2 SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES

EcIA - Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) August 2020 County Donegal Towns & Villages Sewerage Schemes. Ramelton – Milford – Rathmullan (RMR) Sewerage Scheme

24

Lough Swilly Shellfish Pollution Reduction Programme Characterisation Report 28

According to this report “The licensed areas within Lough Swilly are classified as Class B meaning that

shellfish may be placed on the market for human consumption only after treatment in a purification centre

or after relaying so as to meet the health standards for live bivalve molluscs laid down in the EC

Regulation on food safety (Regulation (EC) No 853/2004). This indicates faecal contamination in this

shellfish area.” And “The dedicated shellfish samples available for this shellfish area were found to be noncompliant with shellfish guideline values for chromium and faecal coliforms outlined in Annex I of the

Shellfish Waters Directive (2006/113/EC) and Schedule 4 of the Quality of Shellfish Waters Regulations

(S.I. No. 268 of 2006) (Table 1). Ongoing shellfish monitoring will strengthen the assessment of

compliance status at this shellfish area. The shellfish flesh classification indicates faecal contamination in

the shellfish area.”

2 SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES

Surveys of the terrestrial ecology at the Application Site, were undertaken following specific guidelines for

the relevant target species outlined below. The importance of the habitats and species present is

evaluated using the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management Guidelines for

Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater, Coastal and Marine

(CIEEM, 2018). This guidance document outlines an accepted approach for the evaluation of impact from

such developments.

2.1 Desk Study Methodology

A desk study was undertaken by Woodrow in 2019 and updated in 2020 to gather information on the

likely distribution of species in the general area prior to the field survey visits so that a targeted approach

to surveying could be undertaken. Stakeholder consultation undertaken for this Scheme also informed the

desk study, this is listed in Table 2 below.


25

2.1.1 Stakeholder Consultation

A number of important stakeholders were consulted to inform the progression of the RMR Sewerage Scheme.

Table 2 – Consultation Conducted for the RMR Sewerage Scheme in relation to Ecology

Consultee Date Date of

Response

Details

Inland Fisheries

Ireland (IFI)

10.10.2018

(JOD - email)

24.10.2018

(IFI – email

response)

The response received from IFI has been incorporated into the mitigation sections for the

Proposed Development.

See Appendix V

15.10.2019

(Woodrow - phone

conversation)

15.10.2019 IFI informed Woodrow that previous consultation still stands.

24.03.2020

(Woodrow - email)

24.03.2020

(IFI - email)

IFI Highlighted previous consultation information regarding the sensitive timing of any in-

stream works still stands. Woodrow informed IFI that further detailed methodologies and

assessments for the in-estuary works had been conducted, and that they wished to discuss

this further with IFI.

25.03.2020

(Woodrow – phone call)

25.03.2020 Further detailed methodologies for in-estuary works, and MERC 2020 impact assessment,

highlighted to IFI and discussed. Woodrow offered to issue IFI with the final documents once

received.

06.04.2020

(Woodrow - email)

- Woodrow issued Final in-estuary works methodologies and the Final MERC report to IFI (See

Appendix I – IV). Awaiting response from IFI regarding any further comments or concerns on

these detailed in-estuary methodologies and the MERC 2020 impact assessment.

09.07.2020

(Irish Water – email)

10.07.2020

(IFI – email

response)

IFI agreed to an amenedment of the closed season for in-estuary works. To be changed to

no works between 23 May to 24 July)

(See Appendix V)

Development

Applications Unit

(DAU)

24.07.2019

(Woodrow - email)

30.09.2019

(DAU –

email)

There were no observations made by NPWS at the time of consultation (See Appendix V).


26

National Parks and

Wildlife Service

(NPWS)

07.04.2020

(Woodrow - email)

- Woodrow issued Final in-estuary works methodologies and the Final MERC report to DAU

(See Appendix I – IV). Awaiting response from DAU / NPWS regarding any comments or

concerns on these detailed in-estuary methodologies and the MERC 2020 impact

assessment.

Birdwatch Ireland

(BWI)

24.07.2019

(Woodrow – email)

07.10.2019

(BWI – letter

via email)

All comments have been noted within this NIS. See below for letter received from BWI.

Bat Conservation

Ireland (BCI)

13.09.2018

(Woodrow – email to

inform bat surveys for

JOD in 2018)

26.09.2018

(BCI – letter

via email)

Data received (for 10km Grid Square C22) has been incorporated into the desk study results.

