turbine bases should be installed individually, thus minimising the area of disturbance. It is also noted that the above mitigation is generic in nature and would be applicable to all areas where seals from N2K sites have the potential to forage. Device installation/ Decommissioning - Noise and Sediment mobilisation Atlantic Salmon specific mitigation: To avoid or not carry out construction work in the southern part of resource zone Wi2 where there is potential for turbidity plumes and noise to affect salmon migration. We also note that there is suggested mitigation for instances where there is potential for in-combination likely significant effects due to the simultaneous construction of two or more sites: ‘to mitigate this, construction should, ideally not coincide, and during the project stage this impact should be made aware of’. We welcome this mitigation measure but are of the opinion that it would be beneficial to reword the mitigation measure to make it clearer and to ensure that the mitigation can be applied in relation to additional projects that will emerge in the future, such as those arising from the Scottish Marine Renewable Energy Strategy (2007), The Crown Estate Offshore Wind Licensing Round in Scotland and the Saltire Prize associated Round. Survey, Cumulative / In-combination Impacts - Basic Mitigations: Cumulative impacts arising from other plans and project should be considered. If there are likely significant effects arising from the simultaneous construction of two or more sites effort must be made to co-ordinate work programmes so that simultaneous construction activities do not occur or are appropriately reduced.

Mitigation measures identified during the SEA process had already been included in the HRA. Wording in the screening forms has been changed so that there is more emphasis on adhering to the mitigation process. The method of turbine installation is project specific and is outside the scope of this HRA. If there are any in-combination impacts with other plans, not in the ORESAP, these have been noted in the screening forms. Text amended to note that these measures may also be relevant to non-ORESAP projects Noted and agree. Any potential cumulative impacts have been identified and assessed in the screening forms. More emphasis has been made in the report that the basic mitigation for cumulative impacts is to keep an open dialogue with other organisations responsible for plans and projects that are causing said cumulative impacts..




10. It has been noted in Strangford Lough assessment it was suggested that previously identified mitigation would result in no LSE occurring to seal haul-out sites due to the potential impact of increased vehicle activity. For mitigation to be most effective it is the opinion that the mitigation for vessel activity for device installation/decommissioning should be replicated in the basic mitigation measures for device operation and cable installation/decommissioning.

Mitigation replicated for both device operation and cable installation/decommissioning in Table 2.5.

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) (Erica Knott, 08-Feb-11)

1. SNH make note of the guidance on undertaking HRA for plans was published in August last year and it may be of interest in the completion of this HRA.

Noted

2. SNH noted that the HRA for the draft Offshore Wind Energy Plan for Scottish Territorial Waters was not included in this HRA.

The draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan has now been included in Table 4.1 and any potential in-combination effects have also been undertaken in the screening forms.

3. (p.6) SNH welcome the flexibility and review mechanism built in to achieving the overall renewables energy targets of this Plan. Recommend to consider a formal monitoring and plan review period to allow such targets, etc, to be reviewed within a structured timescale, taking into account experience gained.

Review incorporated into the plan for 2013-2014 and subject to an overall evaluation post 2020.

4. (p.8) Agree with categorisation of impacts detailed in A, C and D, but B may pose some difficulties, particularly if there is a reliance on conditions, etc which may or may not be realistic or feasible at the project level. Suggest further clarification.

Text amended.




5. (p.18 – Table 2.5) Vessel activity – consideration should be given not just to timing of works but the potential impacts from ducted propellers and potential for spiral injuries to seals. Noise – consideration should be given to all piled foundation types. Repowering as an activity is not considered – may have similar or completely different issues relating to operational maintenance and/or decommissioning. Collision risk – avoiding building at night is not adequate mitigation as there will be issues regarding lighting, etc. Scour – avoidance for scour through micrositing is not mentioned as a first tier of mitigation. Operational noise – consider noise and its effects on displacement and disturbance as key aspects relating to impacts on marine mammals. This mitigation measure needs to be reworded or dropped. Collision risk – depending on methods deployed in maximising visibility may actually increase collision risk. EMF effects – suggested reading recently published SNH literature review on EMF effects on salmon, etc.

Ducted propellers have now been taken into account and Table 2.5 has been amended. All types of piled foundations are considered. Repowering added to the table. Collision risk - there is no other mitigation possible at plan level. Any other mitigation will have to be developed during the project-level HRA. Micrositing now mentioned as a first tier of mitigation. Operational noise - mitigation has now been removed. Mitigation on maximising device visibility for avifauna has been removed. Report has been referenced in the report and its findings taken into account.

6. (p.24 – Box 3.2) All Scottish SPA extensions have now been confirmed and as such these sites are SPAs and not extensions.

Box 3.2 has been amended to reflect this.

7. (p.31 – Table 3.2) Table includes sites on west coast from Cornwall to Gairloch, unclear if this also includes sites on Scottish west coast islands. Unclear where a distance boundary has been set, beyond which sites are excluded, what is the reasoning behind these distances? Is it biological, i.e. foraging distance? Details on where such information has been obtained from should be referenced. Also a need to consider some terrestrial sites further where disturbance may occur due to construction activities offshore, not connected with landfall, i.e. coastal nest sites for mainly terrestrial species e.g. raptors, chough, etc.

Yes, sites on Scottish west coast islands have also been included. Text amended for clarification. Table amended and text included in the section to clarify this matter. It is unlikely that offshore construction will impact terrestrial bird nests such as raptors. For example, onshore wind farm mitigation is not to build within 500m of a nest. Offshore wind farms will be considerably further out than 500m. Also, terrestrial/coastal sites have already been screened for any potential impact to the habitat supporting the birds.




8. (p.47 – Fish) There is still debate as to where salmon and other fish migrate. Recent research project commissioned by Marine Scotland may be of interest. Would recommend that the exclusion of sites in the southwest of Scotland is reconsidered, as it is likely salmon may migrate through N Irish waters.

Sites on the southwest of Scotland and northwest of England have now been included in the screening process for migratory fish.

9. (p.82 – Table 4.1) draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan is not listed in the table. The draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan has now been included in Table 4.1 and any potential in-combination effects have also been undertaken in the screening forms.

10. (p.86 – Table 5.1) South East Islay Skerries should be screened in rather than out – foraging distances.

The mitigation measures specified will avoid any LSE therefore the site remains screened out.

11. (p.88 – Table 5.2) All Scottish SPA extensions now SPAs. Report amended to reflect this.

12. The list of sites screened in is comprehensive and may possibly include sites where there is likely to be no connectivity between species present and the areas identified in the ORESAP. Prior to next stage of assessment it is recommended that an approach is made to Marine Scotland to obtain a copy of the Appropriate Assessment Information Review document prepared to inform the AA of the Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan.

The Marine Scotland Post Adoption Statement has just been published, and this will be considered as appropriate as DETI finalises the ORESAP.

13. (p.124) Further consideration of research gaps which can help inform both the Plan and also individual projects will be extremely helpful.

Text added to this effect in the conclusions.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Tadhg O’Mahony, 11-Mar-11)

1. The EPA have noted the three test approach to the HRA, has this concept been agreed at EU level?

The Regulations do not require any specific process. The pre-screening was undertaken as part of the screening process to identify LSE. The approach used is consistent with Habitats Regulations Guidance Note 3 produced by Natural England, which shows a two stage process in a flow diagram, and has been accepted by nature conservation agencies in the UK.

2. It is not clear how the precautionary principle comes into play under the three test approach. The precautionary principle has been applied at all stages. Thus if there was any doubt as to whether a site should be excluded at the pre-screening stage it was included in the screening process.

3. Section 5 – Sites have been identified for which AA will be required. This will have implications on the timing of finalisation/adoption of the plan. When will this be undertaken?

The AA is now included in this report and this work, along with the already published SEA Environmental Report, will be used to inform the finalised ORESAP.




4. How will the findings of the HRA/AA in relation to significant effects on sites identified be addressed in the SEA/ER for the ORESAP where significant effects identified in the HRA/AA are not already addressed in the SEA/ER?

The SEA Environmental Report has already been completed. As noted above, HRA findings will be incorporated into the revised ORESAP which is scheduled to be published later in 2011.

5. The scope of in-combination effects may need to be explored further, most Plans identified are scoped out. I note the comment about the lack of identification of development zones in the OREDP.

This has been revisited and conclusions updated.

6. Is the Onshore Plan HRA/AA being undertaken concurrently with SEA and should in-combination effects be addressed in the ORESAP HRA/AA?

A draft Environmental Report is in preparation and HRA is being undertaken in parallel. This will include assessment of effects in combination with the ORESAP

7. Recent EU guidance in relation to “Wind Energy Developments and Natura 2000 sites” (October 2010). This should be incorporated into the Plan as appropriate and relevant. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Wind_farms.pdf

This is now referenced in the report.

8. Note that the EPA is not the statutory authority in relation to AA in Ireland and will be reverting to the statutory authority in relation to AA – the Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government/National Parks and Wildlife Service. You are referred to the Guidance set out in the recent DoEHLG Publication “Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland – Guidance for Planning Authorities (2009)”. www.npws.ie/en/media/NPWS/Publications/CodesofPractice/AA%20Guidance.pdf

Noted

9. Note that the points highlighted above should not be taken as formal submission in the draft HRA Screening Report. The points raised relate more to clarification and also reference to relevant guidance.

Noted.

National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (Peter Carvill, 11-Mar-11)

1. Note that contact is not in a position to comment on issues of marine or bird biology. However, procedurally, the HRA screening report on the ORESAP seems excellent and thorough. Also notes that this is a learning process as they embark on a similar process in ROI.

Noted.

2. Nothing to add further to the EPA comments highlighted above. Noted.


Table A2 Consultee responses to the Appropriate Assessment

Statutory Nature Conservation Agencies (SNCAs) CCW, JNCC, NE, SNH (Holly Niner, 14-Apr-11)

1. We welcome the clarification regarding what constitutes a commercial scale project and that the small tidal zones on the eastern coast of NI may still be considered for small scale projects below 50MW.

Noted.

2. Agree with the statement that any projects coming forward of this nature would be subject to an EIA and a project level HRA. Would like to highlight the comments made previously in response to the transoundary and cumulative/in-combination effects will still stand.

Noted.

3. Table 3.2 – further clarity requires as to where and why the distance boundary has been set beyond which sites are excluded and the reasoning behind these distances. References should be provided in support of the boundaries applied.

The reasoning behind Table 3.2 is to reduce the list of sites, i.e. all N2K and Ramsar sites in the UK and ROI, to a more maneagable size. This was also done to reduce any confusion as to why, for example, the SACs on the east coast of Britain were removed for habitat purposes, however an SAC will remain in if it contains Tursiops truncatus, due to the migratory aspect of the species.

4. Cardigan Bay and Pen Llyn a’r Sarnau SACs have been screened out as they are outside the 60km foraging zone. In addition reliance has been placed on mitigatin measures outlined to suppor the conclusion of no likely significant effect on the bottlenose dolphin population of Cardigan Bay. Whilst we recognise that mitigation measures can be used to inform a judgement on the potential of an activity to have a likely significant effect, we would urge DETI not to become over-reliant on mitigation measures and to ensure that any such measures applied to screen out designated sites from the HRA are kept under regular review and that efforts are made to liaise with key stakeholders to help ensure that the mitigation measures employed are as informed and as effective as possible.

This has been noted and re-invorced throughout the HRA. Part of the ‘mitigation’ measures is to keep an open dialogue with the key stakeholders so that there can be a co-ordinated effort to minimise any cumulative and/or in-combination effects.

5. Review of the plan as a whole, to include consultation with the SNCAs, should be facilitated by outlining a feedback mechanism whereby the plan can be updated or adapted in light of new information that may have a bearing on the implementation of the plan.

Noted.

6. With reference to Table 4.1 (p.90), we would like to highlight that the Sound of Islay project has now been consented by the Scottish Government and as such should be included within the assessment of in-combination effects. In addition, the Kintyre Offshore Wind site has been dropped as part of the Scottish Territorial Waters Offshore Wind Energy Plan.

