23 rd August 2013
BWI: The role of the Risk Assessment in the Appropriate Assessment process is not clear. It is our opinion that any activity with a likely impact on interests of SPAs should be assessed under Article 6(3) in full (i.e. for all features of interest individually and for all proposed activities). The Risk Assessment should not allow potential impacts to be dismissed without full consideration under the Article 6 process.
MI response: The RA process is separate to the AA process. Sub-article 6.3 AA is for assessment of projects or plans; in this case the annually planned activity of the seed mussel fishery. The RA process aims to identify the risk posed by other fisheries to designated habitats and species in order that these risks be managed and deterioration of these features be avoided. This is consistent with guidance in relation to sub-Article 6.2 (EC
2000: member states shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbances of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of (the) directive ). To take the
“appropriate steps” the risk has first to be identified. As such the RA process is wholly consistent with the
Article 6 process. It is particularly important in identifying those activities that pose high risk and which would need to be mitigated immediately. The process distinguishes those high risk interactions from other activities which pose lower risk, where there is no imminent threat to designated features and where it is safe to recommend continuance but, on a case by case basis, also that new data be collected to further inform the RA process. For on-going activities not coming under the AA process (activities that are not projects or plans) conclusions cannot always be black and white; i.e. proof of no effect or discontinue the activity on the basis of precaution. There are grades or risk and appropriate levels of response.
Common Scoter: During the winter Common Scoter forage mostly in waters less than 20m deep and with coarse sandy substrates feeding on benthic bivalve molluscs. Outside of the Raven SPA and Dundalk Bay
SPA there is currently insufficient data available on the numbers of Common Scoter. BirdWatch Ireland
Seatrack surveys identify that Common Scoter are regularly seen at the Wicklow Head survey point. Therefore before any fishing activity should be allowed within these SPAs further survey work should be carried out to determine their presence and any potential impacts on this species. This is a red-listed species in Ireland, and one for which SPA designation is required, and as such any potential impacts need to be considered. With an unknown distribution, the assessment identifies that it is not possible to discount potential impacts on this species (page 80), yet the conclusions summarise there impacts being unlikely (page 113, Section 10.2). This does not reflect a precautionary approach.
Fishing for seed mussel within Dundalk Bay SPA and the Raven SPA is prohibited and this will remain the case. The AA failed to discount the possibility of significant impacts to reef habitat in the Wicklow reef SAC and recommended exclusion of dredgers from the protected reef habitat. This recommendation is being implemented by DAFM. The AA discounts significant effects of fishing for seed mussel outside of SPAs on

Common Scoter. In many cases, such as at Wicklow Hd, currents are strong and Scoter would not utilise bivalve resources in areas where seed mussel is found. In other cases such as the Blackwater Bank the seed bed occurs in water approx. 30m deep and is not available to Scoter. The footprint of the mussel seed fishery is very limited compared to the distribution of sedimentary habitats inhabited by bivalves such as Abra and
Fabulina which are utilised by Scoter. Although quantitative analysis is not possible it is logical and reasonable to conclude that no significant impacts are likely in this case.
BWI: Terns, Guillemot, Razorbill & Kittiwake: Conclusions are drawn despite the lack of information and analysis on the role of the seabed in these locations for interests of nearby SPAs including those supporting these species. The ecological role of the areas potentially dredged for mussel seed needs to be included in the analysis – this has not taken place.
MI response: The diet and foraging behaviour of terns, guillemot, razorbill and kittiwake clearly indicate that they are not dependent on the conservation status of local seabed habitats. Their diet is composed of fish species many of which have no link to the benthic environment at any stage in their life cycle (sprat, gadoids) and in other cases (herring) originate from spawning beds distant from the SPAs under assessment. Roseate
Terns feed predominantly on sand-eels Ammodytes marinus, A. tobianus, herring Clupea harengus, sprat C.
sprattus, etc. Common tern’s diet is usually dominated by small fish up to 150mm long, (e.g. Herring Clupea
harengus, sprat C. sprattus, sandeels Ammodytes marinus, A. tobianus, sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus, whiting Gadus merlangus, cod G. morhua, etc.) and crustaceans (e.g shrimp Crangon vulgaris, C. crangon, prawns Leander serratus, Palaemonetes varians, shore crab Carcinus maenas, etc.) Guillemot feed primarily on fish (e.g. herring Clupea harengus, sprat Sprattus sprattus, capelin Mallotus villosus; sand-eels Ammodytes
marinus, A. tobianus, Hyperoplus lanceolatus, cod Gadus morhua, haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus, whiting Merlangius merlangus, pollack Pollachius pollachius, mackerel Scomber scombrus, three-spined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus, etc.), though they also occasionally supplement their diet with invertebrates, primarily crustaceans (crabs, amphipods and copepods) but also polychaete worms. Kittiwake diet is composed primarily of pelagic marine organisms eating mainly fish (e.g. capelin Mallotus villosus, sandeels, herring Clupea harengus, sprat Sprattus sprattus, cod Gadus morrhua, pollack Pollachius virens, whiting
Merlangius merlangus) and invertebrates (Crustaceans, Molluscs, Annelida, insects e.g Coleoptera and larvae,
Diptera). The diet of Razorbills is composed primarily of fish (e.g. sand-eels Ammodytes marinus, A. lancea,
Hyperoplus lanceolatus, sprat Sprattus sprattus, herring Clupea harengus, capelin Mallotus villosus, sardine
Sardina pilchardus, anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus; three-spined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus, etc.) but also some invertebrates, generally polychaete worms and some molluscs.
It is clearly reasonable, without quantitative analysis, to conclude that the seed mussel fishery, whose seabed footprint is in any case very limited, will not have a significant impact on the prey resources utilised by terns, kittiwakes, guillemots or razorbills and that no population level effects will occur.
BWI: Seed mussel fishing uses bottom dredges to fish for mussels and this will cause physical abrasion and damage to the surface bed. The AA does not adequately consider this potential effect. This is of particular concern for seabird species such as Guillemot and Razorbill, which feed on sand eels. Sand eels are found submerged within the sediment and dredging of the sea bed will likely disturb this species, which is an important food source for many seabird species found within SPA’s along the Irish Sea. Wicklow Head SPA is an important site for Guillemots and Razorbills, while Rockabill SPA is an important site for populations of
Roseate, Common and Arctic Tern. It is also an important site for populations of Guillemots and Kittiwakes. All of these species feed on sand eels and dredging of the sea bed could have a potential negative impact on prey availability and foraging activities of these important populations.