Roost locations have been omitted within this public document to ensure protection of those

features, but have been interpreted within the EcIA (Woodrow, 2020a). See Appendix V for

letter received from BCI (without any bat roost details shown).


27

2.1.2 Existing Ecological Records

Online databases were consulted in order to establish historic records of important and protected species

of, or likelihood of, their occurrence (through range information). The National Biodiversity Data Centre

(“NBDC”), which incorporates records from a number of different sources, was interrogated for all records within the 2km squares encompassing the Application Site and surrounds (relevant 10km grid squares

were checked for records of bats). In addition, 10km grid square records from an information request

made to Bat Conservation Ireland in July 2019 were also incorporated into the desk study information.

To enhance information on the recorded distribution of bats obtained from the NBDC database, additional

information on the suitability of habitat in the surrounding area for bats (Bat Landscapes) was also

obtained from the same database in the form of a habitat suitability map, which provides a picture of the

broad scale geographic patterns of occurrence and local roosting habitat requirements for Irish bat

species (Lundy, et al. 2011). This can be seen in Figure 21, in Section 3.2.2.2 below.

A request for protected or notable species records within 5km of the site was made to the NPWS, for

which a response was received on 24 September 2019, and this information was subsequently checked

and incorporated into the desk study.

Potential for the occurrence of breeding and wintering birds at the site was further informed by

consultation with distributional references including Balmer et al. 2013 and Crowe 2005.

2.1.3 Protected Areas / Designated Sites

The most recent shapefiles (in ITM) of designated areas in the Republic of Ireland such as Natural

Heritage Areas (“NHAs”), proposed Natural Heritage Areas “(pNHAs”), Special Areas of Conservation (“SACs”) and Special Protection Areas (“SPAs”) and Ramsar Sites were downloaded from the NPWS

website and imported onto ArcGIS. Proximity of the application to designated areas, and potential for

connectivity with the application was assessed using ArcGIS, ortho-photographs and Ordnance Survey

maps.

2.2 Field Survey Methodology

Woodrow Surveys began at this site in August 2018, continued in 2019, up to March 2020. An extended

phase 1 habitat assessment was conducted in 2019 by Woodrow for this scheme. The continuation of

survey work provided additional protected species information, to ensure that the data was updated in line

with the programme and redesigns of the Ramelton – Milford – Rathmullan (RMR) Sewerage Scheme.

Table 3 below lists the surveys that were carried out by Woodrow to inform this scheme.

Field survey data was recorded on maps and each record was accompanied by a photo and six figure

grid references, using ‘EcoLog’ software operating on a mobile phone. As a result, the data collected could then be used in a Geographic Information System (“GIS”), ArcGIS.


28

Table 3 – Ecological surveys undertaken at the Application Site

Description Coverage Dates

Site scoping Initial walkover of Proposed Development Site. Description and identification of potential constraints.

Ecology surveys of the Site were initially carried out by Jennings O’Donovan Ecologists in 2017. Woodrow were first commissioned by JOD to undertake ecology surveys across the site for Saltmarsh and Otter in 2018, this was reported on in 2019 and will inform the EcIA and NIS.

Woodrow were commissioned to carry out a full EcIA and an NIS in 2019, as described below.

(JOD) 2018

Extended Phase 1 Habitat Assessment

Habitat descriptions and classification to Fossitt 2000 classifications

Highlighting areas of conservation importance, sensitive habitats and species (key ecological features) and any potential or likely ecological constraints.

10 – 11 July 2019

29 July 2019

08 August 2019

05 February 2020

Invasive Species Surveys Invasive Species Surveys (IAS) 10 – 11 July 2019

29 July 2019

08 August 2019

05 February 2020

Bat Surveys Habitat suitability assessment and potential roost availability / suitability surveys 10 – 11 July 2019

29 July 2019

08 August 2019

05 February 2020

Deployment of static (SM2) bat detectors 20 – 29 August 2018

29 July – 08 August 2019

Dusk and pre-Dawn bat activity surveys and bat activity walked transects

Ramelton Bridge (now outside scope of works due to engineering constraints)

Dusk and pre-dawn

20 – 21 August 2018


29

Description Coverage Dates

Shed at proposed Ramelton MPS

Dusk and pre-dawn

29 – 30 August 2018

Proposed RMR WwTP Site (Dusk)

Ray Bridge (Pre-dawn)

14 – 15 August 2019

Protected terrestrial mammals survey and general walkover surveys

Otter Survey at Ramelton MPS and the proposed WwTP Outfall. 23 August 2018

Otter holt monitoring survey under licence from NPWS. [Licence No. DER-OTTER-2019-21] 26 March 2019 – 09 April 2019

Habitat suitability and field signs surveys for otter, badger, Irish hare, red squirrel, pine marten and other mammals across the entire RMR Scheme Survey area (undertaken to within 50 m of all proposed works, and 150 m upstream and downstream of any works at watercourses).