At the time of producing the HRA and AA reports the Sound of Islay project was not consented. However this has been noted and will be included as part of the ‘mitigation’ measures of keeping an open dialogue with key stakeholders of any future plans


7. The SNCAs are keen to work with regulators to develop effective means of predicting and controlling potential cumulative and in-combination effects on marine mammals from marine industries. In light of the larger scale developments currently being brought forward, there is an imperative need to ensure that mitigation measures employed are effective and based on a clear understanding of acceptable noise thresholds in the marine environment. We are currently working towards the development of a clear mechanism for assessing and licensing impacts on marine European Protected Species across all sectors of marine industry and we would welcome engagement with DETI and its sister departments on this issue.

We are very interested in the current studies being undertaken in this area and would like to be kept informed of any developments.

8. We welcome the recognition of the effects of spiral 'corkscrew' injuries on UK seal populations as an issue to be considered when assessing potential impacts of the implementation of the ORESAP. The SNCAs are currently raising awareness of this issue with the regulators of marine industry, as it is a problem that will require addressing as a matter of urgency to allow research and the development of appropriate mitigation measures. We consider there is a need for all parties involved in the use/regulation of activities requiring Dynamic Positioning (DP) technology to work together in finding appropriate solutions to prevent spiral injuries.

Noted. We would also be interested in being informed of the research being undertaken and the development of the mitigation measures, and any conclusions reached.

Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Department of Environment (NIEA DOE) (Mark Hammond, 14-Apr-11)

1. We are of the opinion that a clear conclusion about whether the ORESAP will or will not adversely affect the integrity of European or Ramsar Sites has not been reached in relation to several European or Ramsar Sites including: Rathlin Island SAC; Skerries and Causeway dSAC; and for many bird species within SPAs or Ramsars. We recommend that either:

1. The ORESAP is rectified until a clear conclusion can be reached that it will not adversely affect the integrity of European or Ramsar Sites;

2. The assessment proceeds to consider Regulations 44 (Considerations of Overriding Public Interest) and 48 (Compensatory Measures) of the Conservation (Nature Habitats, &c.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended); or

3. Legal opinion / advice are sought regarding the conclusions reached and the implications this will have for the adoption of the ORESAP in relation to Regulation 43(5) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended).

The text has been amended in Sections 6.3, 6.4 and Chapter 7 clarifying the conclusions as to whether the ORESAP will or will not adversely affect the integrity of the named European and Ramsar sites (including addition of more detail on bird species potentially affected).

2. Our review has highlighted that the appropriate assessment of birds has only identified birds that are unlikely to be at significant risk due to the implementation of the ORESAP. For other species no further assessment was undertaken and a conclusion is reached that further consideration will be required at project level HRA. We recommend that legal opinion / advice be sought regarding the adequacy of this assessment methodology and the associated conclusions.

The text has been amended in Section 6.4. Table 6.5 was added in identifying bird species potentially affected by the ORESAP activities. The conclusion to the appropriate assessment of birds has been clarified. Any direct references to using project level HRA as a mitigation measure has been removed and the text has been clarified.


3. From our reading of the appropriate assessment section of the HRA report there appears to be an inference that deferral to a detailed project level HRA may be an adequate mitigation measure to address uncertainties regarding the impact of the ORESAP. The justification for such an approach is contained within section 1.2.2 of the HRA report. We recommend that legal opinion / advice be sought regarding the appropriateness of using HRAs at project level as a mitigation measure to address uncertainties regarding the impact of the ORESAP. In connection to the approach and justification used it may also be worthwhile seeking legal opinion / advice regarding the interpretation of guidance documents that were utilised during the ORESAP HRA report specifically: David Tyldesley and Associates, 2009. Revised Draft Guidance: The Habitats Regulations Assessment of Local Development Documents. Unpublished report to Natural England (HRA Report footnote 3 page 4). We recommend that the legal opinion / advice should also consider the published guidance: Scottish Natural Heritage and David Tyldesley and Associates (August 2010), Habitat Regulation Appraisal of Plans: Guidance for Plan-Making Bodies in Scotland.

Any mention or indication that project level HRA is being used as mitigation has either been removed or re-worded for clarity. The guidance contained within the Tyldesley report to the Scottish Natural Heritage has now been referenced at pages 4 – 5, instead of the revised draft guidance to Natural England.

4. We welcome the consideration of mitigation measures during the HRA of the ORESAP, such as those contained in Table 2.5 and the site or species specific mitigation measures in the Screening Forms. We consider that these mitigation measures should be included in the final ORESAP.

Noted.

5. We have previously indicated our opinion about the relationship between HRAs at the plan and project levels and the use of the suggested ‘three tests’ that are contained within previously referred to guidance documents (when deciding whether lower tier assessments are the appropriate location to apply mitigation measures in relation to the effects of a proposal on a European Site). As footnote 4 (page 5) of the HRA Report has highlighted Plans which have utilised this approach have done so on the basis that it could be shown that the plan can be implemented without having an adverse effect on the integrity of European and Ramsar sites. As previously noted we are of the opinion that this HRA Report has not clearly concluded that the ORESAP can be implemented without having an adverse effect of the integrity of European and Ramsar sites. We therefore consider that there may be merit in including additional mitigation measures within the ORESAP to until a finding of no adverse effects to be concluded.

This has been addressed in point 1 above.


6. For example, we note that the HRA Report contains suggested amended text to the ORESAP that would give DETI and NIEA flexibility to refuse any and all development that has been assessed at the project level as having an adverse effect on the integrity of a European or Ramsar site (HRA report page 6). In our opinion it may be able to turn this consideration into case specific policy caveats for inclusion as mitigation measures in the ORESAP for those sites / species for which impacts are uncertain. An example of how such mitigation measures could be worded is contained within the guidance document: Scottish Natural Heritage and David Tyldesley and Associates (August 2010), Habitat Regulation Appraisal of Plans: Guidance for Plan-Making Bodies in Scotland http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B698695.pdf

This has been addressed in points 1 and 3 above.

7. We note that some of the conclusions are written in such a way that suggest that a function of the HRA at the ORESAP Plan level was to identify sites or species that would need to be considered during project HRAs and to identify sites or species that do not need further HRA consideration at project level. In our opinion HRAs at project level will have to independently ascertain the sites and species that are likely to be significantly affected as a result of the implementation of the project during project level screening and associated tests of likely significance. We consider that the HRA of the ORESAP conclusions should be focusing on whether or not the plan could be implemented without having adverse impacts on European and Ramsar sites.

This has been addressed in point 1 above.

http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B698695.pdf

Appendix B


Appendix B Maps showing screened sites

Appendix B


Appendix C


Appendix C SAC Site Screening Forms

Appendix C


Appendix C


Site name Bann Estuary

Site designation SAC

Site code UK0030084

Relevant zone(s) Ti1, Wi1

Related sites None

Reason(s) for inclusion in HRA Screening Location Direct (zone) Indirect (zone) Species Marine mammals Anadromous fish Otters

Interest features H2130 Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”) H2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (“white dunes”) H2110 Embryonic shifting dunes H1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)

Interest features not considered sensitive

None

Potentially sensitive interest features and Conservation Objectives (For features where no Conservation Objectives were available at time of screening, generic Conservation Objectives for the same feature in a similar site have been used, and highlighted in grey.)

H2130 Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”)

Maintain and expand the extent of existing species-rich fixed dune, SD8. Maintain and enhance species diversity within the SD8 community including the presence of notable species. Seek nature conservation management over suitable areas immediately outside the SAC where there is possibility of restoring fixed dune. Maintain the diversity and quality of habitats associated with the fixed dunes, e.g. neutral grasslands and scrub, especially where these exhibit a natural transition to fixed dune vegetation.

H2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (“white dunes”)

Maintain and enhance the extent of white dunes subject to natural processes. Allow the natural processes that determine the development and extent of white dunes to operate appropriately. Maintain and enhance, as appropriate, the species diversity within this community.

H2110 Embryonic shifting dunes

Maintain or enhance the extent of embryonic shifting dunes subject to natural processes. Allow the natural processes that determine the development and extent of embryonic shifting dunes to operate appropriately.

H1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)

To maintain or extend, as appropriate, the area of saltmarsh, subject to natural processes. To maintain or enhance, as appropriate, the composition of the saltmarsh communities. To maintain transitions between saltmarsh communities and to other adjoining habitats. To permit the continued operation of formative and controlling natural processes acting on the saltmarsh communities.

Appendix C


Sensitivities


Sensitivities relating to dunes (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)






Sensitivities relating to saltmarsh (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)

Possible in-combination effects

None

Possible mitigation measures

Mitigation relevant to changes in coastal processes and decrease of water flow – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4

Likely significant effects

Dunes are not considered to be sensitive to tidal regime change therefore no LSE is anticipated. The locations of the salt meadows means that any change in tidal regime caused by Ti1 zone will be negligible. Therefore no LSE is anticipated on salt meadows.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process H2130 Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”) H2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (“white dunes”) H2110 Embryonic shifting dunes H1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)

Appendix C


Site name Blasket Islands


Site code IE0002172

Relevant zone(s) (site screened in for marine mammals)

Related sites None


Interest features 1351 Phocoena phocoena 1364 Halichoerus grypus 1170 Reefs 8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves 4030 European dry heaths 1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts


Site screened in only because it contains marine mammal interest features. All other interest features are not exposed to the potential effects of the Resource Zones plan, and are therefore not considered to be sensitive.


1351 Phocoena phocoena To maintain the Annex II species for which the SAC has been selected at favourable conservation status.

1364 Halichoerus grypus

Sensitivities

1351 Phocoena phocoena

Harbour porpoise – sensitivities related to cetaceans (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)


Grey seal – sensitivities related to seals (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)


None


Mitigations relevant to noise, vessel activity, collision and barrier to movement – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4 Noise can severely impact the foraging behaviour of seals and therefore as many mitigation measures as possible should be implemented.

Appendix C



Noise is the predominant concern with regards to marine mammals, followed by the devices being a barrier to movement or potential collision risk. There are several mitigation measures in controlling and reducing noise levels that can be implemented during the installation of the devices. There have been sightings of Phocoena phocoena along the NI coastline (Atlas of Cetacean Distribution in NW European Waters), although whether they are linked to the Blasket Islands SAC is unknown. Implementing the mitigations shown in Table 2.5 should minimise any potential collisions and barrier to movement. The ORESAP is not expected to have a significant effect on the habitats supporting seals at this site, and the zones are at a distance outside the expected foraging zone. It is therefore considered that there is no LSE on the seals and the habitats supporting them.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: 1364 Halichoerus grypus 1351 Phocoena phocoena

Appendix C


Site name Cardigan Bay / Bae Ceredigion


Site code UK0012712

Relevant zone(s) (site only screened in for marine mammals)

Related sites None


Interest features S1095 Petromyzon marinus S1099 Lampetra fluviatilis S1349 Tursiops truncatus S1364 Halichoerus grypus H1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time H1170 Reefs H8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves


Site screened in only because it contains marine mammal interest features. All other interest features are not exposed to potential effects of ORESAP, and are therefore not considered to be sensitive.


S1349 Tursiops truncatus The population is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitat. Important elements include:

• population size

• structure, production

• condition of the species within the site. As part of this objective it should be noted that for bottlenose dolphin and grey seal;

• Contaminant burdens derived from human activity are below levels that may cause physiological damage, or immune or reproductive suppression

The species population within the site is such that the natural range of the population is not being reduced or likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future. As part of this objective it should be noted that for bottlenose dolphin and grey seal

• Their range within the SAC and adjacent inter-connected areas is not constrained or hindered

• There are appropriate and sufficient food resources within the SAC and beyond

• The sites and amount of supporting habitat used by these species are accessible and their extent and quality is stable or increasing

Appendix C


S1364 Halichoerus grypus The population is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitat. Important elements include:

• population size

• structure, production

• condition of the species within the site. As part of this objective it should be noted that for bottlenose dolphin and grey seal;

• Contaminant burdens derived from human activity are below levels that may cause physiological damage, or immune or reproductive suppression

For grey seal populations should not be reduced as a consequence of human activity. The species population within the site is such that the natural range of the population is not being reduced or likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future. As part of this objective it should be noted that for bottlenose dolphin and grey seal

• Their range within the SAC and adjacent inter-connected areas is not constrained or hindered

• There are appropriate and sufficient food resources within the SAC and beyond

• The sites and amount of supporting habitat used by these species are accessible and their extent and quality is stable or increasing

Sensitivities

S1349 Tursiops truncatus

Bottlenose dolphin - sensitivities relating to cetaceans (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)

S1364 Halichoerus grypus

Grey seal - sensitivities relating to seals (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)


Round 3 offshore wind farm zone – Zone 9 Irish Sea Potential noise impacts caused during construction. Operational disturbance unlikely.