MI response: The bird species referred feed on many fish species other than sandeel, as indicated above. In any case as the seed mussel fishery obviously targets seed mussel beds it is unlikely to come into any contact with sandeel; sandeel, almost by definition, do not live in seed mussel beds. Sandeel, sprat and herring are important prey species for many bird species as indicated above. It is important to note that there is no targeted fishery for any of these species in the western Irish Sea other than a small scale herring fishery off the coast of County Down.
It is clearly reasonable, without quantitative analysis, to conclude that the seed mussel fishery, whose seabed footprint is in any case very limited, does not impact on sandeel, sprat or herring stocks and will not have a significant impact on populations of seabirds feeding on these species.
BWI: There is no reference to generic Conservation Objectives that exist for SPAs, and the status of priority species is not provided by way of context or as part of the assessment of potential impacts of this proposed activity. Additionally, cumulative impacts are not addressed for priority species.
MI response: The generic conservation objectives are described on a site by site basis in NPWS documentation. The objectives are standard; to maintain populations, their range and distribution. This is the context for the assessment
BWI: It is also not clear as to how levels of significance are identified in the Risk Assessment or AA, as no methodology for assessment of significance is provided, and expert opinion or reference to existing knowledge or expertise is not provided – as such the evidence base for conclusions is severely lacking.
MI response: Levels of significance and risk are clearly outlined for species and habitats in the Tables describing the RA framework. The consequence categories defined relate to the degree to which the conservation status may be affected. Clearly, significance is related to the degree to which population size, distribution and range may be impacted.
BWI: The proposed location and extent of mussel seed fishing areas for the 5 year period of this plan is not clearly defined or identified in the FNP or in the AA. Only historical seed mussel fishing zones are shown.
MI response: The historic distribution is taken as the likely areas in which the fishery may take place in the future. This would seem valid as there are 30 years of survey data. It is not possible to predict with certainty the exact location of seed beds in the future.
BWI: While historical surveys are used to identify the potential seed bed fishing areas, other areas of suitable substrate may occur during this 5 year period and the proposal would allow fishing of these areas without further assessment. According to the FNP seed beds may be discovered and exploited during the fishing season. These new seed beds may therefore not have been addressed by the AA.
MI response: The AA is an evaluation of all potential seed mussel fisheries in the Irish Sea using historical data as indicative of the scale and approximate distribution of this potential. Seed mussel fishing is, however, prohibited in SPAs listed in SI 347/2008. Prohibitions in SPAs, other than those named in the seed mussel FNP, will remain in place. In addition restrictions will be put in place in Wicklow reef to exclude the fishery from reef habitat.
BWI: The proposed level of activity within the 5 year period of this plan is not clearly defined. A maximum number of fishing days are available and there is a limit on the number of fishing vessels allowed to fish each year. However there is no set limit on the amount/volume of seed mussels fished

MI response: The FNP does not propose any limit to the volume of seed mussel that could be fished in any given year. It is not possible to propose a ‘fishable volume’ as the biomass in any given year is unknown. The
FNP does not suggest limiting the exploitation rate as the beds are ephemeral and are generally washed out over winter. The proposed prohibitions in some SPAs and SACs may provide some spatial reserve for spawning although spawning potential is unlikely to be the limiting factor in settlement.
BWI: The lack of assessment of cumulative effects or of any proposed mitigation measures and overall lack of a precautionary approach is of significant concern. It is our view that a more robust assessment of potential impacts is required before any approval of the fishery activity.
MI response: The assessment provides analysis of cumulative effects of different fisheries; it recommends that new data on distribution of Scoter east of the Raven be obtained because of the cumulative fishing activity (all fleets) in this area and the possible disturbance effects. It provides information on the status of major fish stocks in the Irish Sea on which many SCI species rely. The status of stocks is an aggregate indicator of the cumulative effect of fisheries on the Irish Sea ecosystem.
END