10 – 11 July 2019

29 July 2019

08 August 2019

05 February 2020

Otter Survey at Ballasalagh Burn and the proposed location for a culvert connecting surface water runoff from the proposed RMR WwTP Site to a ditch which eventually runs into this River, downstream of the Site.

16 March 2020

Aquatic / Fisheries Habitat description and suitability assessments. 18 September 2019

16 March 2020

Saltmarsh Survey Saltmarsh Survey 29 August 2018

Birds Winter bird surveys: bi-monthly high-tide low-tide surveys. 23 October 2019 – 14 March 2020 *

Breeding bird walkover survey of Proposed Development Site. 06 June 2019

10-11 July 2019

29 July 2019

* Please Note: Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic these surveys were cut short (surveys were intended to continue in March and April 2020).

All data obtained has been incorporated into this report and it is not anticipated that this will affect the impact assessment results as

sufficient information has been gathered through the desk-based and field surveys to inform the EcIA of the RMR Sewerage Scheme.


30

2.2.1 Habitat Surveys

Extended Phase 1 Habitat surveys of the Proposed Development Site were undertaken on 10 – 11 July

2019, 29 July 2019, 08 August 2019 and 05 February 2020, following the standard methodology

described in the Heritage Council publication A Guide to Habitats in Ireland20.

During these visits, the entire Survey Area, as illustrated in Figure 2 was walked, ecological features of

interest were noted and habitats were classified into recognised communities outlined by Fossitt, 2000.

Potential correspondence to the Annex I Habitat Classification system of the Habitats Directive was also

noted and cross referenced using appropriate NPWS interpretation guidelines. During the botanical and

vegetation survey, consideration was also given to identifying habitats that could be used by protected

species.

Any EU Annex I habitats were highlighted to the design Engineer immediately so that these could be

avoided, or impacts upon them minimised as much as possible within the scheme design.

2.2.2 Saltmarsh Surveys

Saltmarsh survey locations were identified by JOD in 2018. These potential constraint areas were

reaffirmed in July 2019, and no further saltmarsh survey locations were identified within the potential

footprint of the proposed RMR Sewerage Scheme.

Detailed saltmarsh surveys were conducted by Woodrow at potentially affected locations during August

2018. The surveys were initially conducted according to Fossitt 2000 classifications. Having classified the

saltmarsh habitats present according to the Fossitt methodology outlined above, these habitats types

were cross-referenced to saltmarsh habitats listed in Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive. It should be

noted that correspondence between the Fossitt habitats and the Annex I classification system is not

exact, and requires consideration of the individual species composition, location and physical

characteristics of each saltmarsh area. The Annex I classifications were based on guidance provided

within the ‘Saltmarsh Monitoring Project’ reporting (McCorry, 2007; and McCorry and Ryle, 2009).

Saltmarsh communities in Ireland may correspond to one or more of five Habitats Directive Annex I

habitat types. These Annex I habitats and their current Irish status are described in more detail in the

Article 17 Reporting (NPWS, 2019b).

The Saltmarsh Survey report for the proposed RMR Sewerage Scheme is appended within Appendix VI

of this report.

20 Fossitt J.A. (2000). A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council. ISBN 1 901137 27 9


31

2.2.3 Bird Survey

2.2.3.1 Bird Species List

A Breeding Bird Survey was conducted in accordance with guidelines (Bibby, et al. 1992) on 06 June, 10-

11 July and, 29 July 2019.

Breeding bird surveys followed the common bird census (CBS) methodology, as described in Gilbert et al.

(1998) - summarising Marchant (1983) and Marchant et al. (1990). These surveys were also used in an

aim to identify sites used by coastal breeding waders and any breeding seabirds.

Surveys commenced from sunrise and were undertaken over the early morning period for a duration of up

to four hours. It was advised that surveyors avoid the hour before sunrise (i.e. the dawn to sunrise period)

to avoid the peak dawn chorus which would bias the result. Surveys were undertaken in favourable

weather conditions, avoiding periods of moderate to strong winds (greater than Beaufort F5), and

persistent rain and/or in poor visibility.