Mitigations relevant to noise, vessel activity, collision and barrier to movement – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4 Noise can severely impact the foraging behaviour of seals and therefore as many mitigation measures as possible should be implemented. It is highly recommended to keep open discussions and dialogue with the Round 3 organisations with regards to the timing of the construction of Zone 9 and Wi1 resource zone.


Noise is the predominant concern with regards to marine mammals, followed by the devices being a barrier to movement or potential collision risk. There are several mitigation measures in controlling and reducing noise levels that can be implemented during the installation of the devices. There have been sightings of Tursiops truncatus along the NI coastline although whether they are linked to the Cardigan Bay SAC is unknown. If any Cardigan Bay SAC bottlenose dolphins migrate to the NI coastline implementing the mitigations shown in Table 2.5 should minimise any potential collisions and barrier to movement. There is also the potential for an in-combination effect with the Round 3 Zone 9 if the construction of the Round 3 zone coincides with the construction of Wi2 zone. This is also only if it is shown that Tursiops truncatus will migrate through both zones. To mitigate this construction of the two zones should, ideally, not coincide, and during the project stage this impact should be made aware of. Also the usual mitigation for cetaceans should be applied. The ORESAP is not expected to have a significant effect on the habitats supporting at this site, and the zones are at a distance outside the expected foraging zone for seals. It is therefore considered that there is no LSE on the seals and the habitats supporting them.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: 1364 Halichoerus grypus S1349 Tursiops truncatus

Appendix C


Site name Carlingford Shore


Site code IE0002306

Relevant zone(s) Wi2

Related sites Carlingford Lough SPA (IE0004078)


Interest features 1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines 1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks 1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide 1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)


1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks Terrestrial habitat not exposed to direct or indirect effects of the zone.


1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines

To maintain the Annex I habitats for which the SAC has been selected at favourable conservation status. To maintain the extent, species richness and biodiversity of the entire site. To establish effective liaison and co-operation with landowners, legal users and relevant authorities.

1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)

Sensitivities

1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines

Sensitivities relating to vegetation of uppermost tidal limit (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)


Sensitivities relating to mudflats and sandflats (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)

1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)



Oriel Wind Farm Potential change in hydrodynamics – although as it lies outside one tidal cycle this is highly unlikely.


Mitigations relevant to sediment mobilisation, vessel activity, physical habitat disturbance, toxic contamination, and scour – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4

Appendix C



The placement of wind turbines in Wi2 will not change the tidal regime thus there is no LSE on the salt meadows and annual vegetation of drift lines. The SAC lies within one tidal cycle of the resource zone, thus it has the potential to affect the mobility of suspended sediments and thus the mudflats and sandflats. Implementing the mitigation through careful siting of the turbines should reduce the impact on the mudflats and tidal flats so that there is no LSE.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: 1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines 1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) 1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

Appendix C


Site name Horn Head and Rindevan


Site code IE0000147


Related sites None


Interest features 1395 Petalophyllum ralfsii 1833 Najas flexilis 1013 Vertigo geyeri 1364 Halichoerus grypus 2110 Embryonic shifting dunes 2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (“white dunes”) 2130 Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”) 2170 Dunes with Salix repens ssp. Argentea (Salicion arenariae) 2190 Humid dune slacks


Site screened in only because it contains marine mammal interest features. All other interest features are not exposed to the potential effects of the ORESAP, and are therefore not considered to be sensitive.



To maintain the Annex II species for which the SAC has been selected at favourable conservation status.

Sensitivities




None



Appendix C



Noise is the predominant concern with regards to marine mammals, followed by the devices being a barrier to movement or potential collision risk. Haul-out sites for seals may also be disturbed through an increase in vessel activity. There are several mitigation measures in controlling and reducing noise levels that can be implemented during the installation of the devices, thus it is possible to conclude that there will be no LSE on the seals with regards to noise. Seals normally forage out to approximately 60km, with the odd seal venturing further out. The SAC is on the edge of the 60km, thus the likelihood of a large volume of seals foraging near the resource zones is low. This also reduces the risk of collision and therefore it is expected that there will be no LSE on seals with regards to barrier to movement and collision. The SAC is sited at a distance from the resource zones that vessel activity is not expected to be greater than the current baseline. Therefore it is possible to conclude that there will be no LSE on the haul-out sites for seals.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: 1364 Halichoerus grypus

Appendix C


Site name Lambay Island


Site code IE0000204


Related sites None


Interest features 1364 Halichoerus grypus 1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts






Sensitivities




None




Noise is the predominant concern with regards to marine mammals, followed by the devices being a barrier to movement or potential collision risk. Haul-out sites for seals may also be disturbed through an increase in vessel activity. There are several mitigation measures in controlling and reducing noise levels that can be implemented during the installation of the devices, thus it is possible to conclude that there will be no LSE on the seals with regards to noise. Seals normally forage out to approximately 60km, with the odd seal venturing further out. The SAC is on the edge of the 60km, thus the likelihood of a large volume of seals foraging near the resource zones is low. This also reduces the risk of collision and therefore it is expected that there will be no LSE on seals with regards to barrier to movement and collision. The SAC is sited at a distance from the resource zones that vessel activity is not expected to be greater than the current baseline. Therefore it is possible to conclude that there will be no LSE on the haul-out sites for seals.

Appendix C


Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: 1364 Halichoerus grypus

Appendix C


Site name Lower River Shannon


Site code IE0002165


Related sites None


Interest features 1355 Lutra lutra 1029 Margaritifera margaritifera 1106 Salmo salar 1095 Petromyzon marinus 1099 Lampetra fluviatilis 1349 Tursiops truncatus 1130 Estuaries 1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide 1150 Coastal lagoons 1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts 1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonizing mud and sand 1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) 1410 Mediterranean salt meadows (Juncetalia maritime) 3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation 1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time 1160 Large shallow inlets and bays 1170 Reefs 1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks 1320 Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae) 6410 Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) 91E0 Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)




1349 Tursiops truncatus

To avoid deterioration of the habitats or significant disturbance, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status. To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are established then maintained in the long term: population of the species as a viable component of the site; distribution of the species within the site; distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species; no significant disturbance of the species.

Appendix C


Sensitivities

1349 Tursiops truncatus

Bottlenose dolphin – sensitivities related to cetaceans (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)


None


Mitigations relevant to noise, vessel activity, collision and barrier to movement – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4


Noise is the predominant concern with regards to marine mammals, followed by the devices being a barrier to movement or potential collision risk. There are several mitigation measures in controlling and reducing noise levels that can be implemented during the installation of the devices. There have been sightings of Tursiops truncatus along the NI coastline although whether they are linked to the Lower River Shannon SAC is unknown. If any Lower River Shannon SAC bottlenose dolphins migrate to the NI coastline implementing the mitigations shown in Table 2.5 should minimise any potential collisions and barrier to movement.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: 1349 Tursiops truncatus

Appendix C


Site name Magilligan


Site code UK0016613


Related sites None


Interest features S1065 Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia S1395 Petalphyllum ralfsii H2190 Humid dune slacks H2170 Dunes with Salix repens spp. argentea (Salicion arenariae) H2110 Embryonic shifting dunes H2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (“white dunes”) H2130 Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”)

Interest features not considered sensitive S1065 Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia

Terrestrial species not exposed to direct or indirect effects of the resource zones.


S1395 Petalphyllum ralfsii Expand the existing population of Petalwort. Seek nature conservation management over suitable areas within the SAC where there is possibility of restoring Petalwort. (There is crossover here with the BAP for this species).

H2190 Humid dune slacks Maintain and expand the extent of existing humid dune slacks. Maintain and enhance species diversity within the range of humid dune slack communities including the presence of notable species. Seek nature conservation management over suitable areas immediately outside the cSAC where there is possibility of restoring humid dune slack. Maintain the diversity and quality of habitats associated with humid dune slack e.g. neutral grasslands and other sand dune communities, especially where these exhibit natural transition to dune slack.

H2170 Dunes with Salix repens spp. argentea (Salicion arenariae)

Maintain and expand the extent of existing dunes with Salix repens. Increase permitted into areas of rank dune grassland, but not into humid dune slack or spp-rich short turf (SD8). Maintain and enhance species diversity within the SD16 community including the presence of notable species. Seek nature conservation management over suitable areas immediately outside the cSAC where there is possibility of restoring fixed dune with Salix repens.


Maintain or enhance the extent of embryonic shifting dunes subject to natural processes. Allow the natural processes which determine the development and extent of embryonic shifting dunes to operate appropriately.


Maintain and enhance the extent of white dunes subject to natural processes. Allow the natural processes which determine the development and extent of white dunes to operate appropriately. Maintain and enhance, as appropriate, the species diversity within this community.

Appendix C



Maintain and expand the extent of existing species-rich fixed dune, SD8. Maintain and enhance species diversity within the SD8 community including the presence of notable species. Seek nature conservation management over suitable areas immediately outside the cSAC where there is possibility of restoring fixed dune. Maintain the diversity and quality of habitats associated with the fixed dunes, e.g. neutral grasslands, scrub, especially where these exhibit natural transition to fixed dune vegetation.

Sensitivities

S1395 Petalphyllum ralfsii

Petalwort (a dune plant) - sensitivities relating to dunes (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)

H2190 Humid dune slacks


H2170 Dunes with Salix repens spp. argentea (Salicion arenariae)









None




Dunes are not considered to be sensitive to tidal regime change therefore no LSE is anticipated.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: S1395 Petalphyllum ralfsii H2190 Humid dune slacks H2170 Dunes with Salix repens spp. argentea (Salicion arenariae) H2110 Embryonic shifting dunes H2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (“white dunes”) H2130 Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”)

Appendix C


Site name Murlough


Site code UK0016612


Related sites None


Interest features S1365 Phoca vitulina S1065 Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia H1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time H1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide H1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) H2170 Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae) H2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (“white dunes”) H2130 Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”) H2110 Embryonic shifting dunes H2150 Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-Ulicetea)


S1065 Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia Terrestrial species not exposed to direct or indirect effects of the resource zones.


S1365 Phoca vitulina

To avoid deterioration of the habitats or significant disturbance, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status. To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are established then maintained in the long term: population of the species as a viable component of the site; distribution of the species within the site; distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species; structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species; no significant disturbance of the species.

H1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Subject to natural change, maintain in favourable condition in particular the subtidal gravel and sands, and the subtidal muddy sands.

H1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

Subject to natural change, maintain in favourable condition, in particular the intertidal gravel and sand communities, the intertidal muddy sand communities, and the intertidal mud communities.

H2170 Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae)

Maintain and expand the extent of existing fixed dunes with Salix repens. Maintain and enhance species diversity within the community including the presence of notable species.



Appendix C



Maintain and expand the extent of existing species-rich fixed dune. Maintain and enhance species diversity within the community including the presence of notable species. Maintain the diversity and quality of habitats associated with the fixed dunes, e.g. neutral grasslands, scrub, especially where these exhibit natural transitions to fixed dune vegetation.


Maintain or extend, as appropriate, the area of saltmarsh, subject to natural processes. Maintain or enhance, as appropriate, the composition of the saltmarsh communities. Maintain transitions between saltmarsh communities and to other adjoining habitats. Permit the continued operation of formative and controlling natural processes acting on the saltmarsh communities.


Maintain or enhance the extent of embryonic shifting dunes subject to natural processes. Allow the natural processes which determine the development and extent of embryonic shifting dunes to operate appropriately.

H2150 Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-Ulicetea)

Maintain and if feasible, expand the extent of existing decalcified fixed dune, H 11 and H10. Increase permitted into areas of rank dune grassland, NOT into spp-rich short turf (Grey Dune SD8). Maintain and enhance structural and species diversity within the H11 and H10 communities including the presence of notable species. Seek nature conservation management over suitable areas immediately outside the cSAC where there is possibility of restoring decalcified fixed dune – to be determined. Maintain the diversity and quality of habitats associated with the decalcified fixed dunes, e.g. neutral grasslands, scrub, especially where these exhibit natural transition to decalcified fixed dune vegetation.

Sensitivities


Harbour seal – sensitivities related to seals (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)


Sensitivities relating to subtidal sandbanks (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)





H2170 Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae)








H2150 Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-Ulicetea)



None

Appendix C



Mitigations relevant to noise, sediment mobilisation, physical habitat disturbance, toxic contamination, vessel activity, changes in coastal process, collision and barrier to movement, and decrease of water flow – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4. Seal specific mitigation: As the zone is overlying a seal foraging area more stringent mitigation is required. Noise mitigation from Table 2.5 should be strictly adhered to and, if possible, implement more than one mitigation. To reduce disturbance of prey the turbine bases should be installed individually, thus minimising the area of disturbance.


Seals from this SAC will be affected by vessel movement, noise, collision and barrier to movement. The wind resource zone overlaps the foraging area of the seals, and increased vessel activity will have an impact on the seal’s haul-out site. Implementing the mitigation outlined above should result in no LSE of the seal population in the SAC. The Wind Resource Zone 2 is within the boundary of the subtidal part of the SAC, not the intertidal part. Therefore it is considered that there will be no LSE on mudflats/sandflats, dunes and salt meadows interest features. Turbine construction within the boundary of the SAC has the potential to affect the integrity of the subtidal sandbank habitat This can be mitigated by careful siting of the turbines, and therefore there will be no LSE on the subtidal sandbank habitat.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: H1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide H1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) H2170 Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae) H2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (“white dunes”) H2130 Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”) H2110 Embryonic shifting dunes H2150 Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-Ulicetea) H1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time S1365 Phoca vitulina

Appendix C


Site name North Antrim Coast


Site code UK0030224

Relevant zone(s) Ti1, Wi1, Ti2

Related sites None


Interest features S1014 Vertigo angustior H2130 Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”) H1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines H1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts H2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (“white dunes”) H6230 Species-rich Nardus grassland, on siliceous substrates in mountain areas (and submountain areas in continental Europe) H1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)


S1014 Vertigo angustior Terrestrial species not exposed to direct or indirect effects of zone or cables

H1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts H6230 Species-rich Nardus grassland, on siliceous substrates in mountain areas (and submountain areas in continental Europe)

Terrestrial habitats not exposed to direct or indirect effects of zone or cables



Maintain and expand the extent of existing species-rich fixed dune, SD8. Maintain and enhance species diversity within the SD8 community including the presence of notable species. Maintain the diversity and quality of habitats associated with the fixed dunes, e.g. neutral grasslands, scrub, especially where these exhibit natural transition to fixed dune vegetation.

H1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines Maintain and enhance the extent of annual vegetation of drift lines subject to natural processes. Allow the natural processes which determine the development and extent of annual vegetation of drift lines to operate appropriately. Maintain and enhance, as appropriate, the species diversity within this community including the presence of notable species.





Appendix C


Sensitivities



H1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines









None




Dunes are not considered to be sensitive to tidal regime change therefore no LSE is anticipated. A change in tidal range may cause a change in location of annual vegetation of drift lines, however the tidal range change is unlikely to cause a large enough impact on the interest feature or completely remove it from the site. Therefore we can conclude that there is no LSE on this interest feature.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: H1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines H2130 Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”) H2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (“white dunes”) H1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)

Appendix C


Site name North Inishowen Coast


Site code IE0002012


Related sites None


Interest features 1355 Lutra lutra 1014 Vertigo angustior 1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts 1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks 1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide 2130 Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”) 21A0 Machairs 4030 European dry heaths


1014 Vertigo angustior Terrestrial invertebrate species not exposed to indirect effects of the zones.

1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts

Terrestrial habitat not exposed to indirect effects of the zones.

1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks Terrestrial habitat not exposed to indirect effects of the zones.

21A0 Machairs Terrestrial habitat not exposed to indirect effects of the zones.

4030 European dry heaths Terrestrial habitat not exposed to indirect effects of the zones.


1355 Lutra lutra



To maintain the Annex I habitats for which the SAC has been selected at favourable conservation status. To maintain the extent, species richness and biodiversity of the entire site. To establish effective liaison and co-operation with landowners, legal users and relevant authorities.

2130 Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”)

Sensitivities

1355 Lutra lutra

Otter – sensitivities relating to otters (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)



Appendix C


2130 Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”)



None


Mitigations relevant to physical habitat disturbance, toxic contamination, sediment mobilisation, collision and barrier to movement, and vessel activity – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4.


Otters are regularly seen along the shoreline and it is thought that they breed within the site. Otters in this area do tend to forage out along the coastline, and the substrate below the Wi1 zone is mussel deposits, an ideal feeding ground for otters, therefore there is the potential for the otter and the feeding ground to be affected. However, with the proper mitigation implemented It can be concluded that there will be no LSE on otters. Dunes are not considered to be sensitive to tidal regime change therefore no LSE is anticipated. There is the potential for the three resource zones to affect the mudflats and sandflats as the SAC lies within one tidal cycle of zones Wi1 and Wa1. Impacts may occur from a change in hydrodynamic regime affecting the mobility of suspended sediments. Therefore it is not possible to exclude any LSE on mudflats and sandflats and further assessment needs to be undertaken.

Further action For the following interest features it is not possible to conclude that there will be no LSE, and further assessment will need to be undertaken: 1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: 1355 Lutra lutra 2130 Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”)

Appendix C


Site name Owenkillew River


Site code UK0030233

Relevant zone(s) (site screened in for anadromous fish and otters only)

Related sites River Finn SAC (IE0002301) River Faughan and Tributaries cSAC (UK0030233) River Foyle and Tributaries SAC (UK0030320) River Roe and Tributaries SCI (UK0030360)


Interest features S1106 Salmo salar S1355 Lutra lutra S1029 Margaritifera margaritifera H91D0 Bog woodland H91A0 Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles H3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation


Site screened in only because it contains anadromous fish and otter interest features. The freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera is also included in the screening due to their dependency on salmonids during the larval stage. All other interest features are not exposed to the potential effects of the ORESAP, and are therefore not considered to be sensitive.


1355 Lutra lutra

To avoid deterioration of the habitats of Otter or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying interests. To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term: population of the species as a viable component of the site; and distribution of the species within the site.

1106 Salmo salar

The salmon population of the site will be viable throughout its distribution (maintaining itself on a long-term basis). There will be no contraction of the salmon distribution in the site. Within the salmon distribution there will be sufficient habitat to support a viable population. Migration of salmon adults and smolt must be unhindered by unnatural barriers.

S1029 Margaritifera margaritifera

Subject to natural change, maintain the habitats of Margaritifera margaritifera (freshwater pearl mussel) in favourable condition:

• Maintain the size of the existing significant populations of M. margaritifera

• Maintain the range of existing populations of M. margaritifera

Sensitivities

1106 Salmo salar

Atlantic salmon – sensitivities relating to migratory fish (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)

Appendix C


1355 Lutra lutra


S1029 Margaritifera margaritifera

Freshwater pearl mussel – sensitivities relating to migratory fish (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)


None


Mitigations relevant to noise, physical habitat disturbance, toxic contamination, sediment mobilisation, collision and barrier to movement, and vessel activity – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4. Atlantic Salmon specific mitigation: To avoid or not carry out construction work in the southern part of the resource zone when there is potential for turbidity plumes and noise to affect salmon migration runs.


Atlantic salmon is found in the Owenkillew River, consequently any impedance to migration through to the river, or increase in adult/juvenile/smolt mortality within the vicinity of the river entrance could have an effect on the number of adults arriving to spawn at the site, and therefore on the population viability in the long term. The site has been included in the screening because of the presence of windfarm and tidal, Ti1and Wi2, zones. However, the site boundary is distant from the resource zone by more than one tidal ellipse, so effects from turbidity are discounted, and the route to the Atlantic does not require passage through a tidal energy resource zone. EMF effects from export cables will be avoided by suitable burial depth. Adhering to the required mitigation, it is concluded there will be no LSE on Atlantic Salmon. The Owenkillew River is important for Otter (Lutra lutra), where it is widespread throughout the system. Otters in this area do tend to forage out along the coastline, and the substrate below the Wi1 zone is mussel deposits, an ideal feeding ground for otters, therefore there is the potential for the otter and the feeding ground to be affected. However, with the proper mitigation implemented It can be concluded that there will be no LSE on otters. The Owenkillew River is important for sustaining populations of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera, estimated at a minimum number of 10,000 individuals, confined to 4 km of undisturbed river channel in the upper reaches of the river. It is the largest known population surviving in Northern Ireland. During the reproductive phase the eggs, upon fertilisation, develop into Glochidia (larvae). On release from the female the Glochidia must infect an appropriate host to continue development, usually a juvenile salmonid. This development continues for between 4 and 12 months, at which point they detach from the host and settle onto a suitable substratum to complete the life cycle. The pearl mussels are not directly or indirectly affected by the resource zones. However, they may potentially be affected by the resource zones if the host salmonid is affected, of which Atlantic Salmon is an interest feature of this site. The freshwater pearl mussel is deemed to have no LSE from the resource zones as long as the Atlantic Salmon has no possible LSE. With appropriate mitigation in place it is expected that there is no LSE on Atlantic Salmon.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: 1106 Salmo salar 1355 Lutra lutra S1029 Margaritifera margaritifera

Appendix C


Site name Pen Llyn a’r Sarnau / Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau


Site code UK0013117


Related sites None


Interest features S1349 Tursiops truncatus S1355 Lutra lutra S1364 Halichoerus grypus H1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time H1130 Estuaries H1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide H1150 Coastal lagoons H1160 Large shallow inlets and bays H1170 Reefs H1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand H1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) H8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves


Site screened in only because it contains marine mammal interest features. All other interest features are not exposed to potential effects of ORESAP, and are therefore not considered to be sensitive.


S1349 Tursiops truncatus The “bottlenose dolphin” feature will be considered to be in favourable conservation status when: POPULATION DYNAMICS (i) The number of bottlenose dolphins within the SAC is stable or increasing (ii) The number of bottlenose dolphin calves produced in the SAC and beyond is sufficient to sustain the population (iii) There is a balance between the relative proportions of immature, mature, male and female bottlenose dolphins within the SAC and beyond (iv) The physiological health of bottlenose dolphins within the SAC is good NATURAL RANGE (v) The range of the bottlenose dolphin within the SAC and their contribution to the SW UK and Ireland population is not constrained or hindered SUPPORTING HABITAT (vi) There are appropriate and adequate food sources for the bottlenose dolphins within the SAC and beyond. (vii) The amount of supporting habitat for the bottlenose dolphins is stable or increasing SECURITY OF THE FEATURE IN THE LONG TERM (viii) The management of activities or operations likely to damage or degrade the distribution, extent, structure, function or typical species populations of the feature, is appropriate for maintaining favourable conservation status and is secure in the long term.

Appendix C


S1364 Halichoerus grypus The “grey seal” feature will be considered to be in favourable conservation status when: POUPLATION DYNAMICS (i) The number of grey seals within the site is stable or increasing and there is a balance between the relative proportions of immature, mature, male, female components (ii) The level of pup production within the SAC is stable or increasing (iii) The physiological health of grey seals within the SAC is good NATURAL RANGE (iv) The range and distribution of grey seals within the SAC and beyond is not constrained or hindered SUPPORTING HABITATS (v) Sites used by grey seals are accessible to them and the extent and appropriate quality of supporting habitats are stable or increasing. (vi) There are appropriate and sufficient food sources for grey seals within the SAC and beyond SECURITY OF THE FEATURE IN THE LONG TERM (vii) The management of activities or operations likely to damage or degrade the distribution, extent, structure, function or typical species populations of the feature, is appropriate for maintaining favourable conservation status and is secure in the long term.

Sensitivities

S1349 Tursiops truncatus

Bottlenose dolphin - sensitivities relating to cetaceans (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)


Grey seal - sensitivities relating to seals (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)


Round 3 offshore wind farm zone – Zone 9 Irish Sea Potential noise impacts caused during construction. Operational disturbance unlikely.