The Site was covered at a slow pace during a single visit, and the route adopted took surveyors within

50 m of all parts of the Proposed Development Site, with this interval decreasing on a discretionary basis

for areas where closer inspections were required, e.g. dense scrub. All woody vegetation within the

walkover survey area was walked and the direction of the survey route was varied between visits to

remove bias in timings of coverage.

2.2.3.2 High Tide/ Low Tide Bird Usage Mapping

The entire Survey Area (see Figure 2) was walked by an experienced ornithologist during the winter bird

surveys by Woodrow in October 2019 to March 2020 to check for potential foraging or roosting sites

within the Zone of Influence of the scheme.

Count sections within the coastal areas relating to the proposed RMR Sewerage Scheme were delineated

so as to correspond to the I-WeBs count Sections for wintering bird surveys which are undertaken by

voluntary surveyors on behalf of Birdwatch Ireland (BWI).

Lough Swilly SPA is split up into 14 different I-WeBS count sections by BirdWatch Ireland. The

Application Site is situated across three of these count sections or subsites within the Lough Swilly Site:

Subsite code: 0A489 Site: Lough Swilly Subsite: Leannan Estuary

Subsite code: 0A490 Site: Lough Swilly Subsite: Ray

Subsite code: 0A491 Site: Lough Swilly Subsite: Rathmullan

In addition, Milford WwTP currently discharges into Maggy’s Burn which flows into the Lough Fern Site:

Subsite code: 0A017 Site: Lough Fern Subsite: Lough Fern

The latter project (Milford WwTP upgrades) has already received planning permission21. While bird

surveys were not conducted at Lough Fern in 2019 / 2020, the desk-based information has been

reviewed in order to consider the in-combination effects of the proposed RMR Sewerage Scheme upon

this SPA.

See Figure 4 below which illustrates these count sites.

21 Planning Permission has been granted for the Milford MPS on 23/06/2017. Expiry date: 22/06/2022 Planning Ref : 17 / 50462


32

The aim of these surveys was to map bird usage of the Survey Area and environs by employing ‘snap-

shot’ counts conducted at low tide and at high tide. Bi-monthly winter bird surveys were conducted as

follows:

Month Low tide High tide

October 2019 24th 24th

31st 31st

November 2019 21st 21st

December 2019 10th 10th

23rd 23rd

31st 31st

January 2020 15th 15th

21st 21st

February 2020 15th 15th

29th 29th

March 2020* 14th 14th

Total 11 11

* Note: Further surveys planned in March and April 2020 were not conducted due to the Covid-19

Pandemic.


33

Methodology is based on the approach outlined in Lewis & Tierney (2014). Summary counts were

undertaken over a three-hour period, with low tide (LT) or high tide (HT) in the middle and the following

information was recorded:

Survey type LT or HT and tide time.

Survey start and end times.

Weather conditions (wind force/ direction, rainfall, cloud cover, temperature, visibility).

Sea state within Lough Swilly SPA.

Any disturbance factors occurring within the count section – area impacted shown on field maps,

noting:

o Type of disturbance (e.g. dog walker, kite surfer);

o Duration of disturbance event – occurring at start of count, occurring throughout count,

occurring periodically throughout count, single event; and,

o Level to which birds were affected – no visible impact, vigilant, localised displacement,

displaced to beyond count section.

o Ad hoc Presence of Marine Mammals to provide supplementary information for the

Client.

Location of birds – marked on map or recorded on Eco-log.

Species and number of birds (*distinguish if counts are duplications recording multiple/additional

areas utilised during count period).

Behaviour of birds (feeding, roosting or loafing and flight).

Tidal habitat usage of birds (sea, exposed intertidal, salt marsh, terrestrial).

Significant winter roost sites are highlighted in Appendix VII.


34

Figure 4 – Birdwatch Ireland (BWI) I-WeBs Count Areas within the vicinity of the Proposed RMR Sewerage Scheme

(Source: https://bwi.maps.arcgis.com)

Subsite

code:

0A489

Subsite:

Leannan

Estuary

I-Webs Coverage Site:

Lough Swilly

Subsite

code:

0A490

Subsite:

Ray

Subsite code:

0A491

Subsite:

Rathmullan

Subsite code

0A017

Subsite

Lough Fern

I-Webs Coverage Site:

Lough Fern

Subsite

code:

0A462

Subsite:

West Inch

Subsite

code:

0A488

Subsite:

Shellfield

Subsite

code:

0A503

Subsite:

Fahan

Creek

Subsite code:

0A484

Subsite:

Ballymoney

https://bwi.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=1043ba01fcb74c78bc75e306eda48d3a


35

2.2.4 Protected Species Surveys

Surveys were undertaken for protected species likely to occur in the Application Site and within the

immediate vicinity. These included:

Habitat suitability assessments were undertaken in order to assess the potential for protected

species at the Application Site. This included identifying if there was suitable habitat on the site

for amphibians, reptiles or protected invertebrates such as marsh fritillary butterfly Euphydryas

aurinia (see limitation section 2.3).