Mitigations relevant to noise, vessel activity, collision and barrier to movement – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4 Noise can severely impact the foraging behaviour of seals and therefore as many mitigation measures as possible should be implemented. It is highly recommended to keep open discussions and dialogue with the Round 3 organisations with regards to the timing of the construction of Zone 9 and Wi1 resource zone.


Noise is the predominant concern with regards to marine mammals, followed by the devices being a barrier to movement or potential collision risk. There are several mitigation measures in controlling and reducing noise levels that can be implemented during the installation of the devices. There have been sightings of Tursiops truncatus along the NI coastline although whether they are linked to this SAC is unknown. If any bottlenose dolphins migrate to the NI coastline implementing the mitigations shown in Table 2.5 should minimise any potential collisions and barrier to movement. There is also the potential for an in-combination effect with the Round 3 Zone 9 if the construction of the Round 3 zone coincides with the construction of Wi2 zone. This is also only if it is shown that Tursiops truncatus will migrate through both zones. To mitigate this construction of the two zones should, ideally, not coincide, and during the project stage this impact should be made aware of. Also the usual mitigation for cetaceans should be applied. The ORESAP is not expected to have a significant effect on the habitats supporting at this site, and the zones are at a distance outside the expected foraging zone. It is therefore considered that there is no LSE on the seals and the habitats supporting them.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: 1364 Halichoerus grypus S1349 Tursiops truncatus

Appendix C


Site name Rathlin Island


Site code UK0016618

Relevant zone(s) Ti1, Wi1, Ti2

Related sites Rathlin Island SPA (UK9020011)


Interest features H8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves H1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts H1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines H1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time H1170 Reefs


H1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts

Terrestrial habitats not exposed to direct or indirect effects of zone or cables


H8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves

Maintain and enhance, as appropriate the extent of the submerged or partially submerged sea caves. Allow the natural processes which determine the development, structure, function and extent of the submerged or partially submerged sea caves, to operate appropriately. Maintain and enhance, as appropriate, the species diversity within this habitat.



Allow the natural processes which determine the development, structure and extent of sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time, to operate appropriately. Maintain and enhance, as appropriate, the species diversity within this habitat.. Maintain the extent and volume of sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time, subject to natural processes.

H1170 Reefs Maintain and enhance, as appropriate the extent of the reefs. Allow the natural processes which determine the development, structure, function and extent of the reefs, to operate appropriately. Maintain and enhance, as appropriate, the species diversity within this habitat.

Sensitivities


Sensitivities relating to caves (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)





Appendix C


H1170 Reefs

Sensitivities relating to reefs (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)


None


Mitigations relating to sediment mobilisation, physical habitat disturbance, toxic contamination, changes in coastal processes, scour, and decrease in water flow – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4.


Devices placed in Ti1, and Ti2 can potentially alter the tidal regime of the area. This may in turn affect the zonation of communities win submerged or partially submerged sea caves. Therefore it is not possible to conclude that there will be no LSE on caves and that further assessment is required. Depending upon the placement of the tidal stream generators there is the potential for the sandbanks and reefs to be affected. Therefore it can be concluded that there will be no LSE on sandbanks and reefs following the implementation of the relevant mitigation. A change in tidal range may cause a change in location of annual vegetation of drift lines, however the tidal range change is unlikely to completely impact or remove the interest feature from the site. Therefore we can conclude that there is no LSE on this interest feature.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: H1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines H1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time H1170 Reefs For the following interest features it is not possible to conclude that there will be no LSE, and further assessment will need to be undertaken: H8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves

Appendix C


Site name Red Bay

Site designation cSAC

Site code UK0030365

Relevant zone(s) Ti2

Related sites None


Interest features H1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time


None



To avoid deterioration of the qualifying habitat (Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time) thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for the qualifying interest. To ensure for the qualifying habitat that the following are maintained in the long term, subject to natural change:

• Extent of the habitat on site • Distribution of the habitat within the site • Structure and function of the habitat • Processes supporting the habitat • Distribution of typical species of the habitat • Viability of typical species as components of the habitat

No disturbance of typical species of the habitat

Sensitivities H1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time



None


Mitigations relating to sediment mobilisation, toxic contamination, and physical habitat disturbance – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4.


Depending upon the placement of the tidal stream generators there is the potential for the sandbanks to be affected. As long as the appropriate mitigation is followed, i.e. the careful siting of the devices so that they do not impinge on the sandbanks, it can be concluded that there will be no LSE on sandbanks and reefs.

Appendix C


Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: H1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

Appendix C


Site name River Bladnoch


Site code UK0030249

Relevant zone(s) (site screened in for anadromous fish and otters)

Related sites


Interest features S1106 Salmo salar



1106 Salmo salar


Sensitivities

1106 Salmo salar



draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan Potential in-combination effect with the ORESAP during migration season.


Mitigations relevant to noise, physical habitat disturbance, toxic contamination, sediment mobilisation, collision and barrier to movement, and vessel activity – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4.

Appendix C



The River Bladnoch is one of the few rivers in the west coast of Scotland that still supports an Atlantic salmon population. A particular feature of the Bladnoch’s salmon population is its ‘spring run’. The salmon spawning and nursery grounds of this river are an outstanding example of salmon habitat in a European context and is the main reason for designating the river as an SAC. The site has been screened out from a potential LSE from the ORESAP, including in-combination effects with the draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan, to impact upon salmon migration pathways, as the site is too far from the resource zones for a LSE from turbidity arising from construction to provide a barrier to salmon accessing or leaving the river, EMF effects from export cables will be avoided by suitable burial depth, construction noise will be mitigated and there is evidence that salmon will avoid tidal devices during operation due to the noise emitted.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: 1106 Salmo salar

Appendix C


Site name River Derwent and Bassenthwaite Lake


Site code UK0030032

Relevant zone(s) (site screened in for anadromous fish)

Related sites None


Interest features 1099 Lampetra fluviatilis 1095 Petromyzon marinus 1096 Lampetra planeri 1106 Salmo salar 1355 Lutra lutra 1065 Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia 1831 Luronium natans 3130 Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea 3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation


Site screened in only because it contains anadromous fish interest features. All other interest features are not exposed to the potential effects of the ORESAP, and are therefore not considered to be sensitive.


1106 Salmo salar


Sensitivities

1106 Salmo salar

Atlantic salmon – sensitivities relating to migratory fish (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5





Appendix C



The River Derwent represents Atlantic salmon populations in the north-west England, and is a particularly good example of a large oligotrophic river flowing over base-poor geology. Low intensity land-use in the catchment means there is good water quality throughout much of the system. This, coupled with the presence of extensive gravel shoals, makes it a particularly suitable river for breeding and enables it to support a large population. The site has been screened out from a potential LSE from the ORESAP, including in-combination effects with the draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan, to impact upon salmon migration pathways, as the site is too far from the resource zones for a LSE from turbidity arising from construction to provide a barrier to salmon accessing or leaving the river, EMF effects from export cables will be avoided by suitable burial depth, construction noise will be mitigated and there is evidence that salmon will avoid tidal devices during operation due to the noise emitted.


Appendix C


Site name River Eden


Site code UK0012643


Related sites None


Interest features 1092 Austropotamobius pallipes 1163 Cottus gobio 1106 Salmo salar 1096 Lampetra planeri 1095 Petromyzon marinus 1355 Lutra lutra 3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation 3130 Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea 91E0 Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)




1106 Salmo salar


Sensitivities

1106 Salmo salar






Appendix C



The River Eden represents one of the largest populations of Atlantic Salmon in northern England. It is an excellent example of a large river system that flows over varied, base-rich geology. This, couple with its large range in altitude, results in the development of distinct habitat types, supporting diverse plant and invertebrate communities. The high ecological value of the river system, and the fact that the salmon are able to use most of the catchment, means that the Eden is able to maintain a large population of salmon. The site has been screened out from a potential LSE from the ORESAP, including in-combination effects with the draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan, to impact upon salmon migration pathways, as the site is too far from the resource zones for a LSE from turbidity arising from construction to provide a barrier to salmon accessing or leaving the river, EMF effects from export cables will be avoided by suitable burial depth, construction noise will be mitigated and there is evidence that salmon will avoid tidal devices during operation due to the noise emitted.


Appendix C


Site name River Ehen


Site code UK0030057


Related sites None


Interest features 1106 Salmo salar 1029 Margaritifera margaritifera




1106 Salmo salar


Sensitivities

1106 Salmo salar






Appendix C



The River Ehen supports England’s largest population of the freshwater pearl mussel. Fish such as the Atlantic salmon play an integral part in the freshwater pearl mussel’s life cycle. During the reproductive phase the eggs, upon fertilisation, develop into Glochidia (larvae). On release from the female the Glochidia must infect an appropriate host to continue development, usually a juvenile salmonid. This development continues for between 4 and 12 months, at which point they detach from the host and settle onto a suitable substratum to complete the life cycle. Therefore it is important to protect the salmon of the River Ehen because, if the salmon are impacted there is the potential for the freshwater pearl mussel to be impacted. The site has been screened out from a potential LSE from the ORESAP, including in-combination effects with the draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan, to impact upon salmon migration pathways, as the site is too far from the resource zones for a LSE from turbidity arising from construction to provide a barrier to salmon accessing or leaving the river, EMF effects from export cables will be avoided by suitable burial depth, construction noise will be mitigated and there is evidence that salmon will avoid tidal devices during operation due to the noise emitted.


Appendix C


Site name River Boyne and River Blackwater


Site code IE0002299


Related sites None


Interest features 1099 Lampetra fluviatilis 1106 Salmo salar 1355 Lutra lutra 7230 Alkaline fens 91E0 Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)




1099 Lampetra fluviatilis


1106 Salmo salar

Sensitivities

1106 Salmo salar


1099 Lampetra fluviatilis

River lamprey – sensitivities relating to migratory fish (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)


None



Appendix C



Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) use the tributaries of the River Boyne and headwaters as spawning grounds, and run the Boyne almost every month of the year. The Boyne is most important as it represents an eastern river which holds large three-sea-winter fish arriving in April/May. The grilse come in July, water permitting. The river gets a further run of fish in late August and this run would appear to last well after September. Consequently any impedance to migration through to the river, or increase in adult/juvenile/smolt mortality within the vicinity of the river entrance could have an effect on the number of adults arriving to spawn at the site, and therefore on the population viability in the long term. The site has been included in the screening because of the presence of windfarm developments in Wi2 zone on the potential migratory route however the habitats of the site are not directly affected by the ORESAP. It is therefore necessary to consider possible effects on this site in terms of the passage of fish to or from the River Boyne. Noise effects from the piled turbines have the ability to cause fish mortality and affect migration. LSE caused by such noise on Atlantic Salmon can be mitigated and thus excluded. The site has been screened out from a potential LSE from the ORESAP, including in-combination effects with the draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan, to impact upon salmon migration pathways, as the site is too far from the resource zones for a LSE from turbidity arising from construction to provide a barrier to salmon accessing or leaving the river, EMF effects from export cables will be avoided by suitable burial depth, construction noise will be mitigated and there is evidence that salmon will avoid tidal devices during operation due to the noise emitted. The river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) is present in the lower reaches of the River Boyne, and it is unlikely that the river lamprey will migrate northwards along the coastline towards Wi2 zone. Therefore no predicted LSE are expected to incur on river lamprey.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: 1099 Lampetra fluviatilis 1106 Salmo salar

Appendix C


Site name River Faughan and Tributaries

Site designation cSAC

Site code UK0030361


Related sites River Finn SAC (IE0002301) Owenkillew River SAC (UK0030233) River Foyle and Tributaries SAC (UK0030320) River Roe and Tributaries SAC (UK0030360)


Interest features S1106 Salmo salar S1355 Lutra lutra H91A0 Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles


H91A0 Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles


1355 Lutra lutra


1106 Salmo salar


Sensitivities

1106 Salmo salar


1355 Lutra lutra



None

Appendix C



Mitigations relevant to noise, physical habitat disturbance, toxic contamination, sediment mobilisation, collision and barrier to movement, and vessel activity – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4. Atlantic Salmon specific mitigation: To avoid or not carry out construction work in the southern part of the resource zone where there is potential for turbidity plumes and noise to affect salmon migration.