Field signs surveys using standard methodologies appropriate to different mammal species with

potential to occur at the site on the site. In particular:

o A badger survey (Smal, 1995; Harris, et al. 1989) was conducted across the Survey Area

that included a systematic survey of all boundaries, hedgerows, scrub and grassland

habitats for evidence of badgers such as setts, paths, mammal hair, feeding signs and

latrines within 50m of the proposed works.

o An otter activity survey was conducted (Smal, 2008) within 150m upstream and

downstream of the proposed WwTP Outfall, the proposed Leannan Crossing, and a

proposed surface water drainage connection which has the potential to impact upon the

Ballasallgh River downstream of the proposed RMR WwTP Site. In addition to all

proposed river crossing points along the pipeline routes. This involved a systematic

search for any evidence of otter activity including mammal paths, prints, spraint marking,

feeding signs and resting sites (layups and holts).

Wildlife cameras were used to monitor potential and confirmed otter holt activity in the vicinity of

the proposed WwTP Outfall (Under a licence from NPWS). These surveys were conducted during

26.03.2019 – 09.04.2019.

An assessment of the sites habitat suitability for bats was also conducted, this included identifying

if there were any suitable features on the site which might support roosting bats (e.g. buildings,

trees or other structures such as bridges).

Preliminary bat roost inspections were undertaken during Extended Phase 1 walkovers in 2019.

These surveys identified potential bat roosts which arose in close proximity to proposed working

areas. All Potential Tree Roosts were later ruled out of the Zone of Influence given that the

pipeline works shall occur within existing hard standing and will not affect the road verge, with all

mature trees remaining in situ. See Section 3.2.2.2, Figure 22 for the results of the Preliminary

Tree Roost (PTR) assessment.

Preliminary bat roost assessments were conducted from ground level by an experienced bat

surveyor during the bat surveys in 2018 and 2019 as follows:

o Bridge inspection of Ramelton Bridge on 20 August 2018 (now discounted from the Zone

of Influence);

o Daytime building inspection of Shed intended to be demolished at the proposed

Ramelton Main Pumping Station on 29 August 2018 immediately prior to a dusk and

pre-dawn bat activity survey at this site.

o Daytime bridge inspection at Ray Bridge on 14 August 2019 prior to a pre-dawn bat

activity survey at this site (Note: no potential bat roosts were identified at the proposed

RMR WwTP);

o Daytime bridge inspection at unnamed bridge on the R247 and at Ballyboe Bridge on the

R247, both on 5 February 2020.

Seven passive static bat detectors (SM2) were deployed (3 no. units in 2018 and 4 no. units in

2019) at varying locations to record relative bat activity throughout the Site.


36

Three dusk and pre-dawn bat activity surveys were conducted at the Site, and within the

immediate environs as follows:

o Dusk and pre-dawn survey at Ramelton Bridge on 20 – 21 August 2018 (now discounted

from the Zone of Influence) - this included a walked bat activity transect post emergence /

re-entry surveys to identify any roosting bats;

o Dusk and pre-dawn survey at a shed which is intended to be demolished at the proposed

Ramelton MPS Site on 29 – 30 August 2018 - this included a walked bat activity transect

post emergence / re-entry surveys to identify any roosting bats;

o Dusk bat activity walked transect at the proposed RMR WwTP Site on 14 August 2019;

and,

o Pre-dawn bat activity survey at Ray bridge on 15 August 2019 - this included a walked

bat activity transect post re-entry surveys to identify any swarming sites / roosting bats.

The locations of static bat detectors can be seen in Figure 5 below.

The locations of structures which underwent surveys for potential bat roost activity are illustrated in

Figure 6 below.


37

Figure 5 – The locations of static bat detectors


38

Figure 6 – The locations of structures where preliminary bat roost inspections were conducted


39

2.2.5 Aquatic / Fisheries Surveys

Salmonid suitability surveys were carried out at key locations where crossing points over culverts/bridges

were identified within the Application Site. Water quality parameters were measured at key watercourses

to determine baseline results.

Key locations were assessed following the Life Cycle Unit Approach (LCU)22 devised by the Loughs

Agency. This method evaluates potential salmonid habitat into units and grades depending on the

substrate available, water depths and flow velocities.

In-situ water quality parameters were taken to determine baseline values on key receiving

watercourses using a field Aquaread probe and parameters measured included temperature, pH,

dissolved oxygen, conductivity and turbidity.

2.2.6 Marine Assessment

During the course of the surveys throughout 2018 – 2020 Woodrow surveys collected any ad hoc records

of marine mammals noted to be using the Survey Area. In addition, specialist advice was sought from

MERC Consultants for the Assessment of Marine Ecological Impacts (MERC, 2020). This report is

provided in Appendix IV.

2.3 Potential for Limitations

Survey Timing

It is considered that timing and content of all surveys (when taking into consideration any further surveys

carried out during the optimal survey period for habitats and species to update collected data) are

appropriate and are sufficient to fully inform this planning application.

Bats

It should be noted that bats are a particularly cryptic species, and their behaviour / feeding areas /

roosting sites will change over the seasons depending on habitat and prey availability. While bat surveys

were conducted using both habitat suitability assessments, preliminary roost inspections and static and

manual bat activity surveys in 2018, 2019 and early 2020 – key areas have been identified which are

considered to hold suitable features to support roosting bats (see Section 3.2.2.2). Although no bat

roosts were confirmed during these surveys – it was considered that there is the potential for bat roosts to

occur nearby and within the Survey Area, particularly given the suitable habitats across the RMR

Sewerage Scheme Site. The presence of roosting bats within the Zone of Influence should not be

completely ruled out. Subsequently, the precautionary approach is being applied in relation to this group.

The potential to encounter bats during the construction of the Proposed Development has been

considered in full to ensure sufficient mitigation has been devised so as to avoid adverse impacts upon

bats which may be using the RMR Survey Area and its wider environs. This has also been considered

within recommendations for planting proposals and for any proposed lighting schemes.

22 DANI - The Evaluation of Habitat for Salmon and Trout.


40

Reptiles

Dedicated reptile surveys were not considered to be necessary given the habitats that are affected within

the proposed works footprint. There were no areas identified during walkovers which were considered to

support particularly suitable reptile habitat – this was supported by the lack of NBDC desk study records

in the area (although reptiles are likely to occur within the wider environs outside of the Zone of Influence

of these works).

Newts

Records of newts occur within 2km of Rathmullan (NBDC) and it is considered likely that newts are

ubiquitous within the Survey Area. Key areas for amphibians have been identified (frogs were commonly

recorded on the site). As such, a precautionary approach is being taken in relation to the potential for

impacts upon amphibians.

Protected invertebrates

No suitable habitat for marsh fritillary Euphydryas aurinia was identified within the footprint of the

proposed RMR Sewerage Scheme. As such, surveys for this species were not considered to be

necessary.

Lamprey species Petromyzonidae

The status of lamprey species within the Lough Swilly catchment is unknown (pers. comm. IFI). While all

three lamprey species: River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis, Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri, and

Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus were not recorded from the NBDC records within 6km of the scheme,

there are records for sea lamprey in the vicinity of a 2km grid square C31E on the eastern side of Lough

Swilly, which exist more than 6km south-east of the Proposed Development (NBDC). This is considered

to be outside of the potential Zone of Influence of the proposed Scheme upon this species, and it is

considered that surveys for lamprey were not necessary given the imperceptible potential for impacts

upon this species group.

Freshwater Pearl Mussel (FPM) Margaritifera margaritifera

This is a critically endangered species, which is declining across Europe due to habitat deterioration

(NPWS, 2019c). According to the ‘Freshwater Pearl Mussel - Second Draft- Leannan Sub-Basin

Management Plan)’ (DoEHLG, 2010):

“The Leannan [River SAC] is currently ranked as 16th out of the 27 Freshwater Pearl Mussel SAC

populations in the country on the basis of population status, habitat condition and current pressures. The

significant number and intensification of pressures has led to the loss of much of the former population of

mussels in the more downstream stretches towards Lough Fern…Three areas have been identified as

priority for the application of measures laid out in this plan – the Glashagh, the Lurgy and the Leannan

main channel as far as Kilmacrennan. The remaining parts of the catchment will be addressed

subsequently.”