The River Faughan and Tributaries are among the most productive rivers and are important for Atlantic salmon. It is estimated that the number of returning salmon entering the river is on average approximately 6% of the Northern Ireland spawning population. Recent micro-satellite DNA analysis of stocks within the Foyle area has provided evidence for population differentiation within the River Faughan catchment. Consequently any impedance to migration through to the river, or increase in adult/juvenile/smolt mortality within the vicinity of the river entrance could have an effect on the number of adults arriving to spawn at the site, and therefore on the population viability in the long term. The site has been included in the screening because of the presence of windfarm and tidal, Ti1and Wi2, zones. However, the site boundary is distant from the resource zone by more than one tidal ellipse, so effects from turbidity are discounted, and the route to the Atlantic does not require passage through a tidal energy resource zone. EMF effects from export cables will be avoided by suitable burial depth. Adhering to the required mitigation, it is concluded there will be no LSE on Atlantic Salmon. The River Faughan is also important for Otter (Lutra lutra), where it is widespread throughout the system. Otters in this area do tend to forage out along the coastline, and the substrate below the Wi1 zone is mussel deposits, an ideal feeding ground for otters, therefore there is the potential for the otter and the feeding ground to be affected. However, with the proper mitigation implemented It can be concluded that there will be no LSE on otters.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: 1106 Salmo salar 1355 Lutra lutra

Appendix C


Site name River Finn


Site code IE0002301


Related sites River Foyle and Tributaries (UK0030320) Owenkillew River SAC (UK0030233) River Roe and Tributaries SCI (UK0030360) Faughan River and Tributaries cSAC (UK0030361)


Interest features 1106 Salmo salar 1355 Lutra lutra 3110 Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae) 4010 Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix 7130 Blanket bogs 7140 Transition mires and quaking bogs


Site screened in only because it contains anadromous fish and otter interest features. All other interest features are not exposed to the potential effects of the ORESAP, and are therefore not considered to be sensitive.


1355 Lutra lutra

To maintain the Annex II species for which the SAC has been selected at favourable conservation status

1106 Salmo salar

Sensitivities

1106 Salmo salar


1355 Lutra lutra



None

Appendix C





The Finn system is one of Ireland’s premier salmon waters. The Finn is important in an international context in that its populations of spring salmon appear to be stable while declining in many areas of Ireland and Europe. The grilse runs peaks east at the upper reaches of the River Finn. Consequently any impedance to migration through to the river, or increase in adult/juvenile/smolt mortality within the vicinity of the river entrance could have an effect on the number of adults arriving to spawn at the site, and therefore on the population viability in the long term. The site has been included in the screening because of the presence of windfarm and tidal, Ti1and Wi2, zones. However, the site boundary is distant from the resource zone by more than one tidal ellipse, so effects from turbidity are discounted, and the route to the Atlantic does not require passage through a tidal energy resource zone. EMF effects from export cables will be avoided by suitable burial depth. Adhering to the required mitigation, it is concluded there will be no LSE on Atlantic Salmon. The River Finn is also important for Otter (Lutra lutra), where it is widespread throughout the system. Otters in this area do tend to forage out along the coastline, and the substrate below the Wi1 zone is mussel deposits, an ideal feeding ground for otters, therefore there is the potential for the otter and the feeding ground to be affected. However, with the proper mitigation implemented It can be concluded that there will be no LSE on otters.


Appendix C


Site name River Foyle and Tributaries


Site code UK0030320

Relevant zone(s) (site screened in for anadromous fish and otters only)

Related sites River Finn SAC (IE0002301) Owenkillew River SAC (UK0030233) River Roe and Tributaries SCI (UK0030360) Faughan River and Tributaries cSAC (UK0030361)


Interest features S1106 Salmo salar S1355 Lutra lutra H3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation.


H3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation.


1355 Lutra lutra


1106 Salmo salar


Sensitivities

1106 Salmo salar

Atlantic salmon – sensitivities relating to migratory fish (Table 3.3 in Section Y3.5)

1355 Lutra lutra

Otter – sensitivities relating to otters (Table XX in Section YY)


None

Appendix C





The River Foyle and Tributaries is a large, cross-border river in the north-west of Ireland. The river has the largest population of Atlantic Salmon in Northern Ireland, with around 15% of estimated spawning numbers. The majority of the salmon returning are grilse, with a smaller but important number of spring salmon also occurring. Research also indicates that individual sub-catchments within the system support genetically distinct salmon populations. Consequently any impedance to migration through to the river, or increase in adult/juvenile/smolt mortality within the vicinity of the river entrance could have an effect on the number of adults arriving to spawn at the site, and therefore on the population viability in the long term. The site has been included in the screening because of the presence of windfarm and tidal, Ti1and Wi2, zones. However, the site boundary is distant from the resource zone by more than one tidal ellipse, so effects from turbidity are discounted, and the route to the Atlantic does not require passage through a tidal energy resource zone. EMF effects from export cables will be avoided by suitable burial depth. Adhering to the required mitigation, it is concluded there will be no LSE on Atlantic Salmon. The River Foyle is also important for Otter (Lutra lutra), where it is widespread throughout the system. Otters in this area do tend to forage out along the coastline, and the substrate below the Wi1 zone is mussel deposits, an ideal feeding ground for otters, therefore there is the potential for the otter and the feeding ground to be affected. However, with the proper mitigation implemented It can be concluded that there will be no LSE on otters.


Appendix C


Site name River Roe and Tributaries

Site designation SCI

Site code UK0030360


Related sites River Finn SAC (IE0002301) Owenkillew River SAC (UK0030233) River Foyle and Tributaries SAC (UK0030320) Faughan River and Tributaries cSAC (UK0030361)


Interest features S1106 Salmo salar S1355 Lutra lutra H3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation H91A0 Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles


H3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation H91A0 Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles


1355 Lutra lutra


1106 Salmo salar


Sensitivities

1106 Salmo salar


1355 Lutra lutra



None

Appendix C





The River Roe and Tributaries flows from the hills above Dungiven down through the Roe Valley entering the Foyle Estuary. The river has a medium population of Atlantic Salmon. The majority of the salmon returning are grilse, with a smaller but important number of spring salmon also occurring. Consequently any impedance to migration through to the river, or increase in adult/juvenile/smolt mortality within the vicinity of the river entrance could have an effect on the number of adults arriving to spawn at the site, and therefore on the population viability in the long term. The site has been included in the screening because of the presence of windfarm and tidal, Ti1and Wi2, zones. However, the site boundary is distant from the resource zone by more than one tidal ellipse, so effects from turbidity are discounted, and the route to the Atlantic does not require passage through a tidal energy resource zone. EMF effects from export cables will be avoided by suitable burial depth. Adhering to the required mitigation, it is concluded there will be no LSE on Atlantic Salmon. The River Roe is also important for Otter (Lutra lutra), where it is widespread throughout the system. Otters in this area do tend to forage out along the coastline, and the substrate below the Wi1 zone is mussel deposits, an ideal feeding ground for otters, therefore there is the potential for the otter and the feeding ground to be affected. However, with the proper mitigation implemented It can be concluded that there will be no LSE on otters.


Appendix C


Site name Roaringwater Bay and Islands


Site code IE0000101


Related sites None


Interest features 1351 Phocoena phocoena 1355 Lutra lutra 1364 Halichoerus grypus 1160 Large shallow inlets and bays 1170 Reefs 8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves 4030 European dry heaths 1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts




1351 Phocoena phocoena To maintain the Annex II species for which the SAC has been selected at favourable conservation status.

1355 Lutra lutra 1364 Halichoerus grypus

Sensitivities

1351 Phocoena phocoena


1355 Lutra lutra





None

Appendix C





Noise is the predominant concern with regards to marine mammals, followed by the devices being a barrier to movement or potential collision risk. There are several mitigation measures in controlling and reducing noise levels that can be implemented during the installation of the devices. There may be the potential for harbour porpoise to migrate up to the waters of NI. Provided the recommended mitigation is adhered to it is anticipated that there will be no LSE on the harbour porpoises. The ORESAP is not expected to have a significant effect on the habitats supporting seals and otters at this site, and the zones are at a distance outside the expected foraging zone. It is therefore considered that there is no LSE on the seals and otters and the habitats supporting them.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: 1364 Halichoerus grypus 1355 Lutra lutra 1351 Phocoena phocoena

Appendix C


Site name Skerries and Causeway

Site designation dSAC

Site code Not yet assigned

Relevant zone(s) Ti1, Ti2, Wi1

Related sites North Antrim Coast SAC (UK0030224)


Interest features S1351 Phocoena phocoena H1170 Reefs H1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time H8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves


None


S1351 Phocoena phocoena To avoid deterioration of the qualifying habitats and species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for the qualifying interest. To ensure for the qualifying habitats that the following are maintained in the long term, subject to natural change:

• Extent of the habitats on site • Distribution of the habitats within the site • Structure and function of the habitats • Processes supporting the habitats • Distribution of typical species of the habitats • Viability of typical species as components of the habitat • No disturbance of typical species of the habitat

H1170 Reefs H1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time H8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves

Sensitivities

S1351 Phocoena phocoena


H1170 Reefs


H1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time



Sensitivities relating to caves (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)

Appendix C



draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan Construction noise from the Islay and Kintyre zones


Mitigations relevant to noise, vessel activity, collision and barrier to movement, sediment mobilisation, physical habitat disturbance, toxic contamination, changes in coastal processes, scour, and decrease in water flow – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4 Noise can severely impact the foraging behaviour of marine mammals and therefore as many mitigation measures as possible should be implemented. It is highly recommended to keep open discussions and dialogue with the draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan organisations with regards to the timing of the construction of the Islay and Kintyre zones and Ti1/2 and Wi1 zones.


Reefs The reefs include the following: bedrock and stony reefs; flat, sloping and terraced bedrock reef; vertical reef including 30m high sublittoral cliffs; silt covered and sand scoured reef; coastal shallow infralittoral reefs and reefs that are five miles from the coast and extend to over 90m deep. The varied reef types and conditions in this area support a number of rare and priority species, and several southern species that are found no where else in Northern Ireland. With careful siting of the wind turbines, and other relevant mitigation, it is expected that there will be no LSE on the reef interest feature. Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time Both in the area shallower than 20m, and in the deeper flanks and sand waves, there is a diversity of sandbank type and communities in a relatively small area: within the Broad Sound there are relatively stable areas of coarse sediment. Just south of the Skerries there is an area of eelgrass Zostera marina and there are also large areas of mobile sand waves with a relatively poor fauna that provide an important habitat for sandeels which are characteristic of this type of sandbank. With careful siting of the wind turbines, and other relevant mitigation, it is expected that there will be no LSE on the subtidal sandbanks. Submerged or partial submerged sea caves Much of the Skerries and Causeway coastline is characterised by rocky cliffs; and those cliffs have numerous sea caves (perhaps 40 in total), many of them with both submerged and partially submerged elements. There are also an unknown number of fully submerged sea caves including one swim through tunnel through the Great Skerries Island. Devices placed in Ti1, and Ti2 can potentially alter the tidal regime of the area. This may in turn affect the zonation of communities win submerged or partially submerged sea caves. Therefore it is not possible to conclude that there will be no LSE on caves and that further assessment is required. Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) Although the numbers of harbour porpoise are relatively small, monitoring has shown there to be a permanent presence within the boundary area. Calves and juveniles are regularly recorded in the area indicating that this site may be an important harbour porpoise nursery ground. Harbour porpoises may be impacted upon by noise and increase in vessel movement, therefore it is important that mitigation measures are strictly adhered to. There is also the potential for in-combination effects with the draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan. It is highly recommended to keep open discussions and dialogue with the draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan organisations with regards to the timing of the construction of the Islay and Kintyre zones and Ti1/2 and Wi1 zones.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: H1170 Reefs H1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time S1351 Phocoena phocoena For the following interest features it is not possible to conclude that there will be no LSE, and further assessment will need to be undertaken: H8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves

Appendix C


Site name South-East Islay Skerries


Site code UK0030067


Related sites None


Interest features S1365 Phoca vitulina


None



To avoid deterioration of the habitats of qualifying species (Common seal Phoca vitulina) or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for the qualifying interest. To ensure for the qualifying species that the following are maintained in the long term:

• Population of the species as a viable component of the site • Distribution of the species within site • Distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species • Structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species • No significant disturbance of the species

Sensitivities






Mitigations relevant to noise, vessel activity, collision and barrier to movement – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4 Noise can severely impact the foraging behaviour of seals and therefore as many mitigation measures as possible should be implemented. It is highly recommended to keep open discussions and dialogue with the draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan organisations with regards to the timing of the construction of the Islay and Kintyre zones and Ti1/2 and Wi1 zones.

Appendix C



Noise is the predominant concern with regards to marine mammals, followed by the devices being a barrier to movement or potential collision risk. There are several mitigation measures in controlling and reducing noise levels that can be implemented during the installation of the devices. Ti1, Ti2, and Wi1 resource zones are within 60km of the South-East Islay Skerries and therefore there is the potential for seals to forage near these resource zones. Provided mitigation is adhered to it is anticipated that there will be no LSE on the seals.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: S1365 Phoca vitulina

Appendix C


Site name Strangford Lough


Site code UK0016618


Related sites Strangford Lough SPA (UK9020111) Strangford Lough Ramsar (UK12021)


Interest features S1365 Phoca vitulina H1160 Large shallow inlets and bays H1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) H1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand H1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks H1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines H1170 Reefs H1150 Coastal lagoons H1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide


H1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks Terrestrial habitat not exposed to direct or indirect effects of the resource zone.



Maintain and enhance, as appropriate, the Common Seal population. Maintain and enhance, as appropriate, physical features used by Common Seals within the site.

H1160 Large shallow inlets and bays

Maintain the extent of the large shallow inlet and bay. Allow the natural processes which determine the development, structure, function and extent of the large shallow inlet and bay, to operate appropriately. Maintain and enhance, as appropriate, the species diversity within this habitat.



H1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand

Maintain and enhance the extent of Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand subject to natural processes. Allow the natural processes which determine the development and extent of Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand, to operate appropriately. Maintain and enhance, as appropriate, the species diversity within this habitat.


H1170 Reefs Maintain the extent of the reefs. Allow the natural processes which determine the development, structure, function and extent of the reefs, to operate appropriately. Maintain and enhance, as appropriate, the species diversity within this habitat.

Appendix C


H1150 Coastal lagoons

Maintain the extent of the coastal lagoons. Allow the natural processes which determine the development, structure, function and extent of the coastal lagoons, to operate appropriately. Maintain and enhance, as appropriate, the species diversity within this habitat.


Maintain the extent of mudflats and sandflats not covered by sea water at low tide. Allow the natural processes which determine the development, structure and extent of mudflats and sandflats not covered by sea water at low tide, to operate appropriately. Maintain and enhance, as appropriate, the species diversity within this habitat.

Sensitivities



H1160 Large shallow inlets and bays

Sensitivities relating to coastal lagoons, bays and inlets (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)



H1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand




H1170 Reefs


H1150 Coastal lagoons

Sensitivities relating to coastal lagoons, bays and inlets (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)




None


Mitigations relevant to noise, sediment mobilisation, physical habitat disturbance, toxic contamination, vessel activity, changes in coastal process, collision and barrier to movement, and decrease of water flow – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4. Seal specific mitigation: As the zone is overlying a seal foraging area more stringent mitigation is required. Noise mitigation from Table 2.5 should be strictly adhered to and, if possible, implement more than one mitigation. To reduce disturbance of prey the turbine bases should be installed individually, thus minimising the area of disturbance.

Appendix C



Seals from this SAC will be affected by vessel movement, noise, collision and barrier to movement. The Narrows is considered to be consistently the most important area for hauling out in Strangford Lough. This is the most immediate sheltered area relative to the Irish Sea and may indicate the influence of food supply on choice of haul-outs. In summer and autumn breeding and moulting seals move further into the Lough where shelter and calm waters become more important. Pupping and moulting occur in July and August*. The wind resource zone overlaps the foraging area of the seals, and there will be an increase in vessel activity in the region. The haul-out sites for the seals closest to the resource zone are the Narrows. It is not expected for vessels to have to navigate through the narrows for the construction of the site and during maintenance, also the haul-out sites inside the Lough are not expected to have an increase in vessel activity from the resource zone. As a precaution, however, it is recommended that mitigation relevant to vessels is strictly adhered to. The wind resource zone also overlaps the foraging areas of the seals. Again, the mitigation recommended should be strictly adhered to. Following this it is anticipated that there will be no LSE on the common seal and its haul-out sites. The wind resource zone tidal cycle lies runs parallel to the shore, therefore any potential impacts from the construction of the wind farm is unlikely to affect the saltmarshes, coastal lagoons and intertidal mudflats and sandflats. Therefore it can be concluded that there will be no LSE on these interest features.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: H1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines S1365 Phoca vitulina H1160 Large shallow inlets and bays H1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) H1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand H1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide H1170 Reefs H1150 Coastal lagoons

* Source: Common Seal Research and Management SLMC Report July 1999

Appendix C


Site name The Maidens


Site code Not yet assigned


Related sites None


Interest features S1364 Halichoerus grypus H1170 Reefs H1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by seawater all the time





To avoid deterioration of the qualifying habitats and species thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for the qualifying interest. To ensure for the qualifying habitats that the following are maintained in the long term, subject to natural change:

• Extent of the habitats on site

• Distribution of the habitats within the site

• Structure and function of the habitats

• Processes supporting the habitats

• Distribution of typical species of the habitats

• Viability of typical species as components of the habitat

• No disturbance of typical species of the habitat

Sensitivities





Appendix C



Mitigations relevant to noise, vessel activity, collision and barrier to movement – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4 Noise can severely impact the foraging behaviour of seals and therefore as many mitigation measures as possible should be implemented. It is highly recommended to keep open discussions and dialogue with the draft Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Plan organisations with regards to the timing of the construction of the Islay and Kintyre zones and Ti1/2 and Wi1 zones.


Noise is the predominant concern with regards to marine mammals, followed by the devices being a barrier to movement or potential collision risk. There are several mitigation measures in controlling and reducing noise levels that can be implemented during the installation of the devices. While grey seals are not the primary feature of The Maidens dSAC, these relatively remote rocks and islands, and the waters surrounding them in the North Channel, may be important, providing haul-out sites and foraging areas, with up to 70 grey seals recorded. Seals have been recorded at eight separate haut-outs within The Maidens area, including the Sheafing Rock, the Griddle, the Saddle, New Lighthouse Rock, Old Lighthouse Rock, Highlandman, Allens Rock and Russells Rock. Ti2 and Wi2 resource zones are within 60km of the Maidens and therefore there is the potential for seals to forage near these resource zones. There is also the potential for seal haul-out sites to be affected by an increase in vessel movement. Provided mitigation is adhered to it is anticipated that there will be no LSE on the seals.

Further action For the following interest features, it is concluded that there is no LSE, and they are screened out from further consideration in the HRA process: S1364 Halichoerus grypus

Appendix D


Appendix D SPA Habitat Screening Forms

Appendix D


Appendix D


Site name Carlingford Lough

Site designation SPA

Site code UK9020161


Related sites Carlingford Lough Ramsar (UK12004)

Reason(s) for inclusion in HRA Screening Location Direct (zone) Indirect (zone)

Habitats listed in SPA citation N02 Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mudflats. Sandflats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins) N03 Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes N05 Shingle. Sea cliffs. Islets

Habitats not considered sensitive

None

Potentially sensitive habitats

N02 Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mudflats. Sandflats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins). 96% cover

N03 Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes. 3% cover

N05 Shingle. Sea cliffs. Islets 1% cover

Sensitivities

N02 Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mudflats. Sandflats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins).

Sensitivities relating to coastal lagoons, bays and inlets, mudflats and sandflats (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)

N03 Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes.

Sensitivities relating to saltmarsh, (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)

N05 Shingle. Sea cliffs. Islets

Sensitivities relating to sea cliffs, caves, vegetation of uppermost tidal limit (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)


None


Mitigations relevant to sediment mobilisation, physical habitat disturbance, changes in coastal processes and a decrease in water flow – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4.

Possibility of contribution to a Likely Significant Effect on bird interest of SPA N02 Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mudflats. Sandflats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins)

Effect on habitats may contribute to LSE on bird interest of the site, and should be taken into account in screening the SPA. Zone Wi2 may indirectly impact the site due to potential hydrodynamic changes

Appendix D


N03 Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes N05 Shingle. Sea cliffs. Islets

Effect on habitat unlikely to contribute to LSE on bird interest of the site, and does not need to be taken into account in screening the SPA. Any changes to the hydrodynamic regime caused by the placement of turbines in zone Wi2 will not be great enough to cause any impacts on salt marshes, shingle, cliffs and islets.

Appendix D




Site code IE0004078


Related sites None


Habitats listed in SPA citation Intertidal sand and mud flats


None


Intertidal sand and mud flats

Sensitivities

Intertidal sand and mud flats



None


Mitigations relevant to sediment mobilisation, physical habitat disturbance, changes in coastal processes and a decrease in water flow.

Possibility of contribution to a Likely Significant Effect on bird interest of SPA Intertidal sand and mud flats Effect on habitats may contribute to LSE on bird interest of the site, and should be taken into

account in screening the SPA. Zone Wi2 may indirectly impact the site due to potential hydrodynamic changes

Appendix D


Site name Copeland Islands


Site code UK9020291


Related sites None


Habitats listed in SPA citation N05 Shingle. Sea cliffs. Islets N07 Bogs. Marshes. Water fringed vegetation. Fens N14 Improved grassland


N07 Bogs. Marshes. Water fringed vegetation. Fens Terrestrial habitat not exposed to direct or indirect effects of the zone

N14 Improved grassland Terrestrial habitat not exposed to direct or indirect effects of the zone



Sensitivities




None


Mitigations relevant to sediment mobilisation, physical habitat disturbance, changes in coastal processes and a decrease in water flow.

Possibility of contribution to a Likely Significant Effect on bird interest of SPA N05 Shingle. Sea cliffs. Islets Effect on habitat unlikely to contribute to LSE on bird interest of the site, and does not need to

be taken into account in screening the SPA. Any changes to the hydrodynamic regime caused by the placement of a wind farm in zone Wi2 will not be great enough to cause any impacts on shingle, sea cliffs and islets.

Appendix D


Site name Killough Bay


Site code UK9020221


Related sites Killough Bay Ramsar (UK12012)


Habitats listed in SPA citation N02 Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mudflats. Sandflats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins) N03 Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes N04 Coastal sand dunes. Sand beaches. Machair N05 Shingle. Sea cliffs. Islets


None




N04 Coastal sand dunes. Sand beaches. Machair 1% cover


Sensitivities





N04 Coastal sand dunes. Sand beaches. Machair





None



Appendix D




N03 Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes N04 Coastal sand dunes. Sand beaches. Machair N05 Shingle. Sea cliffs. Islets

Effect on habitat unlikely to contribute to LSE on bird interest of the site, and does not need to be taken into account in screening the SPA. Any changes to the hydrodynamic regime caused by the placement of turbines in zone Wi2 will not be great enough to cause any impacts on salt marshes, dunes, shingle, cliffs and islets.

Appendix D


Site name Lough Foyle


Site code UK9020031


Related sites Lough Foyle Ramsar (UK12014)


Habitats listed in SPA citation N02 Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mudflats. Sandflats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins). N03 Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes.


None


N02 Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mudflats. Sandflats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins). 96.4% cover

N03 Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes. 3.6% cover

Sensitivities






None



Possibility of contribution to a Likely Significant Effect on bird interest of SPA N02 Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mudflats. Sandflats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins). N03 Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes.

Taking into account the tidal regime it is highly unlikely that the wind resource zone will have an impact upon the sediment mobilisation within the Lough. Ti1 is outside of one tidal regime and therefore it is also unlikely that there will be an impact upon the Lough. Therefore it is considered that there will be no LSE on effect on habitats for bird interests.