According to the Article 17 reports for Species in Ireland (NPWS, 2019c) this species lies outside of the

10km grid squares in which the proposed RMR Sewerage Scheme lies (i.e. C21 and C22), with grid

squares C11 and C12 being the closest range for FPM. Given the status and location of this FPM

population which lies downstream, to the south of Lough Fern, surveys for pearl mussel were not

considered to be necessary. However, the potential impacts upon intrinsically linked features such as

local water quality and salmonid migration from Lough Swilly SAC will be fully considered within this EcIA,


41

as such this is not considered to limit the robustness of the Ecological Impact Assessment upon Key

Ecological Features which may lie within the Zone of Influence. This is particularly the case, as the

scheme intends to greatly improve water quality within Lough Fern by removing the currently

contaminated discharge from the existing Milford WwTP into Maggy’s Burn – which flows directly into the

Leannan River SAC (to the North of Lough Fern). Construction related impacts upon local water quality

will also be fully considered within this EcIA; and given the great distance from the FPM population and

separation by Lough Fern itself, the potential for construction related impacts upon FPM as a result of this

scheme are considered to be negligible.

White-clawed Crayfish (WCC) Austropotamobius pallipes

There are no records for this species within the Survey Area, or the wider environs. The closest record is

40km from the Site to the South (NBDC). The Article 17 reports indicate that the range for this species

starts at H07 and H17 approximately 40km south of the Study Area. Subsequently, surveys for this

species were not considered to be necessary.

Based on the above, it is considered that the features being assessed, and the information provided

within this report, are robust and sufficient to inform a planning application for the proposed RMR

Sewerage Scheme.

2.4 Impact Assessment Methodology

The impact assessment methodology applied follows the Chartered Institute of Ecology and

Environmental Management ‘CIEEM’ guidance (CIEEM, 2018) as well as building on other methodologies

for faunal groups.

2.4.1 Identifying Ecological Features within the Zone of Influence

Information acquired during the desk study and field surveys will determine those ecological features

which have the potential to be affected by the proposed development, and as such occur within its ‘zone

of influence’. The zone of influence depends on the type of development taking place, its likely impacts

and the presence of ecological connections which provide a pathway for such impacts to an ecological

feature of interest which is sensitive to such impacts. As such, the zone of influence may extend beyond

the boundaries of the Application Site due to the presence of ecological connections with an ecological

feature of interest. Similarly, ecological features which have no ecological connection with the proposed

development, and as such no pathway for impacts, are not within the zone of influence regardless of their

proximity to the Application Site. Any such ecological / hydrological connections, which provide potential

pathways for impacts, are identified and described below.

2.4.2 Evaluating Ecological Features within the Zone of Influence

Those ecological features which occur within the zone of influence such as nature conservation sites,

habitat or species are then evaluated in geographic hierarchy of importance. The following categories are

used:


42

Table 4 - Geographic frame of reference used to determine value of ecological resources (NRA 2009).

Importance Criteria

International

Importance

‘European Site’ including Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Site of Community Importance (SCI), Special Protection Area (SPA) or proposed Special Area of Conservation.

Proposed Special Protection Area (pSPA).

Site that fulfils the criteria for designation as a ‘European Site’ (see Annex III of the Habitats Directive, as amended).

Features essential to maintaining the coherence of the Natura 2000 Network

Site containing ‘best examples’ of the habitat types listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive. Resident or regularly occurring populations (assessed to be important at the national level) of the

following:

o Species of bird, listed in Annex I and/or referred to in Article 4(2) of the Birds Directive;

and/or

o Species of animal and plants listed in Annex II and/or IV of the Habitats Directive.

Ramsar Site (Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially Waterfowl Habitat 1971).

World Heritage Site (Convention for the Protection of World Cultural & Natural Heritage, 1972).

Biosphere Reserve (UNESCO Man & The Biosphere Programme)

Site hosting significant species populations under the Bonn Convention (Convention on the

Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 1979).

Site hosting significant populations under the Berne Convention (Convention on the Conservation of

European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, 1979).

Biogenetic Reserve under the Council of Europe.

European Diploma Site under the Council of Europe.

Salmonid water designated pursuant to the European Communities (Quality of Salmonid Waters)

Regulations, 1988, (S.I. No. 293 of 1988).

National

Importance

Site designated or proposed as a Natural Heritage Area (NHA).

Statutory Nature Reserve.

Refuge for Fauna and Flora protected under the Wildlife Acts.

National Park.

Undesignated site fulfilling the criteria for designation as a Natural Heritage Area (NHA); Statutory

Nature Reserve; Refuge for Fauna and Flora protected under the Wildlife Act; and/or a National Park.

Resident or regularly occurring populations (assessed to be important at the national level) of the

following:

o Species protected under the Wildlife Acts; and/or

o Species listed on the relevant Red Data list.

o Site containing ‘viable areas’ of the habitat types listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive.

County

Importance

Area of Special Amenity.

Area subject to a Tree Preservation Order.

Area of High Amenity, or equivalent, designated under the County Development Plan.

Resident or regularly occurring populations (assessed to be important at the County level) of the

following:


o Species of animal and plants listed in Annex II and/or IV of the Habitats Directive;



o Site containing area or areas of the habitat types listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive

that do not fulfil the criteria for valuation as of International or National importance.

County important populations of species; or viable areas of semi-natural habitats; or natural heritage

features identified in the National or Local BAP; if this has been prepared.


43

Sites containing semi-natural habitat types with high biodiversity in a county context and a high degree

of naturalness, or populations of species that are uncommon within the county.

Sites containing habitats and species that are rare or are undergoing a decline in quality or extent at a

national level.

Local

Importance

(Higher Value)

Locally important populations of priority species or habitats or natural heritage features identified in the

Local BAP, if this has been prepared;

Resident or regularly occurring populations (assessed to be important at the Local level) of the

following:


o Species of animal and plants listed in Annex II and/or IV of the Habitats Directive;



Sites containing semi-natural habitat types with high biodiversity in a local context and a high degree of

naturalness, or populations of species that are uncommon in the locality;

Sites or features containing common or lower value habitats, including naturalised species that are

nevertheless essential in maintaining links and ecological corridors between features of higher

ecological value.

Local

Importance

(Lower Value)

Sites containing small areas of semi-natural habitat that are of some local importance for wildlife;

Sites or features containing non-native species that is of some importance in maintaining habitat links.

It should be noted that the status of a species as requiring protection at an international level (such as

otter) does not necessarily impose an International conservation value on any single example of that

species found at the site. Approaches to attributing nature conservation value to species have been

previously developed for some species groups such as birds and bats. The approach to attributing nature

conservation value to bat populations and foraging habitats is adapted from Wray et al. 2010. Bird

species conservation status is attributed by the Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCCI) list (Colhoun and

Cummins, 2013) as described below in Section 3.2.2.1.

Important Ecological Features are those features which are within the zone of influence and are

evaluated as being of Local Importance (Higher Value) or greater. In line within CIEEM guidelines (2018)

features which are considered to be of Local Importance (Lower Value) or lower, are not considered

further within the EcIA.

2.4.3 Identification and Characterisation of Impacts

When describing ecological impacts reference should be made to the following characteristics:

Positive or negative;

Extent;

Magnitude;

Duration;

Timing;

Frequency; and,

Reversibility.


44

However, the assessment only needs to describe those characteristics relevant to understanding the

ecological effect and determining the significance and as such does not need to incorporate all stated

characteristics (CIEEM, 2018).

2.4.4 Significant Effects on Important Ecological Features

For the purpose of EcIA, ‘significant effect’ is an effect that either supports or undermines biodiversity

conservation objectives for those ecological features which have been identified as being an important

feature of the site (“Important Ecological Features”). Conservation objectives may be specific (e.g. for a

designated site) or broad (e.g. national/local nature conservation policy). As such effects can be

considered significant in a wide range of geographic scales from international to local. Consequently,

‘significant’ effects should be qualified with reference to the appropriate geographic scale (CIEEM, 2018).

2.4.5 Assessment of Residual Impacts and Effects

After characterising the potential impacts of the development and assessing the potential effects of these

impacts on the ‘Important Ecological Features’ mitigation measures are proposed to avoid and / or

mitigate the identified ecological effects. Once measures to avoid and mitigate ecological effects have

been finalised, assessment of the residual impacts and effects should be undertaken to determine the

significance of their effects on the ‘Important Ecological Features’.

2.4.6 Assessment of Cumulative Impacts and Effects

Cumulative effects can result from individually insignificant but collectively significant actions taking place

over a period of time or concentrated in a location (CIEEM, 2018). Different types of actions can cause

cumulative impacts and effects. As such, these types of impacts may be characterised as;

Additive/incremental – in which multiple activities/projects (each with potentially insignificant effects)

add together to contribute to a significant effect due to their proximity in time and space (CIEEM,

2018).

Associated/connected – a development activity ‘enables’ another development activity e.g. phased

development as part of separate planning applications. Associated developments may include

different aspects of the project which may be authorised under different consent processes. It is

important to assess impacts of the ‘project’ as a whole and not ignore impacts that fall under a

separate consent process (CIEEM, 2018).

Date post:	19-Dec-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

2 SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES

Documents