Appendix D




Site code IE0004087


Related sites None


Habitats listed in SPA citation

Intertidal mudflat Small area of sand and shingle


None


Intertidal mudflat

Small area of sand and shingle

Sensitivities

Intertidal mudflat


Small area of sand and shingle



None



Possibility of contribution to a Likely Significant Effect on bird interest of SPA Intertidal mudflat Small area of sand and shingle

Taking into account the tidal regime it is highly unlikely that the wind resource zone will have an impact upon the sediment mobilisation within the Lough. Ti1 is outside of one tidal regime and therefore it is also unlikely that there will be an impact upon the Lough. Therefore it is considered that there will be no LSE on effect on habitats for bird interests.

Appendix D


Site name Outer Ards


Site code UK9020271


Related sites Outer Ards Ramsar (UK12018)


Habitats listed in SPA citation N01 Marine areas. Sea inlets N02 Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mudflats. Sandflats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins) N03 Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes N05 Shingle. Sea cliffs. Islets


None


N01 Marine areas. Sea inlets 18% cover




Sensitivities

N01 Marine areas. Sea inlets









None


Mitigation related to physical habitat disturbance, changes in coastal processes, sediment mobilisation, and decrease in wave exposure or water flow – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4.

Appendix D




N01 Marine areas. Sea inlets N03 Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes N05 Shingle. Sea cliffs. Islets

Turbine construction within the boundary of the SAC has the potential to affect interest feature N01. This can be mitigated by careful siting of the turbines, and therefore there will be no LSE on the habitat within this interest feature. The wind resource zone will not change the height of the tidal regime, thus there is no LSE on interest feature N03. Any changes to the hydrodynamic regime caused by the placement of turbines in zone Wi2 will not be great enough to cause any impacts on shingle, cliffs and islets (interest feature N05). It is therefore concluded that there is no LSE on interest features N01, N03, and N05.

Appendix D


Site name Rathlin Island


Site code UK9020011

Relevant zone(s) Ti1, Ti2, Wi1

Related sites Rathlin Island SAC (UK0030055)


Habitats listed in SPA citation N01 Marine areas. Sea inlets N05 Shingle. Sea cliffs. Islets


None




Sensitivities




Sensitivities relating to sea cliffs, caves, vegetation of uppermost tidal limit, (Table 3.3 in Section 3.5)


None


Mitigations relating to sediment mobilisation, physical habitat disturbance, toxic contamination, changes in coastal processes, scour, and decrease in water flow – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4.

Possibility of contribution to a Likely Significant Effect on bird interest of SPA N01 Marine areas. Sea inlets N05 Shingle. Sea cliffs. Islets

Depending upon the placement of the tidal stream generators there is the potential for marine areas and sea inlets to be affected. Therefore it can be concluded that there will be no LSE following the implementation of the relevant mitigation. A change in tidal range may cause a change in location of shingle, sea cliffs and islets however the tidal range change is unlikely to cause a large enough impact on the interest feature or completely remove it from the site. Therefore we can conclude that there is no LSE on this interest feature.

Appendix D




Site code UK9020111


Related sites Stranford Lough Ramsar (UK12021) Strangford Lough SAC (UK0016618)


Habitats listed in SPA citation N01 Marine areas. Sea inlets N02 Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mudflats. Sandflats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins) N03 Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes N06 Inland water bodies (standing water, running water) N07 Bogs. Marshes. Water fringed vegetation. Fens N10 Humid grassland. Mesophile grassland


N10 Humid grassland. Mesophile grassland Terrestrial habitat not exposed to direct or indirect effects of the zones.

N06 Inland water bodies (standing water, running water) Inland water not exposed to direct or indirect effects of the zones.

N07 Bogs. Marshes. Water fringed vegetation. Fens Terrestrial habitat not exposed to direct or indirect effects of the zones.




N03 Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes. 0.5% cover

N07 Bogs. Marshes. Water fringed vegetation. Fens 0.5% cover

Sensitivities








None

Appendix D



Mitigations relevant to sediment mobilisation, physical habitat disturbance, toxic contamination, changes in coastal process and decrease of water flow – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4.

Possibility of contribution to a Likely Significant Effect on bird interest of SPA N01 Marine areas. Sea inlets N02 Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mudflats. Sandflats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins) N03 Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes

The wind resource zone tidal cycle lies runs parallel to the shore, therefore any potential impacts from the construction of the wind farm is unlikely to affect the any of the interest features in Strangford Lough. Therefore it can be concluded that there will be no LSE on these interest features.

Appendix D


Appendix E


Appendix E Ramsar Site Screening Forms

Appendix E


Appendix E



Site designation Ramsar

Site code UK12004


Related sites Carlingford Lough SPA (UK9020161)

Reason(s) for inclusion in HRA Screening Location Direct (zone) Indirect (zone) Species Marine mammals Diadromous fish Habitats supporting migratory birds

Ramsar Criteria 2 - supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened eco. communities 6 - regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species/subspecies of waterbirds

Ramsar Criteria not considered to be sensitive or screened elsewhere

2 This criterion relates to the bird interests of the site, which are screened elsewhere in this report

6 Bird interests for this site are screened elsewhere in this report

Potentially sensitive Ramsar Criteria

None (other than those screened in elsewhere)


None




Ramsar criteria for this site relate only to bird interest features. The habitats supporting these birds have been screened within the form for Carlingford Lough SPA (UK9020161). The conclusion of this process was that any effects on these habitats could potentially contribute towards an LSE on the bird interest of the site.

Further action Possible effects on bird interests at this Ramsar site cannot be excluded at this stage. This will require further assessment. The relevant Ramsar criteria are: 2 - supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened eco. communities 6 - regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species/subspecies of waterbirds Any effect on habitats supporting birds have been screened within the form for the SPA associated with this Ramsar site. From this assessment it is not possible to conclude that there will be no significant effect on habitats important for bird species within this Ramsar site and further assessment will need to be undertaken.

Appendix E


Site name Killough Bay


Site code UK12012


Related sites Killough Bay SPA (UK9020221)


Ramsar Criteria 6 - regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species/subspecies of waterbirds






None


Mitigations relevant to sediment mobilisation, physical habitat disturbance, changes in coastal processes and a decrease in water flow Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4.


Ramsar criteria for this site relate only to bird interest features. The habitats supporting these birds have been screened within the form for Killough Bay SPA (UK9020221). The conclusion of this process was that any effects on these habitats could potentially contribute towards an LSE on the bird interest of the site.

Further action Possible effects on bird interests at this Ramsar site cannot be excluded at this stage. This will require further assessment. The relevant Ramsar criteria are: 6 - regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species/subspecies of waterbirds Any effect on habitats supporting birds have been screened within the form for the SPA associated with this Ramsar site. From this assessment it is not possible to conclude that there will be no significant effect on habitats important for bird species within this Ramsar site and further assessment will need to be undertaken.

Appendix E




Site code UK12014


Related sites Lough Foyle SPA (UK9020031) Magilligan SAC (UK0016613) Owenkillew River SAC (UK0030233) River Foyle and Tributaries SAC (UK0030320) River Roe and Tributaries SAC (UK0030360) Faughan River and Tributaries SAC (UK0030361) River Finn SAC (IE0002301)


Ramsar Criteria 1 – sites containing representative, rare or unique wetland types 2 - supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened eco-communities 3 – supports populations of plant/animal species important for maintaining regional biodiversity 5 – regularly supports 20,000 or more waterbirds 6 - regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species/subspecies of waterbirds


1 This criterion relates to the extent and diversity of the following habitats within the site: saltmarsh, intertidal sand and mudflats, seagrass beds, estuaries, brackish ditches. As a habitat which supports bird species within the site, this feature has been screened within the forms for Lough Foyle SPA (UK9020031) and Magilligan SAC (UK0016613).

2 This criterion relates to a range of notable fish species including allis shad Alosa alosa, twaite shad A. fallax, smelt Osmerus eperlanus, sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus, and Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. These interest features have been screened with the forms for the following SACs: Owenkillew River SAC (UK0030233), River Foyle and Tributaries SAC (UK0030320), River Roe and Tributaries SAC (UK0030360), Faughan River and Tributaries SAC (UK0030361), River Finn SAC (IE0002301).

3, 5 & 6

Bird interests for this site are screened elsewhere in this report.




None


Mitigations relevant to noise, physical habitat disturbance, toxic contamination, sediment mobilisation, collision and barrier to movement, coastal processes, decrease of water flow and vessel activity – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4. Atlantic Salmon specific mitigation: To avoid or not carry out construction work in the southern part of the resource zone where there is potential for turbidity plumes and noise to affect salmon migration.

Appendix E



Screening of saltmarsh, intertidal sand and mudflats, seagrass beds, estuaries, and brackish ditches habitats in Lough Foyle as part of the Lough Foyle SPA (UK9020031) and Magilligan SAC (UK0016613) and it was concluded that there is no LSE on these habitats. Screening of anadromous fish as part of the following sites Owenkillew River SAC (UK0030233), River Foyle and Tributaries SAC (UK0030320), River Roe and Tributaries SAC (UK0030360), Faughan River and Tributaries SAC (UK0030361), River Finn SAC (IE0002301) and it was concluded that if the appropriate mitigation was undertaken there would be no LSE on anadromous fish.

Further action Possible effects on bird interests at this Ramsar site cannot be excluded at this stage. This will require further assessment. The relevant Ramsar criteria are: 3 – supports populations of plant/animal species important for maintaining regional biodiversity 5 – regularly supports 20,000 or more waterbirds 6 - regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species/subspecies of waterbirds For the following Ramsar criteria it is possible to conclude that there will be no LSE, and further assessment will need to be undertaken: 1 – sites containing representative, rare or unique wetland types 2 - supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened eco. communities

Appendix E


Site name Outer Ards


Site code UK12018


Related sites Outer Ards SPA (UK9020271)


Ramsar Criteria 6 - regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species/subspecies of waterbirds






None


Mitigation related to physical habitat disturbance, changes in coastal processes, sediment mobilisation, and decrease in wave exposure or water flow – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4.


Ramsar criteria for this site relate only to bird interest features. The habitats supporting these birds have been screened within the form for Outer Ards SPA (UK9020271). The conclusion of this process was that there would be no LSE on the habitat supporting the bird interest of the site.

Further action Possible effects on bird interests at this Ramsar site cannot be excluded at this stage. This will require further assessment. The relevant Ramsar criteria are: 6 - regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species/subspecies of waterbirds Any effect on habitats supporting birds have been screened within the form for the SPA associated with this Ramsar site. From this assessment it is not possible to conclude that there will be no significant effect on habitats important for bird species within this Ramsar site and further assessment will need to be undertaken.

Appendix E




Site code UK12021


Related sites Strangford Lough SPA (UK9020111) Stranford Lough SAC (UK0016618)


Ramsar Criteria 1 – sites containing representative, rare or unique wetland types 2 - supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened eco. communities 5 – regularly supports 20,000 or more waterbirds 6 - regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species/subspecies of waterbirds


1 This criterion relates to the extent and diversity of the saltmarsh habitat within the site. As a habitat which supports bird species within the site, this feature has been screened within the forms for the Strangford Lough SPA (UK9020111) and Stranford Lough SAC (UK0016618).

2 This criterion relates to a number of rare or endangered marine and terrestrial invertebrate and plant species. This has been screened within the forms for the Strangford Lough SPA (UK9020111) and Stranford Lough SAC (UK0016618).

5 & 6 Bird interests for this site are screened elsewhere in this report.




None


Mitigations relevant to sediment mobilisation, physical habitat disturbance, toxic contamination, changes in coastal process and decrease of water flow – Table 2.5 in Section 2.4.4.


The potentially sensitive receptors within this Ramsar site are saltmarsh and marine habitats. These have been screened within the forms for the Stranford Lough SPA (UK9020111) and Stranford Lough SAC (UK0016618). It was concluded that there is no LSE on the habitat supporting the bird interest.

Appendix E


Further action Possible effects on bird interests at this Ramsar site cannot be excluded at this stage. This will require further assessment. The relevant Ramsar criteria are: 5 – regularly supports 20,000 or more waterbirds 6 - regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species/subspecies of waterbirds Any effect on habitats supporting birds have been screened within the form for the SPA associated with this Ramsar site. From this assessment it is possible to conclude that there will be no LSE on habitats important for bird species within this Ramsar site. 1 – sites containing representative, rare or unique wetland types 2 - supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened eco. communities